Connect with us

DIPLOMACY

‘Türkiye should be a security producer, not a security consumer’

Published

on

“Türkiye must shift its viewpoint toward Arab and periphery nations, reevaluate its interest, and establish credibility. Türkiye needs to be a country that produces security, not one that consumes security.”

Why did Ankara return to the normalization process from “precious loneliness”? Is it possible that the strategy of trying to strike a balance between global powers would be successful? What will be the future of Türkiye’s relations with NATO and the EU? Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Bağcı, president of the Foreign Policy Institute and professor of international affairs at METU, responded to questions from Harici over Türkiye’s foreign policy.

  • What were the facts that drove Türkiye into the normalization process with the countries of the region? What were the benefits or drawbacks for Türkiye from their “precious solitude”?

In my opinion, Türkiye is one of the Arab Spring’s biggest losers. The Turkish government has made certain blunders because it overestimated its economic, military, technological, and political might. A goal of “bringing stability, freedom, and democracy to the Middle East,” as the foreign minister of the time put it, was and is impossible for Türkiye to pursue. Arab countries are still in the same situation; it was Türkiye that suffered the loss.

The return from this policy is correct. If these mistakes had not been made, Türkiye would be at a much more advanced point today. Yet, enormous blunders have been made in the policies toward Syria, Egypt, Israel, and the Arab Gulf states. It is appropriate for Türkiye to start normalization and take a step back. I wish it hadn’t, but it would be a major failure in Türkiye’s foreign policy. Türkiye must shift its viewpoint toward Arab and periphery nations, reevaluate its interest, and establish credibility. Türkiye needs to be a country that produces security, not one that consumes security. Therefore, normalization is good; it is better to follow balanced policies. A multifaceted foreign policy best serves Türkiye’s geopolitical and geo-economic interests. To be on friendly terms with all of them, rather than just one or two. That is the powerhouses, i.e., the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the rising powers of Brazil, India, and China. Maintaining positive ties with them benefits Türkiye as well. As we are swiftly shifting towards a multipolar rather than unipolar world in the centennial anniversary of the Turkish Republic this year, Türkiye needs to accordingly redraw its intellectual, economic, technical, and diplomatic mental map. If we do not have this mental map, we have a tough task ahead of us, but if we make changes, it will be better.

  • Does the balance policy pursued in foreign policy have a chance of success?

Türkiye has indeed started to talk about balance policies again. This is a concept used in the 19th century. The Ottoman Empire also pursued a policy of balance. Yet, I believe this goes beyond the scope of the balance policy. All of this has to do with a shift in geopolitics.

Furthermore, Türkiye is a security producer. When you include the Mediterranean, Black Sea, Middle East, and Balkans in regional trends, it is remarkable that Türkiye was one of the rare countries not attacked in the post-Cold War period. Of course, this inevitably brings a new perspective in Türkiye’s relations with its neighbors. I can see that Türkiye’s balancing policies have been implemented successfully during the war between Russia and Ukraine. Balance policies are actually good, and it is necessary not to lose balance. That is how life is in general. Türkiye has wasted energy, time, and money for the last decade due to its unbalanced policies. Now, this shift back to balanced policies is sound. The Turkish response to the Arab Spring diverged from those traditional balances. Now we go back again to the balances. The balance is good. Türkiye must gain trust in the international arena; Türkiye must become a reliable, understandable, and identifiable country again.

  • If the US bases in Greece pose a threat to Türkiye, as the Turkish government says, is it a contradiction that Türkiye is in NATO?

Not at all; it is just a quarrel within the family. If two NATO members are at war with each other, then the founding spirit of NATO is no longer relevant. This will not be the case. The elections in Türkiye and Greece are imminent. We hear such things at every election. Perhaps an answer can be given to whether the US’s approach prioritizes Türkiye or Greece. The easiest way to send weapons to Ukraine is via Greece because we have good relations with Russia. With Ukraine, we keep a steady balance. So, what is supposed to do? Which country can be used instead of Türkiye? 1-Poland, 2-Greece. From there, weapons make their way to Ukraine. But neither Türkiye, Greece, or the USA will declare war on Russia for Ukraine. In other words, the USA cannot get up and declare war on Türkiye after this time. If this occurs, we may begin talking about the new world.

  • Türkiye’s EU membership is an issue that is hardly discussed today. How do you see the future of Türkiye-EU relations?

For now, values-based relations between Türkiye and the EU are irrelevant since they are based only on geostrategic ties. The tensions and problems in Türkiye’s relations with the EU are very important. There were trends away from the EU in Türkiye, but there were also currents inside the EU that sought to keep Türkiye out. The insights that “EU policies towards Türkiye are forcing Türkiye toward Russia” have been proven true.

