Who is telling the truth: Erdogan or Sweden and Finland?

It seems that the West has completely figured out President Erdogan.

In Europe, the government does not call anyone who opposes it a “terrorist.” Here they do. Just as they used to call them communists... unfortunately there is also a difference in the understanding of the concepts of judiciary/justice, which is huge.

I wouldn't know. Just as I can't answer the question of whether an elephant or a whale is larger because their basic essence is different from A to Z, except for the one thing they have in common, which is that they belong to the mammal family. I'll summarize what the parties say faithfully so that you can decide.

“There is no doubt that this memorandum is a diplomatic victory for Turkey and our nation after a difficult negotiation process. Full cooperation in the fight against the PKK and its extensions, solidarity in the fight against all forms and manifestations of terrorism, commitment not to provide support to the PYD, YPG and FETO. Sweden's promise is the extradition of 73 terrorists to Turkey.”

On his return, after the Friday prayers in Uskudar, he goes into detail:

“We put our conditions regarding terrorism and terrorists forward, and they were accepted. Europe has been dealing with this issue for years by including only the PKK, but we did not consent. We said they should include FETO, PYD and YPG in the agreement. They tried to evade, but we said that was our red line. If they don't accept it, we can't say yes to the agreement. So they accepted it. That's a very good expression of how we achieved it.”

“As a result of the negotiations we have conducted, the PKK/PYD/YPG, FETO, all these terrorist organizations are now included in the NATO texts. This is the first time this has happened. In other words, the PKK was available in the EU texts, but the YPG/PYD and FETO were not.”

“Sweden will send us 73 terrorists. At the moment they have sent 3-4. But this is not enough for us.”

Before we move on to what the Scandinavian countries have said, let's make some factual corrections to these words:

2) The text signed is a memorandum of understanding between Finland and Sweden, which want to join NATO, and Turkey, which opposes their entry. It is not a NATO document. It is not signed by any NATO official. A NATO Secretary General was only the moderator. Besides, it is called “Trilateral Memorandum.”

3) It is interesting that the right hand of the Erdogan government is unaware of its left on such an ambitious issue. On the website of the Ministry of Justice, Minister Bekir Bozdag states the following: “Our president has won a great historic victory on behalf of the Turkish nation and the Republic of Turkey. The cases of six PKK members and six FETO members in Finland and 10 FETO members and 11 PKK members in Sweden are pending. After the agreement, we will rewrite and remind them about their extradition.”

Although there is no mention of any number in the text of the trilateral memorandum, I calculated their arithmetic sum to be 33. The origin of the figure of 73 is still unclear to this day. I would say that President Erdogan may have confused it with the inflation rate announced by the Turkish Statistical Institute (TUIK), but that rate is 78 percent, so perhaps the figure of seven was misleading.

4) It is also strange that Erdogan's administration is making remarks on such an ambitious issue without examining Swedish legislation (or ignoring it completely). For in Sweden, extradition can only be ordered by the judiciary and, as Article 8/3 of the trilateral memorandum states, “in accordance with the European Convention on Extradition.” Cengiz Candar, who has lived there for many years, wrote about the statement of Anders Eka, the President of the Supreme Court of Appeals, on this very issue, and Kısadalga reported it as “Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.” Let me explain:

The extradition of 19 people considered “terrorists” by Ankara has already been rejected by the Swedish courts. A. Eka explains: “We cannot sit and review cases that have already been concluded. Our job is to check if there are any obstacles. [Furthermore,] during my tenure at the Supreme Court, I have never seen the trial of an [extradition] request of a Swedish citizen.”

Since 2000, the Supreme Court has heard more than 30 cases in which Turkey has requested extradition from Sweden and concluded that there were no obstacles to extradition in only four cases (“They have already sent three or four,” Erdogan also said). One of these cases involved theft, two involved drug trafficking and the fourth involved incitement to theft and illegal deprivation of liberty.

In line with the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, the Swedish Extradition Act does not apply to military or political offenses. In addition, the same criminal charge must exist in both countries. And, did you know that we have also signed this Convention? Law No. 18.11.1959/7376, published in the Official Gazette of 26.11.1959.

As I understand it, the Swedish supreme judge is a little different from our supreme judges. He is not the kind of Supreme Court chief who goes and collect tea with the person in power, raises his hand and prays in his judicial robes next to the head of religious affairs at an official ceremony, and finally says, “If you don't criticize, justice will run like clockwork.” As for the Scandinavian authorities:

Swedish Foreign Minister Ann Linde, who found herself in a difficult situation in her country because of Erdogan's declaration of victory and, above all, the demand that jumped to 73, stated, “We have not given in to Erdogan. We will not accept any extradition unless there is evidence of terrorist activity. There is no reason for the Kurds to feel that their human or democratic rights are in jeopardy." Finnish President Niinisto echoed similar sentiments, “We did not call the YPG a terrorist organization in the text. Erdogan wanted the YPG to be in the text and we agreed to it. The YPG was included so that humanitarian aid can continue. Nothing has changed.”

It seems that the West has completely figured out President Erdogan. Either they “stand by” him for the time being because they expect him to leave in the elections, or, as Can Dundar says, they think it would be more troublesome to deal separately with the Coalition of Six (which can't get rid of its constipation). Those “Six” could have whined that “Turkey's legitimate demands have not been concretely guaranteed in the trilateral agreement” even though they know that Erdogan wants 73 people whom he labels "terrorists". (Doğan Ozguden, Info-Turk, 07/06/2022)

Moreover, Erdogan is slowly sinking economically and throwing some weight behind him makes it easier to influence the One Man, famous for his massive U-turns. Especially now that the two countries are de facto under the NATO umbrella, because Erdogan's Turkey has already participated in early June in a joint NATO exercise where they also participated.

I think the comparison goes beyond the difference between the elephant and the whale. In Europe, the government does not call anyone who opposes it a “terrorist.” Here they do. Just as they used to call them communists.

I would have said that the problem is there, but unfortunately there is also the difference in the understanding of the concepts of judiciary/justice, which is huge. There is no end to this, and there is much more to write about this topic, but we will continue in other articles.