You may be tired of reading, but I am not tired of writing, because the subject is of extraordinary importance. The last article I wrote on the issue of reconciliation with Syria in Harici was entitled ‘Et Tekraru Ahsen, Velawkane Hundred and Eighty’. Recently, President Erdoğan’s statements on reconciliation with Syria have given me hope again.

The reason I was more hopeful this time was that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who met with Russia’s special envoy to Syria, Lavrentiev, said he was in favour of a reconciliation process with Turkey within the framework of his country’s effective sovereignty over all its territories. When Erdoğan responded to a question about these statements with very positive and appropriate phrases, my hopes increased that this time it would go further. At least as important as these statements were the speeches of MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli, who emphasised the need for reconciliation/agreement with Syria and a joint fight against terrorism. It has to be admitted that such speeches of Bahçeli are mostly like a declaration of the new policy of the government/state.

The content is very appropriate

When analysing the content of President Erdoğan’s response to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s statement, a number of points immediately stand out. For example, the absence of any poisonous element in Erdoğan’s words is striking at first glance. The absence of the word “regime”, for example, is in itself a very important difference. It goes without saying that this term, which until recently was constantly used by Turkish officials, has a very negative connotation on the other side. Years ago, when we had informal diplomatic meetings with Greece, we objected to their statements about the Turkish occupation of Cyprus and they objected to the Cyprus peace operation.

The statements that start with the word “regime” are also hurtful and critical remarks that are made for the Syrian side in order not to compromise, and I have always expressed this both in the Harici and on my social media account (@hasanunal1920). For example, after Erdoğan’s first meeting with Russian President Putin on Syria in Sochi in early August 2022, he said that Putin had always advised him to act jointly with Syria in the military operation against the PKK/PYD, that he was now of the same opinion, that there would be no permanent enmity between states and that he could shake hands with Assad, and although he continued to make similar statements in the following days, the bureaucracy at that time insisted on making statements such as “regime etc.”, almost undermining the process, which almost undermined the process instead of speeding it up.

This time, Erdoğan’s speech did not contain such elements, and his preference for the term ‘Syrian President’ in relation to Assad is also promising, because despite Erdoğan’s statements in early August 2022, the bureaucracy at that time still implied that we did not consider Assad and his government legitimate. I think and hope that Erdoğan’s insistence on calling the Syrian president this time removes all question marks.

Another important emphasis in Erdoğan’s speech was that we have no intention of interfering in Syria’s internal affairs. Following Erdoğan’s statement after the Sochi meeting with Putin, Turkish officials, especially the then foreign minister, talked about the need for a new constitution in Syria, starting with the word ‘regime’ and insistently referring to the opposition and questioning how they would participate in governance. In fact, what they were doing was tantamount to ignoring President Erdoğan’s statements on reconciliation/agreement in Sochi and in the following days. Turkey’s policy in 2013-2015 had nothing to do with our national interests.

To sum up, first there would be a cessation of hostilities, a new constitution would be drafted and imposed on Syria, Assad would step down and a new and provisional government would be formed in which the opposition would participate (even whether Assad would participate or not was a question mark for Turkey, Ankara was more inclined to say “maybe”), then elections would be held under the strict supervision of international observers and a new government would be formed according to the results. This policy had nothing to do with Turkey’s national interest, because imposing a new constitution on a national and unitary state like Syria would mean dragging it into a federation or forcing it into an unnamed federal structure. In such a structure, it was clear that the PKK/PYD would be one of the federal units.

However, we fought to prevent the PKK/PYD from becoming such a puppet unit/state, but as in this example, in a policy that has not been fully thought through, on the one hand you carry out armed struggle to protect national interests, and on the other hand you indirectly help the structure that you oppose with weapons to achieve what it wants. It was rather strange that some professional diplomats in charge of such a policy accepted these demands on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, because while we rightly did not implement a series of UN Security Council resolutions on the Cyprus issue (pointing out Israel’s disregard for UN resolutions), treating this resolution as a divine order was in fact nothing more than watering down Erdoğan’s instruction to “reconcile with Syria”. In fact, according to this policy, the election of Assad should be prevented by the approximately ten million Syrians in our country and in Syria, together with the PKK/PYD, the population east of the Euphrates with the American forces and those living in the Idlib region, because these three large population groups outnumber those living under the control of the Syrian government.

