Connect with us

OPINION

A Capital Outflow

Published

on

A record level of capital outflow that equals 1.47 trillion rubles has taken place to the bank accounts outside Russia, in a time period between June and August, according to the Central Bank of Russia. For a comparison, the capital outflow had been recorded as  57 billion rubles in the same time period of 2021 (third quarter), which is 26 times less. For another comparison: the budget revenues for the year 2022 were recorded as 25.02 trillion rubles. This means that roughly 6 percent of all budget revenues of the nation were scooped out of the country by the bourgeoisie, only in the third quarter of the last year. Only then we can add the 543.4 billion and 550.7 billion rubles that are also scooped away in the first and the second quarters, by the “patriotic” bourgeoisie (despite all “sanctions”), who have managed to take out more than 10 percent of the national budget revenues in the last three quarters.

And the outflow did not stop after the third quarter. The Central Bank of Russia has estimated in early December that the Russian citizens had roughly 4.19 trillion rubles (or 66.65 billion USD at that time) in foreign bank accounts, as of November 1st. Also, according to the data released by the Central Bank of Russia on February 13th, the total assets of Russian citizens in foreign bank accounts have summed up to a total of 94.3 billion USD (or about 7 trillion Rubles, that is almost 30 percent of the national budget revenue of 2022). This means that the deposits in foreign bank have more than tripled over the last year. This alone is an enormous capital outflow, and it is just the tip of the iceberg. These data only shows the outflow that the Central Bank has allowed. The account deposits of Russian citizens in foreign banks had reached 0.5 billion USD in January 2022, which have risen to 4.3 billion USD in February. Almost all these transactions have taken place between February 24th and 28th. The outflow has lost its momentum between March and May, since the Central Bank of Russia had imposed harsh restrictions on foreign exchange transactions. And as soon as the banks have relaxed some these restrictions, the outflow spiked again, reaching 48.9 billion USD in the second half of the year, or making up to the 77 percent of the total annual outflow. Even this can be considered as a very modest estimate, since it is not possible to get information from the countries where the outflow has occurred to after the sanctions.

Moreover, the total capital outflow is not only these 70-100 billion USD in foreign banks. The Central Bank had estimated last July, that the total capital outflow in 2022 would be 243 billion USD. This is a record in the last 10 years, with second happening in 2014 after the annexation of Crimea, being 152 billion USD. The total capital outflow between 2012 and 2021 is around 576.5 billion USD. Capital that equals half of that in the previous 10 years, was scooped away in just one year.

Of course, this amount includes that of the foreign companies which sold their assets in Russia or, stakes that Russian companies hold in foreign countries. So, the capital outflow is often not done by carrying huge stacks of cash across the border. But it is done by shifting enormous sums to offshore companies, and that is pretty much like carrying huge bags of cash.

So, this enormous capital outflow can take place in every means and there are not much obstacles to doing this. According to the Head of the Russian Central Bank Elvira Nabiullina, who has spoken around the end of the year, saying “This is not a matter of concern for us in the current situation. We do not consider it necessary to take any special measures in this connection. “, and adding that “As confidence in macroeconomic stability, price stability strengthens, these funds will return to the Russian banking system, to rubles.”

I get goosebumps as soon as I hear “macroeconomic stability”

Another important statement from the Central Bank was that “import substitutions have been reduced to the cost of standard of living”. So, almost 400 billion USD  in assets have been frozen in western banks, there has been a capital outflows close to 250 billion USD this year, but it is import substitutions were lowered to the cost of standard of living. And this statement was made right after the announcement by the US government that American companies would be 152 billion USD of subsidies in microchip production.

One of the most prominent economists in Russia Mikhail Khazin, posted an article on Telegram that “he had initially written for a media outlet, but he did not manage to get it published”, in which Glazyev immediately posted. He claimed that the Russian “fiscal bloc” (the Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank) were still represented by the liberal elite, who still wanted Russia to remain in the “necessary liberal” international community. He says, they must meet the basic requirements of the “Washington Consensus” to achieve this. Two of these requirements would be: “Prohibiting all Ruble investments and motivating further capital outflow”. And the second would be maintaining the liquidity of the global dollarization over the nation’s own interests”. Khazin explains the recent capital outflow that broke records in the first three quarters of 2022, with these theses.