We see that Türkiye is in search of a multidimensional policy. In other words, it is not just a center-facing one. As the debate has widened to include concerns such as whether or not it should be a member of the Shanghai Five, whether it is beneficial for Türkiye to become closer to Russia, or where will its ties with China go, Türkiye’s primarily NATO and EU-centered approach turns out to be no longer adequate, and need for an approach going beyond that appears. This is not a new policy; Türkiye followed it in the early years of the Republic and the 60s-70s. Therefore, accelerating the transition to a democratic parliamentary system in Türkiye is the only option to overcome the bottleneck in Türkiye’s ties with the EU. Türkiye should be committed to furthering its own internal changes in terms of political ideals. Still, the EU should see Türkiye as a part of its future security-wise, technologically, politically, and culturally rather than commenting on a single party or person.

  • Before Russia–Ukraine Conflict, the European Union’s “strategic autonomy project” was a hot topic. This post-war project is no longer on the agenda. Has the autonomy goal for Europe been sidelined?

The short answer is no because this is what Europe has always desired and will continue to desire. The West has been following Geneva’s spirit as the European Union since 1954. Yet, the Russia-Ukraine conflict has been a crucial step, so the EU has to put the plan on hold for now. From the very beginning, for the USA, it is not desirable for Europe to have a military structure, what they call duplication.

It is crucial to know what Germany will do with France here. Yet, prior efforts to form a combined German-French military had also failed. No matter from which perspective we look, the strategic autonomy debate in Europe has been rendered moot for the next 5-10 years. As NATO strengthens, including countries in Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans, the new mechanism relies more on the USA than Europe. For this reason, the concept of strategic autonomy is particularly challenging right now.

DIPLOMACY

Chinese satellite company to challenge Musk’s Starlink in Brazil

Published

on

A Chinese state-backed company is set to launch a satellite internet service in Brazil, aiming to rival Elon Musk’s Starlink.

Spacesail, a developer of high-speed internet services via satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO), made the announcement during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Brazil. The visit marked the signing of an expanded partnership with Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

This development follows ongoing tensions between Musk, owner of SpaceX and its Starlink subsidiary, and Brazilian authorities over allegations of misinformation on his X social media network.

According to Chinese state media, Spacesail has partnered with Brazil’s state-owned Telebrás to deliver satellite communications and broadband internet to underserved areas.

A spokesperson for the Brazilian communications ministry stated that the companies would assess demand in regions lacking fiber-optic infrastructure, with plans to launch the service by 2026.

“Spacesail is committed to being Brazil’s long-term partner,” CEO Jie Zheng told reporters on Tuesday.

Musk-Lula tensions highlight Starlink’s market dominance

Brazil is actively encouraging competitors to Starlink, which controls nearly 50% of the satellite internet market in Latin America.

Earlier this year, Musk faced legal challenges in Brazil after refusing to comply with court orders to remove accounts allegedly promoting extremist content on X. This led to a temporary ban on the platform and fines for Starlink, further straining Musk’s relationship with Brazil’s left-wing government.

Tensions resurfaced recently when Brazil’s First Lady, Rosângela Lula da Silva, addressed Musk during an event on social media regulation.

Spacesail’s announcement aligns with concerns over waning U.S. influence in South America, often regarded as Washington’s “backyard.”

During his diplomatic tour, Xi Jinping attended the opening of a Chinese-built mega-port in Peru before traveling to Rio de Janeiro for the G20 summit. In Brasília, he and Lula upgraded their bilateral relationship to a “Sino-Brazilian community with a shared future”, emphasizing a fairer, more sustainable world.

The two leaders signed 37 agreements spanning agriculture, trade, infrastructure, technology, and industry. However, Brazil declined to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), signaling confidence in securing Chinese investments without full membership.

Operating under the name Shanghai Spacecom Satellite Technology, Spacesail plans to accelerate satellite deployment with a target of 15,000 LEO satellites by 2030. The company launched its first rounds of satellites in August and October this year, showcasing its rapid growth and potential to disrupt the market.

Continue Reading

DIPLOMACY

China refuses to meet with U.S. Defence Secretary

Published

on

China has reportedly refused to meet with the United States Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin at the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting-Plus in Laos this week.

According to CNN, Austin sought a meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Dong Jun, during the event as part of ongoing efforts to maintain military communication channels between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. However, a senior defence official traveling with Austin in Laos revealed that China rejected the offer, citing the recent U.S. arms sale to Taiwan as a key factor.

Three weeks ago, the United States approved a $2 billion arms deal with Taiwan, which included the provision of advanced surface-to-air missiles—marking the first time Taiwan has received such systems. China condemned the sale and vowed to take “resolute countermeasures” to protect its sovereignty.

China’s decision to decline the meeting in Laos follows just days after U.S. President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping held what the U.S. described as a “cordial and constructive” meeting in San Francisco. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan emphasized that the dialogue was “wide-ranging” and not focused on mediating between Beijing and the incoming U.S. administration.