Erdoğan’s statement that we do not intend to interfere in Syria’s internal affairs is both in line with our national interests and looks like a new policy proposal. In other words, we are giving up the fantasy of a new constitution for Syria, which removes one of the most important obstacles between us. This must also mean recognising how compatible the preservation of Syria’s national and unitary constitutional structure is with Turkey’s interests, because the risk of a Syria forced into a federal structure, in which the PKK/PYD would be a federal unit, disintegrating and threatening Turkey’s national integrity cannot be underestimated.

Looking forward

If President Erdoğan’s statement means a definite political change, it should not be watered down in the bureaucracy. Since Erdoğan said “we used to meet as a family, we will meet again”, he must not be talking about an ordinary and cold peace with Syria. In order to establish peace, the two states must first sign separate agreements on the return of refugees and the joint fight against terrorist organisations. There is no doubt that there are major problems in both areas. Therefore, in addition to the Memoranda of Understanding, it will be necessary to prepare working groups and make rapid progress.

The main problem at this point will be the political Islamists, the media and the official or unofficial pro-American groups that support the government. For example, they have been shouting ‘Assad wants us to leave Syrian territory’ for a long time, and they will continue to do so. But it is quite normal for the Damascus government to ask us to leave the areas under our control. What do you mean, the Syrian government did not want to leave its territory to us?

One of the biggest problems in the way of reconciliation is the creation of an air of conquest in Syria and the unrealistic air that has been pumped out by the government’s own media for years. However, our biggest advantage here is that these groups can quickly change their positions in the face of Erdoğan’s decisions and behaviour. The Americanists, both within the institutions and informally, are losing influence as multipolarity takes hold. This must be one of the advantages of rapprochement this time. In addition, the issue of rapprochement can be managed directly through leaders’ diplomacy, against the risk of being slowed down or watered down by leaving it to the bureaucracy this time, and the compromise/agreement can be given as instructions to the bureaucracy.

The end of the PKK/PYD

The normalisation of relations between Turkey and Syria means the end of the PKK/PYD. America’s open support for these terrorist organisations does not change this fact. Especially in a multipolar world, America’s attempts to establish a puppet state in the Middle East through these organisations and its attempts to change borders directly or indirectly cannot be sustained in a multipolar world. A reconciliation between Ankara and Damascus will have a psychological shock effect on the PKK/PYD and Washington, which are trying to hold on to the eastern Euphrates by carrying out a large-scale ethnic cleansing with the support of American troops, because until now this dirty duo has been acting on the assumption that Ankara would not give up its political Islamist policy and therefore would not reconcile with Syria, which they call Assad. As soon as Turkey reconciles with Syria, this assumption will begin to crumble like a skyscraper built on the foundation of a slum and will quickly collapse. Reconciliation with Syria will bring with it the opportunity to either coordinate operations against this terrorist organisation with Damascus, or to secure results through a policy of strategic patience that will cause the other side to leave without carrying out any operations.

The first debate of the 2024 US election is behind us. After four years, we saw an almost ageless Trump and a very old Biden. Very old… In 2020, there were frequent concerns about his health. However, he managed to stay relatively fresh in the debate and built up the image of “tons of Uncle Joe” against Trump’s aggressive style. The intervening four years have not been kind to Uncle Joe… His disgusted look, as if he had seen his son Hunter’s video archive, his hoarse voice and his 7-8 second pause at the beginning of the debate completely dashed the Democrats’ hopes. The rest of the debate, however, was not so bad. Again, much of what he said was misunderstood, but at least there was no similar pause. In fact, when he did not pause, he spoke even faster than usual, perhaps due to the effect of the drugs…

Don’t answer any questions and win

Trump’s strategy was a little more interesting. In my pre-debate article, I said that Trump would not want to get into the Israel issue. Trump would be afraid of bringing back the leftists who were angry with Biden. That is exactly what happened. But Trump did not answer any question, not just the Israel question. Let me give the following example from the dialogue between the moderators and Trump;

“What would you like to say to citizens who fear that their democratic rights will be taken away because of the events of January 6?”

