The second Nordic cartoon crisis cannot be solved by a Finnish betrayal of Sweden

Finland, Sweden, Turkey, and the elusive quest for NATO membership without hard decisions

The first Nordic cartoon crisis was, of course, in 2005, as cartoons of the Islamic prophet Mohammed in a Danish magazine (and their reprints in other countries) precipitated riots all around the Muslim world. This time, what is at stake is the Finnish/Swedish NATO membership, derailed by cartoons and other mockery of the Turkish PM Erdogan in Finnish and Swedish magazines, and various other issues, including, once again, the relationship between free speech, religion, and mockery.

A few months after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Finland and Sweden applied for NATO membership. NATO operates by consensus, and applications require affirmation by all current member states to proceed. All countries expect two, Hungary and Turkey, have given the green light. Hungary might and will still cause its own issues. What is currently at stake, however, is the threatened Turkish veto.

One issue has been the Finnish and Swedish refusal to export weapons to Turkey. Finland does not have a formal ban on weapons exports but stopped them 2019, after the Turkish invasion of Northern Syria. Finland has, however, already indicated that it will review this policy, and it could be seen as odd for two countries to be in a military alliance with one refusing military exports to another.

Indeed, the Finnish and Swedish governments have been lobbying for United States to release F-16 fighters to Turkey, in hopes that a blatant bribe might do the trick of easing the membership process. The Wall Street Journal has indicated this might indeed be on the plate. I would personally not be too confident that this, alone, would be sufficient, and the Greeks might have something to say about this, as well.

However, more crucial has been the Turkish claim that Sweden and Finland foster terrorists, chiefly those of PKK, the Kurdistan Workers Party, which has run a decades-long armed campaign against the Turkish state. Turkey has also referred to the "Fethullahist Terrorist Organization", i.e. the Gülen movement, but this seems a secondary issue.

Deportations and demonstrations

It is worth remembering that PKK continues to be a banned movement in Finland and Sweden, like in all EU countries. This has been challenged by EU courts, but the formal ban holds. In practice, this means that the Turkish government has demanded the deportations of various numbers of suspected terrorists, as well as expressed anger over expressions of speech in these countries, such as PKK flags featuring in public demonstrations.

The governments of Finland and Sweden have responded to Turkish deportation requests by stating that they will collaborate with Turkey on this issue, but it is also impossible to automatically do what Turkey has requested on this subject. A memorandum between Turkey, Finland and Sweden was signed on summer, but the countries disagree on what it means.

One problem (or a saving grace, depending on your point of view) is that Finland and Sweden are not countries where politicians can just deport people at the point of finger. It’s up to courts to decide whether this can happen, and the courts have been reticent on this one, considering that there are doubts as to how many of the fingered suspected terrorists are terrorists at all, or just politically inconvenient for Turkey.

When it comes to the demonstrations with PKK flags, these are done by left-wing groups that have been, and continue to be, opposed to NATO membership, Kurdish separatist solidarity having been an important part of far-left movements in both countries for years. As such, the threat of Turks keeping Finland and Sweden out of NATO will not of course keep them from demonstrating with PKK flags, if anything it gives them more reason to do so.

One such recent demonstration in Sweden involved an Erdogan doll being hung in effigy, by a group called the Swedish Solidarity Committee for Rojava, Rojava being the (mostly) Kurdish autonomous statelet in North Syria. Soon after this, Erdogan made a demand for the extradition of 130 (claimed) terrorists by Finland and Sweden, interpreted to be a reaction to this personal affront.

Swedish far-left magazine Flamman has reacted by organizing an Erdogan cartoon contest, and Finnish cartoonist Ville Ranta summarized the issue in a cartoon with an angry Erdogan demanding an increasing amount of terrorists for all affronts. The most recent turn is the notorious Danish far-right provocateur Rasmus Paludan burning the Quran in front of the Turkish embassy as a part of his long-time Quran-burning crusade. The Turkish government is predictably hopping mad and there are large protests in Turkey against this.

Hard decisions

While this has been going on, the Finnish and Swedish governments have been in a hard place. Sweden has a right-wing government and Finland has a left-wing government, but both are reacting similarly: making noises about how the rule of law and freedom of speech are of course particularly important but that they also respect the Turkish government’s wishes and that they are sorry about these provocations by the far left and the far right.

If one takes a strong free speech perspective (it is arguable that these countries do not always take it in other issues), it should for sure be a part of free speech to be able to fly a flag or burn a Quran if one wishes, no matter how provocative this is considered.

One cannot help but think one point is that an authoritarian country wishes to spread its authoritarian norms concerning these issues to other countries as well. Is that a suitable price for NATO membership? To many it is. However, if there is a suspicion that the Turkish government just wants to take the Nordic countries – often considered to be arrogant, preachy, and high-and-mighty in rights matter, particularly Sweden – down a peg, well, that’s hardly grounds for a stable alliance.

Indeed, around the Finnish political sphere, there is a sneaking suspicion that it appears to be Sweden that Turkey really has a problem with. As such, an increasingly-made suggestion is that, if an opportunity should presents itself, Finland should just cut Sweden. Of course, this would mean knifing a longtime ally in the back – after all the talk about how Sweden and Finland will go through the NATO process together.

Not to mention that Swedish and Finnish militaries are almost meant to work together. Sweden has a strong navy and air force but a weak army, Finland is the other way around. It’s thus not surprising that, after some confusing comments, the Finnish foreign minister has indicated that Finland and Sweden will continue the process together.

A wrong approach

All this just underlines that the way that we have approached NATO is overly simplistic, sometimes almost thoughtless. It is not an idea that we are joining an alliance with other nations that might also have demands on us – or that might require Finnish soldiers to go somewhere abroad to fight in a war that does not directly affect Finland or participate in other forms of solidarity. Indeed, in practice, it might be Finland that sends troops to Baltic countries to defend them against a Russian invasion, for instance.

At this point, particularly for those who have been crowing for a year about how they were the ones who wanted to join NATO all along, the membership has become an ideé fixe, something that just must be done because it must be done, damn the consequences. At the same time, at least some of the pro-NATO voices I have talked with have been cooler with the prospect than before. Even if we kowtow to Turkey to get in, well – that’s just evidence that we are so desperate that we can get extorted by whatever other countries there might be wanting some extortion. Once you pay the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane.

The initial rush of pure fear in February 2022 has passed – Russia has not simply demolished the Ukrainian army as many expected and seems to be in this war for the long haul, making it doubtful whether it could pose an urgent threat to the other neighbors in the short vicinity. Meanwhile, the Finnish defenses have been bolstered, the national morale is high.

Furthermore, the Ukrainian example means it is obvious that there is some commitment from the West, to oppose Russian interventions even when not against NATO countries. If the West does all it has done thus far to support Ukraine, it seems likely it would be predisposed to also do the same things to help Finland. Though not, of course, if the weaponry stocks get depleted before this…

Beyond that, there are still the security commitments from UK and US to continue to be valid, and in some ways that’s what NATO support has meant all along for the many, basically mainly US and perhaps UK (as nuclear countries) guaranteeing that Finland will be safe forever and ever, and will also solve all of our issues for us otherwise.

The point of rushing the NATO membership application was not to be left in a security limbo, but at this very moment, the dangers of limbo seem exaggerated. Certainly, if Erdogan puts too much trust in just being able to jerk Finland and Sweden around on a chain, he may not get what it wants. What is the point of being in a military alliance if there is a country in there that considers your country negatively from the start and places on it weird and arbitrary burdens that cannot be fulfilled?