And the relationship between economics and politics gets even more evident at this point, while Khazin considers this stance of the “fiscal bloc” as high treason.

Taxation Of The Grand Bourgeoisie

Putin’s speech at the Eastern Economic Forum in early September was of great programmatic importance. I have evaluated his speech under “9 crucial points” back then. And on the eighth point, I stated:

“The Kremlin keeps stressing that they have used and will continue to use ‘the market mechanisms and instruments’ to seize the ‘excess profit’ of the grand bourgeoisie. This could shows that the grand bourgeoisie has not succeeded in its lobbying efforts together with the ‘fiscal bloc”.

In his speech, Putin has described these market instruments as follows:

“These will be market instruments that are known by all: it can either be customs clearance or recovery of the excess profit in some other ways”.

The target of these words was neither the petty bourgeoisie that emerged after the crisis, nor the new middle bourgeoisie that has now started to flourish after the disqualification of the Navalniyite middle bourgeoisie after February 24th. They too, managed to accumulate an “excessive profit”, and are still accumulating, but the real target was the grand bourgeoisie, which were mainly active in the fields of telecommunications, mining industries and finances, and clearly reeked of a dangerous threat (even if Putin had given a guarantee of “private property” at the same time).

Despite Putin’s programmatic speech, the aforementioned issue has not come up for a long time. Finally, on February 15th, around four and a half months after the announcement of the program, the Deputy Finance Minister Alexey Sazanov has announced that “started working” on two resolutions on this agenda: A voluntary payment, or a kind of involuntary taxation.

Why did it take so long or why did this even come up in the end? The answer to the first question is: We would not expect the grand bourgeoisie to not resist the taxation of excess profit, imposed by the Kremlin. Moreover, the economic situation was relatively stable from the beginning of September and until December when sanctions on crude oil exports were imposed, so back then the first shock was absorbed, and the nation has turned from the brink of total collapse. This may be an exaggerated rhetoric, but definitely not a false one. The Deputy Prime Minister Andrei Belousov has clearly stated that “the economy is at risk of collapse” on December 27th when in describing the situation in March, and that he “thinks that the economy is about to go completely out of control”. Meanwhile Belousov has addressed the Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Industry and Trade and the Central Bank of Russia when crediting those who managed to reverse this doomsday scenario, but did not mention anything about the Ministry of Finance. Therefore, the resistance by the grand bourgeoisie must have gained more momentum in such atmosphere of a relative satisfaction.

And the answer to the second question is: The “fiscal bloc” had to stop further hindering this program, since the problem of financing the government budget, which is caused by a massive decline in the natural gas and oil revenues due to sanctions and the sabotage of Nord Stream 2 pipeline, keeps threatening to destroy the Russian economy.

The Finance Minister Siluanov spoke only two days after Sazanov and stated that he expects “industry giants” to make a “voluntary contribution” of 300 billion rubles to the government budget in return for their excessive profits in 2021 and 2022. Such funds would not cover the expected budget deficit since the budget deficit in 2023 is the expected to be around 2.9 trillion rubles (which is 2 percent of the GDP), and can reach 5 trillion rubles due to the large decrease in oil and gas revenues that occurred as a result of the sanctions. We can understand that the Ministry has alleviated the taxes on grand bourgeoisie to an enormous scale, and has reduced it to around 10 percent of the expected budget deficit even with the most optimistic estimations. But even this was not enough, so the minister tried to make it a “voluntary action”. Moreover, the ministry must have negotiated with some these “industry giants” and tried to get their consent, that is because according to Siluanov: “These industry giants are ready to share some of their profit, with the state”. And on top of that, Siluanov also announced the good news that oil and gas companies would not be charged an additional tax over their profits over these past years.

There seems to be a mismatch between the words of the minister and his deputy; While the deputy minister speaks of two resolutions, there is only one solution according to the minister. While his deputy also points out the hard way, the minister states that there is already an understanding with the grand bourgeoisie on this issue.