Relations between the two nations have remained strained since then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in 2022, which prompted China to sever multiple lines of communication with the United States, including those related to military and climate cooperation. While military-to-military communication had recently resumed following the Biden-Xi meeting, this latest refusal highlights continued tensions in U.S.-China relations.

Continue Reading

DIPLOMACY

G20 calls for more aid for Gaza, two-state solution and peace in Ukraine

Published

on

The leaders of the world’s 20 largest economies issued a joint statement on Monday calling for a global deal to fight hunger, more aid for war-torn Gaza and an end to hostilities in the Middle East and Ukraine.

The joint statement was approved by members of the group, but not unanimously. It also called for a future global tax on billionaires and reforms to the United Nations Security Council to allow it to expand beyond its current five permanent members.

At the start of the three-day meeting, which officially ends on Wednesday, experts doubted that Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva would be able to persuade the assembled leaders to reach an agreement at a meeting fraught with uncertainty over the new administration of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and heightened global tensions due to wars in the Middle East and Ukraine.

Argentina objected to some language in early drafts and was the only country not to endorse the entire document.

Still, the fact that a joint statement was issued was a ‘success’ for Lula.

The declaration condemned wars and called for peace, but did not condemn any crimes.

Gaza and Ukraine on the agenda

Referring to the ‘catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza and the escalation in Lebanon’, the declaration stressed the need to increase humanitarian aid and better protect civilians.

“We reaffirm the Palestinian right to self-determination and reiterate our unwavering commitment to the vision of a two-state solution, with Israel and the state of Palestine living side by side in peace,” it said.

Israeli attacks have so far killed more than 43,000 Palestinians in Gaza and more than 3,500 in Lebanon, according to local health officials.

Biden, who met with G20 leaders before the statement was issued, suggested that ‘Hamas is solely responsible for the war’ and called on other leaders to ‘increase pressure on Hamas’ to accept a ceasefire agreement.

Biden’s decision to ease restrictions on Ukraine’s use of longer-range U.S. missiles, allowing it to strike Russia, was also on the agenda for the meeting.

“The United States strongly supports the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. I think everyone around this table should do the same,” Biden said at the summit.

Russian President Vladimir Putin did not attend the meeting, sending Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov instead. The G20 statement highlighted the ‘humanitarian suffering in Ukraine’ and called for peace, without mentioning Russia.

Billionaire tax and the fight against hunger

The statement called for a possible tax on global billionaires, which Lula also supports. Such a tax would affect about 3,000 people worldwide, including about 100 in Latin America.

The declaration also included a clause promoting gender equality.

Argentina signed the G20 declaration but had problems with references to the UN’s 2030 sustainable development agenda. Far-right President Javier Milei described the agenda as a ‘supranational programme of a socialist nature’. He also objected to calls to regulate hate speech on social media, which Milei said violated national sovereignty, and to the idea that governments should do more to fight hunger.

Much of the declaration focuses on Lula’s priority of eradicating hunger.

The Brazilian government stressed that Lula’s launch of the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty on Monday was at least as important as the final G20 declaration. As of Monday, 82 countries had signed the plan, the Brazilian government said. The plan is also supported by organisations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Call for United Nations reform

Leaders have pledged to work for ‘transformative reform’ of the UN Security Council to ‘adapt it to the realities and demands of the 21st century, making it more representative, inclusive, efficient, effective, democratic and accountable’.

Nearly eighty years after the founding of the United Nations, almost all countries agree that the Security Council needs to be expanded to reflect the world of the 21st century and to include more voices. The main dilemma and the biggest disagreement are how to do this. The G20 statement did not answer this question.

“We call for an expanded composition of the Security Council that improves the representation of underrepresented and under-represented regions and groups, such as Africa, Asia-Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean,” the declaration said.

Shortly before the UN summit in September, the United States announced its support for two new non-permanent seats for African countries and a first non-permanent seat for small island developing states. But the Group of Four – Brazil, Germany, India and Japan – prefer each other’s proposals for permanent seats. The larger Uniting for Consensus group of a dozen countries, including Pakistan, Italy, Turkey and Mexico, wants additional non-permanent seats for longer terms.

Xi backs calls for reform and equality

Speaking at the summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping emphasized the interests of the so-called global south, which includes emerging economies, and called for reform of international institutions and consensus on how to achieve parity in finance, trade, digital technology, and the environment.

The Chinese leader said artificial intelligence should not be ‘a game of rich countries and the rich’ and stressed the need to improve digital governance for inclusive economic globalization.

Xi reiterated host Brazil’s call for greater economic equality, including poverty eradication and reform of institutions such as global creditors for developing countries.

Xi called for reform of the World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement mechanism to return to normal operation “as soon as possible”. The mechanism remains in limbo as the U.S. has blocked appointments to the Appellate Body over concerns of judicial activism.

China had filed a dispute settlement case at the WTO after the European Union imposed new tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles last month.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey