NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

[PointOfViewGun]

I thought we were talking about the PKK

We are. I'm aiming at a contrast. The PKK rallies in Sweden happen repeatedly without scrutiny with Swedish police opening the way for the gathered. Can ISIL supporters enjoy a similar treatment? Would you all be fine with that the same way many are fine with PKK? Hence, your lack of doubt that illegality will be punished in Sweden does not translate well into reality.

[paleologos]

I thought we were talking about the PKK

Perhaps you are right and I was misled by the title of this thread to believe that we were talking about Turkey trying to use every opportunity to extort concessions.
Mea Culpa.

[mishkin]

I don't know how the Swedish government deals with demonstrations of support for the PKK. Maybe it is allowed to go out on the streets simply with banners and t-shirts, maybe these people have been registered by the police, maybe those who organized the protest are already in jail.

sorry to get to the point again: if the swedish government handed out cakes at the end of these demonstrations, it would still be an infinitely more respectable government than the erdogan government.

[PointOfViewGun]

I don't know how the Swedish government deals with demonstrations of support for the PKK. Maybe it is allowed to go out on the streets simply with banners and t-shirts, maybe these people have been registered by the police, maybe those who organized the protest are already in jail.

sorry to get to the point again: if the swedish government handed out cakes at the end of these demonstrations, it would still be an infinitely more respectable government than the erdogan government.

Such standards merely expose hypocrisy. In English its a "let sleeping dogs lie" mentality, while in Turkish we have a much better one that roughly translates to "let the snake that doesn't touch me live a thousand years." What Erdoğan's government does not change what other governments do. We never judge people based on what North Korea or Iran does. Why suddenly AKP government is the standard we use?

[antaeus]

This is not an Erdoğan issue. Sweden is the odd elephant in the room here. They need to be able to bare minimum against PKK in their country for Turkey to safely accept Sweden into NATO. Otherwise, what's the point of a defense pact?

Sweden has to do no such thing. There are a great many examples of Turkey disagreeing with its NATO partners over defence issues that haven't prevented them being in a defence alliance. As there has been other examples of NATO partners disagreeing with each other. If it suited Erdogan's domestic position, all opposition to Sweden and Finland's membership would vanish - and long term it will.

Like all wannabe strongmen, Erdogan needs an 'other' to stay relevant.

[mishkin]

Such standards

respect the laws of a democratic country (talking about sweden here) and their actions if a crime is committed in their territory.

On the other hand, I hope that Turkey has denounced Sweden in the United Nations for its "collusion with the PKK" and that the country will be punished if it is found guilty.

[paleologos]

I still fail to understand what we are talking about.
Are we trying to indict the governments of Sweden and Finland for being too tolerant to Kurdish and Turkish immigrants?

Why is that up to us?
I am not a citizen of any of these countries.

These countries are sovereign nations.
They have their own laws.

Whether someone is a terrorist is to be decided according to their laws.
And we don't get to dictate to them the definition of a "terrorist".

And by the way, if the government of Turkey has evidence on individuals having committed criminal acts there is a procedure for that which involves international arrest warrants.
What I see is a demand by the state of Turkey to brand groups of people as criminals on the grounds of promoting the narratives of groups that the Turkish government has branded as terrorists in Turkey.
This is group guilt.

Not to mention, I have not read any stories about Swedes or Fins fleeing en masse their "terrorist infested" countries in order to live a life of freedom and safety in Turkey.

Ultimately, if I wanted to indict the government of Sweden on hypocrisy, I would make a reference to the way the treated the case of Julian Assange.

[PointOfViewGun]

Sweden has to do no such thing. There are a great many examples of Turkey disagreeing with its NATO partners over defence issues that haven't prevented them being in a defence alliance. As there has been other examples of NATO partners disagreeing with each other. If it suited Erdogan's domestic position, all opposition to Sweden and Finland's membership would vanish - and long term it will.

Like all wannabe strongmen, Erdogan needs an 'other' to stay relevant.

It already does under the international treaties that its subject to like that of EU and UN. Having differing opinions on issues of defense is one thing and allowing a terror organization to easily roam in your lands is an other.

[mishkin]

allowing a terror organization to easily roam in your lands is an other.

and the UN does nothing about it... smh

[PointOfViewGun]

and the UN does nothing about it... smh

What did UN do when PKK's leader was caught leaving an embassy of Greece in Kenya with a Greek Cypriot passport thanks to a join operation by MIT (Turkish National Intelligence Organization) and MOSSAD?