However the grand bourgeoisie does not seem convinced these days. Head of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs Aleksandr Shokhin, has made it clear that voluntary action would not work out. But this was not as if “there could not be a thing called voluntary tax, we should force it properly”, but rather something like “there cannot be a tax on excess profits, since things like private property and the free market are untouchable, we should instead reduce taxes so that the free market can invest even freer and the concept of big government is nonsense anyways” etc.

An Involuntary Volunteerism

On the exact same day that Siluanov has made the voluntary tax announcement, the Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov was asked about this issue at a press briefing. Peskov noted that talks are still ongoing, while similar practices are very common all over the world, and that the government is in a constant contact with representatives of large businesses on this issue, while adding: “The key word is voluntary, but, of course, the interaction between the country’s leadership and business, and the government and the business sector, is a two-way street. Therefore, of course, it is necessary that both sides, although we are all on the same side nonetheless, were clearly aware of the realities that we live in today and the needs the country has”.

That was regarded as a very diplomatic response, and although it did not imply a direct challenge to the grand bourgeoisie, which he had comforted with his message of cooperation, the warning or some may even say the threat, was clear enough. The Kremlin as it is the rational thought, has no doubt that the grand bourgeoisie will not show any voluntary willingness, therefore the formula of involuntary volunteerism must have seemed more practical. The force may bare more fruits, and with the threat of enforcing it, some giant industries may volunteer to contribute and receive a reward in the form of a state decoration, but the division of labor between those who can afford it and those who cannot is such that the Kremlin will not hesitate to introduce some new ways of encouraging volunteerism, in order to overcome the foolishness (that word can be used conditionally), of the “fiscal bloc”.

However, the “fiscal bloc” will not hesitate to look for ways to minimize the profit losses of the grand bourgeoisie. As a matter of fact, the first major move came on the exact same day, from the bloc’s one significant part, the Central Bank. Not only did the Central Bank back the Ministry’s volunteerism plan, it also proposed to cancel the debts of these companies to the government banks in return for the “voluntary contributions” of this class, that totals 300 billion Rubles (according to the report of Banksta, one of the closest affiliated outlets of the grand bourgeoisie).

This is a marvelous bribery! Let us first cancel all short, medium and long term loans, then you can “donate” us, and let us call this volunteering.

The central bank’s call for peace was quick to earn Deripaska’s approval. The owner of RUSAL wrote: “This would be a balanced decision, if not the ideal”.

The “conflicting alliance” continues, as the existence of this alliance does not stop the conflict. The Kremlin will continue its involuntary volunteerism imposition, but it can accept to cancel some of the long-term loans, while it could be a little bit difficult to cancel medium-term loans, and it will surely reject to cancel short-term loans. While it is certain that the problem cannot be solved with such negotiations, while the Kremlin will continue to go for the grand bourgeoisie to finance the government budget, the fiscal bloc will continue its efforts to fend it off, as oil and gas revenues fall rock bottom.

***

There have been two new developments confirming what I have claimed, after I have written them. So, it impossible to end this article without mentioning about them briefly.

First, Putin’s programmatic speech on February 22nd, included the announcement that they would not back down on taxation, despite the pressures from the bourgeoisie and the “fiscal bloc” (he openly admitted “things are tough”). Despite the insistence and the determination of the “fiscal bloc”, the cancellation of long-term loans was largely off the agenda after this speech.

The second is the statements made by Alexander Shokhin, the same day that of Putin’s speech. Shokhin said, they had reached an agreement with the government for a one-time “windfall tax”. The fact that this is defined as a tax, and not as a voluntary contribution, clearly shows the Kremlin’s dedication. And for Shohin, there is only one question that remains: That is how to estimate these “excess profits”.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

OPINION

Urgent need for peace and reconciliation with Syria

Published

2 days ago

on

02/07/2024

By

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.

Continue Reading

OPINION

Round 1: Winner Trump

Published

5 days ago

on

29/06/2024

By

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.

Continue Reading

OPINION

Hakan Fidan’s building of the Turkish axis: China, Russia and the BRICS

Published

1 week ago

on

24/06/2024

By

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.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey