Global, regional actors await Türkiye election results before making further moves

The information in my column last week titled, “NATO expansion: Türkiye to give red light for Sweden, green light for Finland,” were confirmed by statements that followed. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said, “Sweden will be shocked once we give a different message in relation to Finland.” It became clear upon this statement that Türkiye will approve Finland’s NATO membership, and reject Sweden’s bid – if they keep up the same attitude.

I will add new details today regarding the matter but note that I will slightly alter the angle. I will underline the common point where pieces that seem independent of one another evolve. I will point to the relationship between the developments and expectations in the diplomatic field and interior political balances.

As known, Türkiye is preparing to head to the ballots on May 14. Expectations concerning hot topics such as Sweden, Syria, and Greece are becoming increasingly indexed on this date. Allow me to explain.

Sweden and Finland are afraid of the Russian threat. Therefore, their strategy is to join NATO together. They applied together. Ankara’s decision to separate the two countries’ membership process, on the other hand, spoiled plans. It is claimed that the Finnish administration, aware of the course of events, asked before President Erdoğan made that statement, “Will you object if we joined alone?” and tested the waters. It can be said that Erdoğan’s “Sweden will be shocked” remark, was a statement made to satisfy Finland’s curiosity.

Sweden heard Türkiye’s message loud and clear. However, it has not yet given up on its NATO dream. Though, it is aware that it cannot make any progress under the current circumstances. I observed while in Ankara that the Swedish government is going to wait for the elections set to be held on May 14 in order to resume negotiations, and meet Türkiye’s expectations regarding anti-terrorism efforts, as well as other matters. They are convinced that if Türkiye’s ruling power changes, there may be no obstacle standing in the way of their membership. The election outcome will determine their position in the negotiation.

Relations with Greece are in a similar boat. There is a major crisis that is likely to break out soon in Greece. As you know, Greece is preparing to extend Crete island’s territorial waters to 12 nautical miles. Ankara stated numerous times before that it will consider any change in the Aegean’s status quo as grounds for war. Athens is trying to avoid drawing Ankara’s attention by implementing the 12 nautical miles decision in the south only, on the side of the island facing Libya. However, as far as I learned, Ankara warned Athens saying, “It makes no difference whether it is the south or north of the island. Crete is an Aegean island. Any change there will have a negative impact on us. Our previous position is clear and certain.” It is further reported that Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis is also among those who have decided to wait for the elections, and will not take any steps prior to that. Athens’ position on Crete will be shaped in accordance with the political balance that will form in Ankara.

Ankara is currently discussing dialogue with the Damascus administration. Meetings that were launched through intelligence organizations continued with the defense ministers’ meeting in Moscow. The following meeting was expected to be at the foreign ministerial level. The first announcement was that the meeting would be held in the second half of January. Then, an expectation developed for February. The foreign ministers’ meeting is yet to be held. Moreover, I have not been able to confirm whether a schedule has been set. But why? My observations on this matter is that the Damascus regime is waiting for the May 14 election results to progress dialogue with Ankara. This does not mean that there will be no trio meetings. The foreign ministers’ meeting may be held in the short term. However, it seems the regime is seeking to spread the process over time, and wait for the election results before determining its position.

A quick reminder before I end. A similar process was experienced during normalization with Israel as well. Türkiye and Israel reached an agreement on March 22, 2013, to mend ties that were severed after the Mavi Marmara attack. Yet, Netanyahu put the process on hold, thinking the ruling government in Türkiye might change after the Gezi Park events and the Dec. 17-25 Fetüllahist Terrorist Organization (FETÖ) operations. When things did not happen as he expected, the Mavi Marmara deal was signed on June 28, 2016 – three years delayed.

In brief, Türkiye’s upcoming election concerns more than Türkiye alone. Countries with which Ankara is in tough negotiations are adjusting their timetables in accordance with the election, thinking that “they might have it easier in the negotiations.”