[Kyriakos]

Sweden is democratic and respects its laws, it'd also be really damaging to their reputation if they give in to so lowly extortion. That should be all

[Gyrosmeister]

It already does under the international treaties that its subject to like that of EU and UN. Having differing opinions on issues of defense is one thing and allowing a terror organization to easily roam in your lands is an other.

Nice blame game there. Note that Turkey is still officially an EU-candidate. Hamas is designated EU-wide (also in UK, USA, Canada etc) as a terrorist organisation. Here is Erdogan vibing with senior leadership of Hamas. PKKs legal position in terms of recognition as a terrorist organisation is similar to that of Hamas. Why is one fine and the other isn't?

[StarDreamer]

What you think he demands is inconsequential given that evidently PKK roams freely in Sweden. What Turkey expects of Sweden is fairly basic. There is a reason why the focus have been on Sweden and not Finland.

The thing is, in law-based societies there are quite strict demands on evidence to convict someone. Also the Swedish government can't go around arresting peopel here and there on the whims of a foreign government they have to go through the courts and those follow laws that can't either be altered at the whims of a foreign government. From what I know palestinians have a habit of also "roaming freely in Sweden", in many ways using(abusing) "lax" laws. Should Sweden also crack down on them?

[PointOfViewGun]

Nice blame game there. Note that Turkey is still officially an EU-candidate. Hamas is designated EU-wide (also in UK, USA, Canada etc) as a terrorist organisation. Here is Erdogan vibing with senior leadership of Hamas. PKKs legal position in terms of recognition as a terrorist organisation is similar to that of Hamas. Why is one fine and the other isn't?

It would be a better comparison if you could find Turkey hosting members of a terror group that targets Sweden. Erdoğan being cozy with the political wing of Hamas doesn't really take away from the validity of Turkey's concerns with PKK in Sweden. Yet, the same question goes to you: why is one fine and not the other?

The thing is, in law-based societies there are quite strict demands on evidence to convict someone. Also the Swedish government can't go around arresting peopel here and there on the whims of a foreign government they have to go through the courts and those follow laws that can't either be altered at the whims of a foreign government. From what I know palestinians have a habit of also "roaming freely in Sweden", in many ways using(abusing) "lax" laws. Should Sweden also crack down on them?

I would assume that people waving flags of a terror organization alongside pictures of its is creator would be classified as evidence. No whims of a foreign government is needed. You would also do better not to confuse pro-Palestine or Palestinian with pro-Hamas.

[Gyrosmeister]

It would be a better comparison if you could find Turkey hosting members of a terror group that targets Sweden. Erdoğan being cozy with the political wing of Hamas doesn't really take away from the validity of Turkey's concerns with PKK in Sweden. Yet, the same question goes to you: why is one fine and not the other?




I would assume that people waving flags of a terror organization alongside pictures of its is creator would be classified as evidence. No whims of a foreign government is needed. You would also do better not to confuse pro-Palestine or Palestinian with pro-Hamas.

This goes as more evidencefor all previous posts made so far, that Turkey does not treat all groups that have been designated as terrorist by many organisations equally.
And assume that those PKK guys that Turkey wants are handed over. What guarantees that they will be given a fair trial in Turkey's courts? We all know (perhaps you willingly close your eyes on that) that Turkey is far, far from a Rule of Law Country. And if you wish to bring up Greece and that whole spying scandal (Greece isn't perfect, no state is and we still need to go far to have proper justice in Greece), just consider how far, far below us you are in all Rule of Law rankings. Only recently we saw it with Imamoglu who was stripped of his political rights and sentenced to jail (the same guy who ran in the mayoral elections Erdogan called to be repeated because he lost, only to lose again). Sweden will run by the rule of law and it would have to expect Turkey to act the same way, if Turkey would like to have all these people extradicted to Turkey. Also, if Turkey wants them so badly, they can request international arrest warrants if for example they get caught planning a terrorist attack somewhere in Turkey. Simply saying "this guy is a terrorist" and whining about it won't get you far. There are legal steps your country can take to have them handed over by rule of law to Turkey.

[PointOfViewGun]

This goes as more evidencefor all previous posts made so far, that Turkey does not treat all groups that have been designated as terrorist by many organisations equally.
And assume that those PKK guys that Turkey wants are handed over. What guarantees that they will be given a fair trial in Turkey's courts? We all know (perhaps you willingly close your eyes on that) that Turkey is far, far from a Rule of Law Country. And if you wish to bring up Greece and that whole spying scandal (Greece isn't perfect, no state is and we still need to go far to have proper justice in Greece), just consider how far, far below us you are in all Rule of Law rankings. Only recently we saw it with Imamoglu who was stripped of his political rights and sentenced to jail (the same guy who ran in the mayoral elections Erdogan called to be repeated because he lost, only to lose again). Sweden will run by the rule of law and it would have to expect Turkey to act the same way, if Turkey would like to have all these people extradicted to Turkey. Also, if Turkey wants them so badly, they can request international arrest warrants if for example they get caught planning a terrorist attack somewhere in Turkey. Simply saying "this guy is a terrorist" and whining about it won't get you far. There are legal steps your country can take to have them handed over by rule of law to Turkey.

