Sweden’s wait for NATO membership continues as two existing members, Turkey and Hungary, have yet to give their approval.
Despite applying at the same time as Finland, which has already been accepted, Sweden remains in the alliance’s waiting room. The accession process requires approval from all existing members, making it a lengthy and uncertain process.
As NATO leaders gather for a summit in Vilnius, Sweden’s absence serves as a reminder of the challenges that come with expanding the alliance.
While Sweden has been a long-neutral country, its interest in joining NATO reflects a changing geopolitical landscape and the need for collective defense against potential threats.
Only time will tell if Sweden will ultimately gain the green light from all NATO members and become a full-fledged member of the alliance.
Sweden has been on a tumultuous road towards joining NATO, but it seems they are finally close to becoming the alliance’s 32nd member.
One major obstacle was recently overcome when Turkey’s president agreed to send NATO’s accession documents to the Turkish Parliament for approval, something he had refused to do for over a year. This is a significant step forward for Sweden in their bid to join the alliance, but they are not quite over the finish line yet.
Sweden’s journey towards NATO membership has been a long and complex one. The country has been a neutral state for over 200 years and has never been a member of any military alliance.
However, in recent years, Sweden has become increasingly concerned about Russia’s aggressive behavior in the region and has sought closer ties with NATO as a result.
In 2016, Sweden signed a Host Nation Support Agreement with NATO that would allow the alliance to use Swedish territory in the event of a crisis or conflict.
This was seen as a significant step towards closer cooperation between Sweden and NATO, but it also sparked controversy within Sweden.
Many Swedes were concerned that the agreement would drag their country into a potential conflict with Russia, which could threaten their security and stability.
Despite these concerns, the Swedish government has continued to pursue closer ties with NATO. In 2018, they announced that they would be joining NATO’s Partnership for Peace program, which is a step towards full membership.
The program allows non-NATO countries to work closely with the alliance on issues such as defense planning, military exercises, and crisis management.
However, there are still significant obstacles to Sweden’s full membership in NATO. One of the biggest concerns is public opinion.
Many Swedes remain deeply skeptical of NATO and are wary of getting involved in any potential conflicts with Russia. There is also concern about how joining NATO would impact Sweden’s long-standing policy of neutrality.
Another obstacle is the fact that Sweden is not a member of the European Union (EU). NATO has stated that it prefers new members to be EU members as well, as this ensures a level of political and economic stability.
However, Sweden has indicated that they are not interested in joining the EU at this time, which could make it more difficult for them to join NATO.
Despite these challenges, it seems that Sweden is moving closer towards full membership in NATO. The recent breakthrough with Turkey is a significant step forward, and it shows that there is growing support within NATO for Sweden’s bid to join the alliance.
However, there is still much work to be done before Sweden can officially become a member of NATO, and it remains to be seen whether they will ultimately decide to take that step.
FAREWELL TO NEUTRALITY
For a country that hasn’t fought a war in two centuries, the decision to join NATO was huge. Sweden declined to take sides during both world wars and throughout the Cold War, embracing neutrality as core to its security policy and even its national identity.
Though it tweaked its status to “nonaligned” after joining the European Union in 1995 and gradually increased cooperation with NATO, Stockholm until last year ruled out applying for membership, with public opinion firmly against it.
In November 2021, the then-Defense Minister of Sweden, Peter Hultqvist, made a promise that Sweden would never join NATO while his center-left Social Democrats were in office. However, the situation changed dramatically when Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Russian tanks crossed the Ukrainian border, and missiles struck Kyiv and other cities. This event caused a shift in public opinion in both Finland and Sweden. Even Hultqvist and the Social Democrats made a U-turn, and in May last year, Sweden and Finland jointly applied for NATO membership.
The war in Ukraine was a wake-up call for many countries in Europe. It showed that Russia was willing to use force to achieve its goals, and that the security situation in Europe was more fragile than many had thought.
For Sweden and Finland, the war was a turning point. Both countries had maintained a policy of neutrality for decades, but the invasion of Ukraine made it clear that this policy was no longer sustainable.
The decision to apply for NATO membership was not an easy one. Both Sweden and Finland had to overcome deep-seated historical and cultural ties to Russia, as well as concerns about the potential consequences of joining a military alliance.
However, the benefits of NATO membership were too great to ignore. Membership would provide both countries with a greater sense of security and stability, as well as access to NATO’s military capabilities and intelligence-sharing networks.
The decision to apply for NATO membership also had geopolitical implications. It signaled a shift away from Russia and towards the West, and it strengthened NATO’s position in the region.
It also sent a message to other countries in the region that NATO was still a relevant and important institution.
In conclusion, the decision by Sweden and Finland to apply for NATO membership was a significant development in European security.
It showed that even countries with long-standing policies of neutrality were willing to reconsider their positions in light of changing security threats. It also demonstrated the continued relevance and importance of NATO in the region, and it sent a message to Russia that its actions would not go unchallenged.
