The Devil Came down to Helsinki

On March 30th, the Turkish Parlement voted on Finland’s application to join NATO. After having made a remarkable fuss about opposing Sweden and Finland’s integration into the alliance on the grounds of combatting terrorism, the results of the vote might come as a surprise. Not only did Finland join NATO, it did so with a unanimous “yes” from the Parlement. The vote on Sweden’s application is to be held after the Turkish elections but it wouldn’t be a reach to say that the country will get the same welcome as Finland. 

The end of neutrality for two very famously neutral countries is surely a sign of things to come, as more and more people in Europe are warming up to the idea of a war with Russia and the geopolitical bloc it represents. This manifests itself in an unambiguous acceptance of NATO, with center-left parties across the continent, especially the ones in the neutral ones, reversing their position on the organization to ride the wave of jingoism. In this moment of newfound faith in the Atlanticist alliance, so-called progressives should remind themselves of the real interests NATO represents and what it has historically done to serve them. Turkey, who has become the center of attention in this new wave of military expansion, gives perhaps the best insight into NATO’s true nature and serves as a cautionary tale for the two northern countries joining the alliance. 

NATO and Turkey 

Turkey joined NATO alongside Greece during the first wave of expansion the organization went through at the time of the Korean War. After having been neutral for the better part of WW2, the decision to join NATO came out of necessity for the Turkish ruling class who needed to secure its place in the capitalist world order, even more so as the country neighbored the Soviet Union. What the bourgeoisie of Istanbul and their politicians in Ankara feared though wasn’t a direct military intervention, as the narrative usually goes, but the moral strength that the communist ideology represented. The Soviet Union, and Stalin more personally, had made some mild posturing after the great war with regards to the Turkish straights yet it was known to the minds in Turkey that the Soviets had neither the intention nor the power to go to war [1]. The real threat of war came not from without but rather from within in the form of burgeoning class conflict. 

Capitalism came very late to Turkey and at the time of joining NATO the country was still largely made up of independent small peasants. During the course of the Cold War the population proletarianized rapidly with wage labor becoming the dominant form of income for the people. With this came a surge in class consciousness and what could be called a national awakening began to take place in the 1960-1980 period. During this time, NATO came under scrutiny from the rising left in Turkey who saw it for what it was: the shield of the Turkish bourgeoisie against socialism. This was a time when even certain sections of the Turkish military were being drawn towards socialist ideals, owing their inspiration to the Ba’athists in Syria and Iraq, so a strong American presence in the country was deemed necessary to safeguard the interests of capital and NATO provided just that. It is in this context that the legendary chairman of the Turkish Workers’ Party, Mehmet Ali Aybar, proclaimed before the 1965 elections that “35 million square meters of our soil is under American occupation” [2]. 

This new wave of resistance coming from working-class movements in Turkey didn’t sit well with the heads at Washington and Brussels and the move was made to crack down. The social-democratic prime minister Bülent Ecevit was blackmailed into declaring martial law through a crisis conjured up by fascist gangs collaborating with reactionary elements in the military. The latter used this opportunity to mercilessly persecute all those who championed the cause of labor. May Day celebrations were banned and the people who disobeyed the ruling to celebrate were arrested by the military. When the general representing Turkey at Brussels told the US general Alexander Haig, who commanded the NATO forces in Europe, of the successful suppression of May Day celebrations and his intent to continue with the repression, Haig was ecstatic: “Bravo! Now, that’s what I call a commander. That’s how you install stability.” [3] 

But it still wasn’t enough. What was needed was a total victory, which came in the form of a coup d’état on 12 September 1980. The Carter administration planned and oversaw the operation all the way through, notably via the help of its NATO intermediaries. NATO commander General Bernard Rogers, a US Army General, visited Ankara four times in October 1980, and a NATO–Turkish military exercise was hastily put together to show NATO support for the coup [4]. What came of the coup, in the long run, wasn’t just the destruction of the Turkish communist movement but the left at large, with trade union membership dropping exponentially and the rights labor had gained in the 1960-1980 period being repealed like petals being ripped from a flower.

There are two notable lessons to be learned from this. The first is that NATO is meant to check not only Russia (whether it’s communist or capitalist) but also its own member states. If there are any developments that aren’t to the liking of the US, they will be dealt with. The second is that, contrary to what some naive progressives might believe, NATO was never meant to check just communism but the working-class movement as a whole. The success of social-democratic politics in some of the Western NATO countries like Denmark and Norway during the Cold War may lead one to believe that the organization only targets communism, leaving other, less radical strands of leftist thought untouched. What historical experience shows though is that even simple trade unionism will be subjected to dizzying amounts of repression if any hint of stubbornness is detected, as the NATO brass knows that even small embers can spark large fires. 