“Joe’s economic policies have finished off the US. Nobody respects us!”

Most of the debate went like this. Trump muted both Biden and the moderators in his head and went out to say what he had to say. The Republican leader ended the debate without answering almost any question. Of course, as I expected, the new debate rules worked in Trump’s favour. With his own microphone switched off while Biden was speaking, he was unable to interrupt his opponent at all. In contrast to 2020, this gave the impression of a “gentleman who does not interrupt”.

In terms of content, there were no surprises. Trump, of course, talked about the economy, the huge aid packages to Ukraine, the migrant crisis under Biden. When it came to blacks, he said that “the border is so full of holes that blacks and Latinos are both experiencing security problems and losing their jobs to immigrants”. In addition, Trump recalled that Biden used the term “group of deviants” to refer to blacks in the 90s. Biden preferred to stay away from the issue of racism this time because Trump, according to the latest poll, is getting 30 per cent of all black votes in the country. This is an incredible figure for a Republican candidate who has been accused of white supremacy by his opponents. If the polls are correct, Trump will have increased his minority vote in every election he has contested.

Then the issue of Ukraine came up, which was a real kick in the teeth… When Biden mentioned Trump’s known cases, the subject suddenly turned to Ukraine. Trump said: “You’re guilty too. Haven’t you put pressure on Ukraine by using the power of the US for your personal business? You are still killing thousands of people. By the way, the death toll in Ukraine is not accurate. Multiply it by two or even three. Ukraine will lose the war, it has no people left”.

As for Israel, as I said, Trump did not want to talk about it too much. It should be said that this is also a first: reaffirming support for Israel is no longer a very favourable situation for either candidate. Biden is already losing votes because of it. But among non-evangelical conservatives, unconditional support for Israel has become unpopular. That’s why Trump said just one sentence. “Joe, you’re a bad Palestinian, even they don’t like you,” and he closed the subject.

What happens now?

The rest of the debate was characterised by mutual personal attacks and Trump saying 98 times, “Everybody’s making fun of us”. But the real question is: what happens next? Even before Biden left the stage, there was an unprecedented reaction from the Democrats. There was a “king naked” moment, not only in Democrat-dominated social media groups, but also among Democratic opinion leaders;

Biden would lose if he went into the election this way.

So what can be done? The “Biden Withdrawal” debate, which was previously conducted in hushed tones, is now being raised louder. However, the bureaucratic basis for this makes it very difficult. Traditionally, it is not customary to run against an incumbent president. That is why both Kamala Harris, his running mate, and Gavin Newsom, the governor of California and the most popular Democratic candidate, have declined to run, despite widespread rumours. A key date was Super Tuesday in March, when 15 states held their primaries. It should be noted that Biden managed to get 3900 of the 4000 delegates. There is no force that can remove him from the nomination against Biden’s will.

If Biden withdraws, however, new candidate discussions will begin. Although Gavin Newsom said after last night’s debate that “we’ve never been more united behind Biden”, dissent is growing in his party. If Biden withdraws today, there can be no primary. However, the delegates can agree on a new nominee and vice presidential candidate. All Democratic Party experts say that if this happens, there will be major infighting within the party. If Biden withdraws, he can tell the delegates who are supporting him whom he is supporting, but the delegates do not have to comply. Of course, if that is the intention, every day closer to the election means more bureaucratic turmoil for the party. If it happens in the last month, even ballot papers could be changed.

If Biden withdraws, the two potential candidates would be Newsom and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. However, these names are behind Biden at the moment. In the current situation, as many have said, Trump’s hopes are very high. But there is still a long way to go before the election. So it makes sense to put aside the polls and the memorised commentaries. In any case, the Democratic Party is in for a very painful electoral process.