TURKEY SAYS NOT SO FAST
The accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO was expected to be a smooth and fast process, given that they had already met all the necessary criteria for membership. However, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine added a sense of urgency to the proceedings, and it was widely assumed that the two Nordic nations would be welcomed into the alliance with open arms.
Unfortunately, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had other ideas. He made it clear that Turkey would not support the admission of Sweden and Finland unless they took action against certain groups that Ankara considers to be security threats.
In particular, Erdogan singled out the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has been engaged in a long-running insurgency against the Turkish government.
This stance from Turkey was unexpected, and it caused a great deal of consternation among NATO member states.
Many were concerned that Erdogan’s demands would set a troubling precedent, and that other countries might also try to impose their own conditions on new members.
Despite these concerns, the accession protocols for Sweden and Finland were eventually ratified by all 28 NATO countries. However, the process was far from smooth, and it highlighted some of the tensions and divisions within the alliance.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen how Turkey’s stance will affect its relationship with NATO going forward. Some experts worry that Erdogan’s actions could undermine the unity and cohesion of the alliance, while others believe that this is simply a temporary blip that will soon be forgotten.
Regardless of what happens next, it is clear that the admission of new members to NATO is a complex and delicate process. The alliance must balance the need for expansion with the need to maintain its existing relationships and commitments, all while navigating the often choppy waters of international politics.
Sweden has a long history of accepting refugees, including over 1 million in recent decades. Among them are tens of thousands of Kurds from Turkey, Iran, and Iraq, some of whom sympathize with the PKK, a designated terrorist group by the European Union.
To address concerns from Turkey’s President Erdogan, Finland and Sweden signed a deal at last year’s NATO summit in Madrid. The agreement included resuming weapons exports to Turkey, tightening anti-terror laws, and preventing PKK activities in their countries.
Negotiations with Turkey were expected to become easier after Sweden elected a center-right government last September. The previous Social Democratic government had been burdened by its support for Kurdish militants in Syria with links to the PKK.
However, complications arose in January when pro-Kurdish activists hung an effigy of Erdogan outside Stockholm’s City Hall, followed by an anti-Islam activist burning the Quran outside the Turkish Embassy in Stockholm. These protests infuriated Turkey and led Ankara to freeze NATO talks with Sweden, while allowing Finland to join in April.
Conservative Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson’s government spent months trying to repair the damage, but hopes were dimmed last month when a refugee from Iraq staged another Quran-burning protest outside a mosque in Stockholm.
As Sweden prepares for the NATO summit in Vilnius, the country’s accession remains blocked by Turkey. The situation highlights the challenges of balancing human rights concerns with national security interests in an increasingly complex world.
WHO’S BEHIND THE PROTESTS?
The recent anti-Erdogan protests in Sweden have caused quite a stir, with pro-Kurdish and far-left demonstrators taking to the streets.
Some participants even waved PKK flags, which has only added fuel to the fire. However, what really caught the world’s attention were the Quran burnings carried out by a far-right activist from Denmark and a Christian refugee from Iraq.
These actions have not gone unnoticed by Ankara, which has been keeping a close eye on developments in Sweden. The protests have made headlines in Turkey and other Muslim countries, where leaders have slammed Sweden for allowing them to take place.
This has provoked a discussion in Sweden about whether Quran-burning can be considered incitement to hatred, which is illegal, or a lawful expression of opinion about a world religion.
Swedish officials have been quick to assure Turkey that Sweden is not an Islamophobic nation, stressing that the government does not condone Quran-burnings but cannot stop them due to freedom of speech laws. However, this stance has caused a backlash domestically, with critics accusing the government of bending over backward to placate Turkey.
The protests have also raised suspicions of Russian interference. The Swedish security service had warned that Moscow might increase influence activities during the country’s membership bid. However, no proof has emerged of Russian links to the protesters.
Overall, the situation in Sweden remains tense as the country grapples with issues of free speech and religious tolerance. While the government has condemned the Quran burnings, it remains to be seen how this will play out in the long run.
WHAT ABOUT HUNGARY?
The issue of Sweden’s NATO membership has been a topic of discussion for some time now, with Hungary being one of the countries that has not yet ratified the decision. While Turkey has stated its reasons for delaying the process, Hungary has remained silent on the matter.
It is no secret that Hungary has close ties with Russia, both economically and diplomatically. Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been vocal in his opposition to the European Union’s sanctions on Moscow and has refused to provide weapons to Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression.
Despite this, Orban denies that Hungary is delaying Sweden’s accession to NATO. He claims that the Hungarian parliament has not yet ratified the decision, but that they are in constant contact with the NATO secretary-general and Turkey.
Many analysts believe that Hungary is waiting for Turkey’s next move before making a decision on Sweden’s membership. If Turkey approves, it is likely that Hungary will follow suit, as was the case with Finland’s accession.
The situation remains uncertain, but it is clear that Hungary’s relationship with Russia and its stance on Ukraine are playing a significant role in its decision-making process. Only time will tell whether or not Sweden will be granted membership to NATO.