This last point deserves particular attention when considering the future of Sweden and Finland in the alliance. The two countries are examples of social democracy, with the “Swedish Model” representing the best that has come out of Cold War era third-way politics. Its strength lies in its ability to provide a reliable social safety net and secure access to high-quality public services for all its citizens, for which it depends on strong trade unions that can come in to challenge the interests of capital if need be. The model, as many have pointed out, is already in decline, but the countries’ accession to NATO makes it even more difficult for working-class politics to make a comeback. No coups will take place any time soon but there’s still room for sabotage, intimidation, and the further depreciation of labor as the bourgeoisie will breathe new life with the strongest military alliance in the world backing them up. Keeping this in mind, it’s worth looking at the two countries more closely.

Sweden 

For a long time Sweden represented a very unique brand of politics on the continent. Besides giving its name to the social-democratic model that dominated northern Europe, it also set itself apart from its peers by its commitment to military neutrality. This was certainly a privilege at a time when Europe seemed at a breaking point as a result of NATO-Warsaw rivalry for it meant that Sweden wouldn’t automatically be sucked into a possible war between the two sides. It also allowed the country to make some more daring plays on the world stage such as when it became the first Western country to recognize North Vietnam. Nevertheless, the famous Swedish neutrality mustn’t be interpreted as stemming from a sort of altruistic pacifism. It was a conscious strategy that allowed Sweden to maximize its profits while avoiding direct conflict as much as possible. This is made exceedingly clear in its relations with Nazi Germany, as Sweden provided the Third Reich with vast amounts of iron and ball bearings all the way till early 1945 [5]. After the war, military neutrality provided the basis and need for the development of a substantial national arms industry, selling weapons to countries that preferred to be independent of the US and the Soviets for their arms purchases. 

It is important to stress this side of Sweden’s neutrality as it factors into the country’s decision to abandon it. Not belonging to any of the two blocs gave Sweden a very niche position on the world market, filling the role of the “unideological” arms merchant. A decision such as joining NATO would’ve meant much more to the Swedish arms manufacturers like SAAB and Bofors when it would’ve meant that certain markets would become locked to them. Nowadays that’s no longer an issue as the US has expanded its reach far beyond its Cold War playground into previously neutral or enemy territory. Russia and China are still the main enemies of the American bloc but their national arms industries are big enough to provide for their marginalized allies on the world stage. The Swedish niche thus no longer serves as an argument to uphold the status of neutrality and the big arms manufacturers are likely itching to join NATO as the Russo-Ukrainian war has driven up the demand for weapons on the continent exponentially. Sweden is in a way already integrated into the NATO military sphere through corporate interpenetration (one of Bofors’ two branches, BAE Systems Bofors AB (artillery systems and medium-caliber/heavy ammunition), is a subsidiary of the UK company BAE Systems Ltd., one of the biggest in the world), and joining NATO now would not jeopardize relations with any major clients as they’re mostly American allies like Pakistan or the UAE [6]. The notable exception to this could be Brazil but although Lula has shown himself to be quite firm in his adherence to his BRICS allies he doesn’t show the same interest in military assistance to Russia unlike the other players in the alliance.

The interests of Swedish capital being aligned with NATO, what was needed for membership was public support. Although Swedes have historically been supportive of the country’s neutrality, developments in Eastern Ukraine during the last decade, and most notably the Russian annexation of Crimea, caused a major shift in public opinion. The Russian invasion in 2022 was the final nail in the coffin, after which support for joining NATO became the majority position [7]. Although the country was a longtime collaborator of the alliance, providing intelligence on Soviet activities in the Baltic as early as 1952 [8], it was always done out of the public eye as it wasn’t yet possible to manufacture consent for membership. Russia’s more aggressive stance towards NATO and its neighbors, going as far back as the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, however, offered the perfect opportunity to fully legitimize the NATO-Sweden partnership by way of full integration. 

All in all, Sweden joining NATO makes sense for business and it makes sense for empire, so why did Turkey come out against it at first? There are a number of possible reasons. It could be that Erdoğan was playing up his strong man image before the elections by opposing the big brother United States. Supporters of Erdoğan often hype him up to be a brave anti-imperialist that takes a stance against American bullying but this is mostly just empty rhetoric as Turkey is at this point fully integrated into the imperialist world system, the American system. A few adventures here and there won’t change the fact that Turkey is NATO on this side of the Atlantic and won’t give up this position any time soon. Another likely explanation is that after some strife with the Americans Erdoğan was trying to reestablish the relationship on his terms by using Sweden and Finland as bargaining chips. The intention was never to block NATO accession for good but to buy time for him to make the Americans acknowledge that he’s become his own man with his own sphere of influence within the larger imperialist system.

