![Flags of members of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) wave outside of the NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium on March 14, 2019 [Dursun Aydemir - Anadolu Agency]](https://i0.wp.com/www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/20190315_2_35436772_42595592-1.jpg?resize=1200%2C800&quality=85&strip=all&zoom=1&ssl=1)
"But don't let appearances fool you. There's always only one reality." (Haruki Murakami)
In the coming weeks and months, I imagine that Europeans and North Americans who concern themselves with international politics will experience conversations along the following lines:
Person 1: "… so when Sweden joins NATO, Europe will have a unified deterrent against Putin."
Person 2: "Wait, I thought Sweden was in NATO?"
Person 1: "Not exactly. The Turkish Parliament still needs to approve their accession."
Person 2: "But I thought Sweden was accepted to NATO during the Vilnius conference?"
Person 1: "Not exactly. The press and most NATO officials tried to make it look like that, but actually Sweden was not accepted to NATO. In fact, not much changed at all."
READ: NATO allies welcome agreement between Turkiye, Sweden: Vilnius summit communiqué
Now that almost two weeks have gone by after the media frenzy over NATO's Vilnius conference, I wonder if anyone in the Western press has begun to wonder: "Did I dream all of last week?"
Overwhelmed by the glad-handing and brilliant smiles, the glitzy 24/7 Western press coverage, and the hyperbolic but vague language, casual observers could be forgiven for thinking that Sweden was now a full-fledged NATO member. Even the New York Times stated openly that "Sweden joined NATO" on its main web page on Wednesday, 12 July.
However, if one takes a moment and goes to the member list on NATO's official website, they will notice that Sweden's name is not there.
The Vilnius media show
The Vilnius NATO conference's full-throated Western media blitz seemed to be a bizarre effort by North American and European governments and international press organisations to create a "fait accompli" atmosphere around Sweden's NATO candidacy.
That campaign played out in the following manner. In the days before the conference, Turkish officials engaged in a number of high-level conversations with American, European and NATO officials.
That same period was also characterised by numerous Western officials and press articles mentioning that NATO, Washington and Brussels all expected the immediate finalisation of Sweden's NATO membership, and that Turkiye was the malcontent ruining the party.
The diplomatic traffic was so frenetic that when Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, connected Turkiye's EU accession process to Sweden's NATO membership – which had a bombshell effect on the international news wires – the first thought to come to my mind was that some sort of deal had been struck over the preceding days.
That was late Sunday and early Monday on 9-10 July; President Erdogan travelled to Vilnius after providing press comments that Monday morning.
Starting the same day, amid the head-spinning diplomacy, various American and European officials announced that Turkiye had "green-lighted" Sweden's NATO accession. That elicited a flood of official statements and news flashes which utilised rhetoric implying that Sweden had been accepted to NATO.
READ: Does Sweden provoke Turkiye to avoid joining NATO?
For around 36 hours, the world press went with that interpretation, while the domestic Turkish press remained calm and focused on the continuing diplomacy. During those 36 hours, an interesting gap emerged between the mirage presented by the international press and the reality presented by the Turkish press.
Only on the evening of 12 July, when President Erdogan gave his closing remarks, did the gap begin to close. In his statements, President Erdogan made clear that nothing had changed, and that Sweden still had responsibilities to fulfil before the Turkish Parliament would consider approving Stockholm's membership. In fact, that had been the case for the past year.
What just happened?
Given the non-stop news cycle, the Vilnius conference now seems like distant history, and the press narrative concerning Sweden's NATO accession has largely returned to the status quo ante. But another interesting Western press narrative did emerge from last week's NATO conference, which presented itself for differing interpretations: "Turkiye is reorienting itself to the West."
That theme originated in the afternoon of 10 July, after President Erdogan's comments concerning Turkiye's EU accession that morning. It was then expanded upon, sometimes in a nearly plagiaristic manner, by other writers. However, not even a week elapsed before President Erdogan set off on a tour of the Gulf States.
Such patent misinterpretations of short-term Turkish political developments are, unfortunately, entirely normal for Western press commentators struggling to interpret the Turkish scene for their readers. Something as profound as the reorientation of a country's political tack can only be identified over the mid- to long-term, and over multiple events and decisions.
For those reasons, the most immediate question that emerges regarding the international media's behaviour during the Vilnius NATO conference is exactly why all of this "sound and fury" was deemed necessary.
Journalists, of course, write according to what they identify as interesting and to what their editors want or allow; the interpretations of both journalists and editors are affected by numerous factors, including prejudices and political contacts.
Maybe NATO officials felt a need to create a positive atmosphere in an otherwise extremely distressing time, something which all NATO governments and citizens can appreciate.
READ: Turkiye expects Sweden to fulfil pledges under Madrid memorandum for NATO bid
A Potemkin facade of unity and harmony to present to the rest of the world, to provide some positive public relations vibes in an era of war, internal discord and rising international tensions would be an important element in that effort.
Maybe some NATO officials or politicians were delusional enough to think that they could pressure Turkish officials into concessions. Or was the actual target the US Congress?
Whatever the case, journalists who got caught up in the charade, whether willingly or unknowingly, should not forget the advice given to Aomame by the taxi driver in 1Q84's opening pages.
The reality is that Sweden must definitively act against the PKK and FETO terrorist organisations and other terrorist groups present in Sweden, to end those organisations' ability to operate on Swedish soil. And only the Turkish Parliament will decide whether Sweden has fulfilled those conditions or not.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
Unless otherwise stated in the article above, this work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. If the image(s) bear our credit, this license also applies to them. What does that mean? For other permissions, please contact us.
Spotted an error on this page? Let us know