Is there a particular reason why you're unable to address any of my statements? Instead, you talk about handing over suspected individuals which is a completely different level of issue that I did not touch upon.

While I have no reason to talk about Greece from the context you provided, I will simply put the Rule of Law point into perspective; Turkey's score is 0.42, Serbia at 0.49, Hungary at 0.52, Bulgaria at 0.55 and Greece alongside with Croatia at 0.61.

[paleologos]

Is there a particular reason why you're unable to address any of my statements?

I could extend the same question to you.
You did not address any of mine.
It's not your fault.
It's everyone else's fault, including mine, that we engage in this.

[PointOfViewGun]

I could extend the same question to you.
You did not address any of mine.
It's not your fault.
It's everyone else's fault, including mine, that we engage in this.

I'm sorry that I do not give in to someone trying to shift the focus to deflect from acknowledging the validity of the points I'm making. I know how inconvenient that can be.

[Nebaki]

Sweden and Finland being accepted into NATO is important to the US.

This can be true but somehow Sweden and Finland already in a alliance with the US.

The US is not going to to sell Turkey F-16s if Turkey continues to block their applications. You act like those are separate issues but in American eyes they are certainly not.

Well they are since the Issues between Turkey-US are not started with the application of those two countries. Beside that the US even refused to sell even F-35s or even small arms to Turkey. Note here please that Turkey already operates F-16 Models in their Airfleet and even if Turkey would have today procured F-35s it would still order some F-16s to replace the older Airframes with new ones.

Senator Bob Menendez has the last word when it comes to approval of sale of aircraft to Turkey and he has vowed to continue to block any sale of warplanes to Turkey over current and past Turkish actions.

Not really he may have some important position but not powerful enough to decide something. Overall his spouse Nadine Arslanian speaks for recent actions. Isn't this some sort of Honey trapping? How this is consensus with US interests?

At this rate the only countries that Turkey will be able to buy aircraft from are Russia and China.

Russia is out of table and China can nothing offer that would currently sustain or add some more capabilities for Turkish Air Force. They already decreasing the workload of foreign systems which are dependent on such political struggle with own developments and solutions:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If it continues like this using an embargo/block of sale of military equipment as leverage for some political gain/pressure on a side which you are allied with will on the long term not work out. In addition to that it will even end up with the loss of an opportunity of a arms deal and worsening your relationship with a allied Nation.

[Vanoi]

Well maybe this can be true but somehow Sweden and Finland already in a alliance with the US.


Well they are since the Issues between Turkey-US are not started with the application of those two countries. Beside that the US even refused to sell even F-35s or even small arms to Turkey. Note here please that Turkey already operates F-16 Models in their Airfleet and even if Turkey would have today procured F-35s it would still order some F-16s to replace the older Airframes with new ones.

Again you can say the are separate issues all you want but the US is tying the sale of F-16s to the NATO applications of Sweden and Finland. It comes down to how bad does Turkey need F-16s.

Well not really he may have some important position but not powerful enough to decide something. Overall his spouse Nadine Arslanian speaks for recent actions. Isn't this some sort of Honey trapping? How this is consensus with US interests?

In the US Congress has to approve weapon sales. Bob Menendez is the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. This committee handles weapons sales from the US to foreign countries. As the chairman, he can block any sales he wants. The other members of the committee aren't exactly pro-Turkey either.

As for your last question, that's simple. Why sell F-16s to a country who is hostile to US interests and actively undermining them?

Russia is out of table and China can nothing offer that would currently sustain or add some more capabilities for Turkish Air Force. They already decreasing the workload of foreign systems which are dependent on such political struggle with own developments and solutions:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If it continues like this using an embargo/block of sale of military equipment as leverage for some political gain/pressure on a side which you are allied with will on the long term not work out. In addition to that it will even end up with the loss of an opportunity of a arms deal and worsening your relationship with a allied Nation.

The US makes plenty of arms sales without Turkey. The US doesn't need to sell F-16s to Turkey. It's Turkey who needs to buy F-16s. One side has leverage. One does not.