Whatever the reason may be, it is far from credible that Sweden’s support for the PKK is presented as a veto justification while PKK militants roam the skies in helicopters given or allocated by the US. It’s also a fantasy to speak of the decision as a sign of Turkey drifting away from the Western world towards Asiatic despotism as a result of Erdoğan’s power tripping. The West is allied with regimes that are even more despotic than that of Turkey but they still cooperate with them. Beyond all ideological veils, the domestic policy of the country isn’t important as long as they make for good partners on the world stage. Erdoğan has shown himself to be a rather arrogant and unreliable partner but one that is too important to give up. This is what he must’ve been counting on when he delayed the vote on Sweden’s application, to use it as a way of saying “I’m giving you Finland now, I’ll give you Sweden later — just don’t pay any mind to the B-Team that I’m running up against.” With Finland’s integration complete, the first part of the deal is fulfilled. For the Finns, however, Pandora’s Box has only just been opened. 

Finland 

Like Sweden, Finland had also been neutral since the end of WW2, but its relationship with Russia is markedly different. The country was part of the Tzarist Empire up until the time of the Russian Revolution and faced off against the Soviet Union on two separate campaigns during WW2 before eventually joining the Allies. During the war it lost a considerable part of its territory to the Soviets which is still held by the Russian Federation today as the Republic of Karelia. Regardless of this history, Finnish public opinion was still on the side of neutrality for a long time as it had benefited the country greatly during the Cold War by paving the way for a more peaceful and organic path to nation-building. Finland’s Cold War history can in fact be directly opposed to that of Turkey. Both countries had long land borders with the USSR, Finland’s being even longer, but leftist politics were able to thrive in one while they were crushed in the other as a result of NATO meddling. 

Continuing with the parallels with Sweden, public opinion in Finland also changed as a result of the Russo-Ukrainian war. After “holding the door open” for NATO membership for so long, the center and left parties that formed the Finnish government spearheaded the membership process. This is hardly a surprise, as Finland had been edging closer and closer to NATO for a while without explicitly applying for membership in order to keep up the image of neutrality. A host nation agreement was concluded in 2014 that allowed NATO to place troops in the country [9]. It was passed in relative secrecy, with no public debate or discussion in the Finnish Parlement, but such underhandedness isn’t necessary now that Finland is officially in. 

Despite holding less economic and military weight than Sweden, Finland joining NATO is much more damning to Russia and thus much more beneficial to the US. The country shares a 1,300km border with Russia that goes all the way up the arctic circle which is obviously of greater concern to the Russian leadership than Sweden which shares no border at all. At the very beginning of the membership process, Kremlin spokesman Peskov talked about all the problems that Finland would create for Russia’s security without mentioning Sweden once [10]. Taking this into account, Erdoğan’s decision to give Finland before the elections might be his way of trying to please his partners by offering the bigger prize first, yet the whole opposition to Finland joining in the first place had caught the room off-guard as most of the arguments made against Sweden did not apply to Finland. The Finns were used more or less as hostages in this situation but it’s still difficult to gauge just how much this little game has benefitted Erdoğan as all statements made on the meetings with the other parties have been very ambiguous. 

Now a full member of NATO, will Finland be safe from Russia? Certainly not. It’s incredibly unrealistic to assume that the frontline would just stop at the Finnish border in case of a war between NATO and the Russian bloc. Even if NATO won, Finland would be bombed and shelled into smithereens with Russian troops penetrating deep into the country. There would be massive fighting on Finnish territory and large population centers would be ground to dust. Such a victory would mean nothing for Finland but for the NATO leadership, it would surely be a sacrifice worth making. Although what exactly the future holds is anybody’s guess, at this point it’s almost certain that the war in Ukraine will snowball into something much larger and much deadlier. Until then, try to keep yourself alive.

Cem Poyraz Özbay

Bibliography :

1. NATO yolu CHP döneminde açıldı (sol.org.tr) 
2. İsrail ile gizli anlaşmadan Finlandiya’nın NATO üyeliğine (sol.org.tr)
3. Halil Karaveli, Why Turkey is Authoritarian, p. 180 
4. Washington Bullets (wordpress.com) 
5. Torkil Lauesen, Riding the Wave: Sweden’s Integration into the Imperialist World System, p. 84 
6. Sweden: arms exports, by country 2021 | Statista 
7. Russian invasion of Ukraine forces Swedes to rethink NATO membership | Reuters 
8. Torkil Lauesen, Riding the Wave: Sweden’s Integration into the Imperialist World System, p. 109 
9. Finland and Sweden to strengthen ties with Nato | Nato | The Guardian [10] ‘Her türlü politik manevra işbaşında kalmaya yönelik’ (sol.org.tr)