Dr Hakan Fidan, who for many years headed Turkey’s intelligence service, became Turkey’s foreign minister a year ago. Dr Hakan Fidan has never been so much on the world’s agenda in his more than 1 year as Foreign Minister. So what happened to make Minister Fidan the focus of attention from America to Asia, from the Middle East to Latin America? The reason was Fidan’s extensive visit to China and Russia and his participation in the BRICS meeting. As a result of these visits, many questions have been raised both in Turkey and around the world.

First of all, if we take the China visit into consideration, Minister Fidan held critical meetings. Fidan met with Chen Wenqing, a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and chairman of the CPC Political and Legal Affairs Commission, and gave a speech entitled “Turkey-China Relations in a Changing World Order” at an important think tank. Minister Fidan then met with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and clearly presented Turkey’s views at the press conference:

1) One China principle

2) Support for China’s fight against terrorism

3) High level of economic and cultural cooperation

4) Full support for China’s territorial integrity and political sovereignty

5) Opposition to encirclement of China

6) Full support for the Belt and Road Initiative

7) Western peaceful acceptance of rising powers and new competition

8) Common stance on Gaza and Ukraine

Following these messages, Minister Fidan visited the Chinese cities of Kashgar and Urumqi, important centres of the Turkic world and Islamic civilisation. This visit, the first at such a high level by a former head of intelligence in 12 years, caused a stir in Turkey and around the world. The fact that Fidan spoke and interacted with many Uighur Turks during his visit surprised our Western partners and many in Turkey. There were other surprises too. We all witnessed the cultural vibrancy and prosperity of these cities. The children in Urumqi and Kashgar laughing and using Turkish names is very precious when we think of what is happening in Gaza.

While the impact of Minister Fidan’s surprise visit to China was being discussed, his visit to Russia was also being discussed. Minister Fidan, who travelled to Russia to attend the BRICS+ Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, held critical meetings in Russia as well as in China. Just 2-3 days before Turkish Foreign Minister Dr Hakan Fidan, Turkey’s Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Alparslan Bayraktar attended the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. There he met with the head of Gazprom and the Russian Minister of Natural Resources and Environment. Minister Fidan, on the other hand, had important meetings with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, the Secretary of the Russian Security Council Sergei Shoigu and the Head of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service Sergei Narishkyn. However, it was Minister Fidan’s reception by Russian President Vladimir Putin that captured the world’s attention. Two former intelligence officers, Dr Hakan Fidan and Vladimir Putin, sat at the same table and became the focus of the world’s press. These meetings were the crowning glory of exceptionally good relations. The main axis of Turkish-Russian negotiations:

1) Increasing trade between the two countries to $100 billion

2) New investments and joint projects

3) Energy and military cooperation

4) Situation in Azerbaijan and Armenia

5) Syria and Libya

6) Common position on Gaza

7) Ukraine crisis

Just as Minister Fidan did not forget the Uighur Turks in China, he did not forget the Meskhetian Turks in Russia. Minister Fidan, who received the Meskhetian Turks, also met with Turkish-Russian businessmen. In addition to these valuable meetings, I think that Turkey should pay special attention to Chechnya and the Chechens.

The last link in Minister Fidan’s never-ending chain of events was the BRICS meeting. Turkey participated in the expanded format of the BRICS+ Foreign Ministers’ Meeting held in Russia. However, the BRICS meeting was held with the participation of more than 20 countries. Minister Fidan delivered a speech at this meeting. In his speech in China, Minister Fidan had already stated that BRICS was an important alternative and that Turkey wanted to participate in it. Minister Fidan said that they value cooperation with BRICS and that the diversity within BRICS is an important tool to increase development and stability. During this process, Minister Fidan had interesting meetings. Minister Fidan met separately with Cuba and Belarus, which are sanctioned and considered enemies by the US and Western countries. In addition, while Israel was condemned in the final declaration of the BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, Palestine’s full membership in the United Nations was supported by all countries, including India.

