-4

As you likely know Finland and Sweden have recently applied for NATO membership, in order to be protected from Russia in case they get attacked like Ukraine. But Turkey has announced that they will veto their accession.

Since NATO requires unanimity for enlargement, and Turkey probably won't back off the veto without significant concessions by the other members, would a fast-track migration to NATO-2.0 be a viable solution to this conundrum?

The idea would be the creation of a new alliance with the same rules and documents as before. All members (that don't reject Finland and Sweden) would vote in their parliaments to replace NATO membership with NATO-2.0 membership. Those who reject their membership could continue in NATO on their own.

Questions:

  • Is this solution technically viable?
  • Is this solution politically viable?
  • Do you see any downsides on such a solution for the veto by Turkey?
user000001
  • 934
  • 1
  • 7
  • 16
  • 3
    Seems like it defeats the whole purpose of having unanimous consent if one country can be ignored by the rest anytime there’s a disagreement. Also, at least from what I understand, the value of having Turkey but not Sweden/Finland is probably greater than the reverse, at least based on Turkey’s involvement historically in NATO. – Chris Loonam May 19 '22 at 14:46
  • This question is based on some premises that may or may not be true. For example Turkey maybe can be bought, or otherwise pressured. This might not be needed at all. – NoDataDumpNoContribution May 19 '22 at 15:28
  • Related https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/28337/on-what-grounds-can-nato-remove-a-member-state-from-the-organisation – NoDataDumpNoContribution May 19 '22 at 15:29
  • @Trilarion: Yes they can be bought, but when will this stop? They'll just demand for more and more everytime they need to agree with something. – user000001 May 19 '22 at 15:33
  • @user000001 it stops when they become too expensive. Then maybe this solution proposed here will be applied. Anyway, isn't most things in life about money? – NoDataDumpNoContribution May 19 '22 at 15:51
  • 5
    Every time you do this you weaken the alliance's credibility. NATO's longevity and stability are important to demonstrate to its enemies that it should be taken seriously. An alliance that is likely to fracture does not offer much deterrence. (I don't think this question is really suitable for SE, as it involves too much speculation, both in terms of the nature of NATO 2.0 and what will happen after.) – Stuart F May 19 '22 at 16:25
  • 5
    NATO, and in particular the US, very much wants that long border between Finland and Russia to be a NATO border. Turkey knows this. Turkey also has some gripes with NATO, and in particular with the US, that Turkey wants reconciled. Turkey is following the well-known adage "ever let a good crisis go to waste." – David Hammen May 19 '22 at 17:28
  • NATO 2.0? What is that supposed to be? – Joe W May 19 '22 at 20:55
  • 1
    @JoeW: The idea is that it would be exactly the same as NATO is currently, but with Finland and Sweden included, and possibly without Turkey. – user000001 May 20 '22 at 05:45
  • That sounds like it would cause people to lose a lot of trust in NATO if they just reform with people they don't want. – Joe W May 20 '22 at 12:32
  • This exact idea is explored here: https://www.der-postillon.com/2022/05/notue.html (unfortunately in German only) Note that this is a satirical newspaper. – quarague May 20 '22 at 13:43

1 Answers1

5

Maybe. No. Yes.

  • Maybe. There are a bunch of technical problems, but they can be overcome. NATO has agreements with states both inside and outside the Alliance, and transitioning them all will not be smooth. If the 29+2 states declare that the old alliance is over, and here is a new one, other agreements would have to be re-negotiated as well. Turkey might be able to make a good case of being all that remains of NATO-1, and hence heir to all treaties regarding NATO-1.
  • No. There is a huge political problem. NATO depends on the faith of members and non-members alike that the US will risk New York to defend Vilnius or now Helsinki. (Not just out of the greatness of their heart. The choice they faced would have been to fight the Soviets in Europe, with Western Europe, or later alone.)
  • Yes. Pulling a stunt like NATO-2 would put any future promises into question.
o.m.
  • 108,520
  • 19
  • 265
  • 393