Turkey’s participation in the BRICS+ foreign ministers’ meeting under the auspices of Dr Hakan Fidan revealed the changing strategic vision of Turkish policymakers. This is because Turkey’s experiences in Ukraine and Gaza have taught it that the US-based Western civilisational system no longer works. Moreover, the inclusion in the BRICS of regional powers in the Middle East, such as Egypt, Iran, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, with which Turkey is in competition, has created a situation that needs to be taken into account. Moreover, today we have Russia building Turkey’s first nuclear power plant, China building Turkey’s bridges and railways, Brazil selling us the first floating oil production platform, which Turkey needs, and South Africa opening the trial against Israel, in which Turkey is involved. Obviously, there is a community of BRICS countries with which Turkey is deepening and strengthening its relations in all fields. Because the BRICS countries are providing the high technologies and huge infrastructure projects that our European-American allies have not been providing for years. Moreover, the fact that a NATO country, a member of the OECD and a country waiting to join the EU was present at the BRICS meeting had a great impact not only in our country but also in the world.

Today it is also clear that reading these events as a shift in Turkey’s axis is not understanding the spirit of the times and is not able to read the future. Because Turkey is building its own axis with these moves. It would be impossible for Turkey, which maintains its relations with the West in this construction process, not to take into account new centres of power and civilisation. After all, the Republic of Turkey is a central country and a civilisation state. If we take into account the Organisation of Turkic States, we can better understand the Turkish axis that Turkey wants to build. Because Turkish leaders do not limit Turkey to geographical definitions. In fact, concepts such as West, East, North or South are insufficient for today’s global system. Definitions such as the division of the world into blocs are outdated ideas from the mindless Cold War mentality. In order to understand today, presenting the world in terms of poles or blocks is a tasteless and unsalted outdated description.

I can easily say that Dr Hakan Fidan’s trip to China, his visit to Russia and his participation in the BRICS meeting have shown the whole world, especially our Western friends, Turkey’s position on China’s rise, Russia’s partnership and the future of BRICS. In fact, for Turkey, China and Russia are not seen as enemies or threats, and BRICS is not anti-Western or hostile. This situation has not confused Turkish foreign policy, on the contrary, it has enlightened those who were confused. It was also understood that Turkey’s travel and participation was not only a message to the West. The main reason for this is that the negotiations are not limited to trade and investment. The lengthy discussions, especially on security, military and intelligence issues, suggest something else. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s invitation to Chinese leader Xi Jinping to visit Turkey, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s reception of Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, and Hakan Fidan’s meetings with Chinese and Russian security, military and intelligence elites also provide answers. As a footnote, while Minister Fidan was speaking at the BRICS meeting, the President of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, established on China’s initiative, was received by President Erdoğan and new agreements were signed. In addition, the visit of the Brazilian Foreign Minister to Turkey after the BRICS meeting and his reception by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was of great importance. After this meeting, it was announced in the Brazilian media that Brazilian President Lula would visit Turkey.

In the Turkish foreign policy roadmap drawn up by Dr Hakan Fidan, we must see that the importance of BRICS and BRICS members will continue to grow. The economic flexibility and alternatives offered by BRICS will increase the strategic autonomy of Turkish foreign policy. A multilateral and multifaceted Turkey will be able to act more easily. This will help Ankara to become a more effective and visible regional and global power centre. Our Foreign Minister Dr Hakan Fidan’s statements in China, Russia and at the BRICS meeting show that we are determined in this process. Of course, there was an immediate warning from our American allies. Speaking to Reuters, the US ambassador in Ankara expressed his hope that Turkey would not become a member of BRICS. This clearly showed us that Dr Hakan Fidan was in the right place at the right time.

Obviously, Turkey is in the process of building a Turkish foreign policy on its own axis, no longer a follower but a leader in the emerging multi-centre, multi-civilisation, democratic global system. This process has many economic, commercial, political, cultural, scientific, diplomatic and military aspects. Of course, many difficulties await us in this process. However, it is necessary to see that our Foreign Minister Dr Hakan Fidan has opened a new method and a new way for a just world order. This method and path is the vision of the Ankara-centred Turkey axis.