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

South Korea pulls part of embassy staff from Ukraine amid POW dispute

Published

on

The South Korean government has decided to withdraw part of its embassy staff from Ukraine.

According to the Yonhap news agency, Foreign Ministry spokesman Park Doo-sun cited the Kyiv administration’s failure to take “positive steps” in the dispute that began with the leak of information concerning the handover of North Korean prisoners of war as the justification for the move.

The spokesman also listed the ongoing threat of air strikes, which complicates the safety of diplomats, among the reasons.

Following the withdrawal of part of the personnel, essential diplomatic contacts will continue under the leadership of the charge d’affaires ad interim to Ukraine. All consular staff tasked with protecting South Korean citizens will remain in Ukraine.

Prior to this move, the Seoul administration decided on 8 October to withdraw its ambassador. The Foreign Ministry stated at the time that it was ready to continue consultations with Kyiv to resolve the emerging issues constructively.

Tensions between the two countries began with a speech delivered by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

Zelenskyy announced that two captured soldiers from the North Korean army had been handed over to South Korea.

South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, meanwhile, accused Kyiv of breaching a confidentiality agreement.

Lee said the disclosure of this information endangered the prisoners’ families and stability on the Korean Peninsula.

Seoul expects a public apology

Dmytro Lytvyn, an adviser to the Ukrainian president, denied the existence of a confidentiality agreement.

The South Korean Foreign Ministry summoned Ukrainian Charge d’Affaires Andriy Veshkin on 28 September and issued a note of protest against Lytvyn’s remarks.

President Lee Jae-myung warned in a statement on 2 October that they would take additional measures against Kyiv if Ukrainian authorities did not acknowledge the agreement and make a public apology. Lee stated that Ukraine itself had initially requested that the transfer of the prisoners be kept confidential.

Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman Heorhii Tykhyi said the dispute stemmed from differing interpretations of the confidentiality regime.

Tykhyi noted that Seoul, based on its constitution which recognises the entire Korean Peninsula as its own territory, requested that the prisoners be handed over “like its own citizens”.

Describing the handover as a “gesture of goodwill”, Tykhyi stated that they were conducting closed-door negotiations to resolve differences of opinion.

Ambassador Park Ki-chang returned to Seoul on 10 October. According to a report by The Korea Times newspaper citing the ministry, recalling the ambassador served as a diplomatic protest against the leak of information regarding the prisoners.

The newspaper wrote that South Korea had last taken a similar step in 2008 by withdrawing its ambassador to Japan.

Moscow warned foreign diplomats

On 3 October, the Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated its warning to foreign nationals, including diplomatic mission staff, against remaining in Ukraine.

The ministry recalled its advice to leave Kyiv, citing ongoing strikes against military targets.

The ministry noted that those who failed to heed the warnings would bear responsibility for the potential consequences.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a statement on 24 September that they had no information regarding Kyiv handing over two North Korean prisoners of war to Seoul.

Peskov, noting that prisoner matters fall under the authority of the Defence Ministry and intelligence services, said, “Contacts through the special services are continuing.”

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Ex-BND head Hanning tied to former Mossad chief amid spy inquiry

Published

on

August Hanning, who led Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service (BND) between 1998 and 2005, was arrested on 6 October on allegations that he obtained roughly 2,000 classified agency documents and used them during contacts with intelligence officers from a foreign state.

Accused of high treason and espionage on behalf of a foreign intelligence agency, the former spy chief is alleged to have procured the documents from former BND employee Manfred D.

Prosecutors stated that the leaked records included internal briefing notes presented to senior German officials, though the Berlin government has not yet publicly disclosed which country received the classified data.

According to an exclusive report by Jake Green for The Cradle, seized email exchanges revealed extensive ties between the arrested Hanning and former Mossad director Danny Yatom.

The correspondence shows that the two former intelligence directors built an ongoing network of contacts following their public service, combining commercial ventures, efforts to secure political influence, and intelligence links.

This dynamic has triggered debate that using personal connections and official access for private gain has left Germany’s intelligence apparatus vulnerable.

Intelligence notes for 10,000 euros and campaign proposals

According to the reviewed emails, Hanning told Yatom in a 2018 message that he could prepare an “overall assessment based on information obtained from senior German officials and intelligence agencies” concerning an unidentified candidate.

The former BND head committed to completing the report by 13 July in exchange for 10,000 euros.

Contacts between the two men subsequently expanded to cover domestic political processes in Germany. Ahead of the September 2021 federal election, Yatom asked Hanning to approach leading candidates.

Describing CIY Global as a “political campaign company”, the former Mossad chief noted that he aimed to introduce its capabilities to German politicians, and he mentioned his intention in the same exchange to transfer documents concerning a cybersecurity firm.

Cybersecurity partnership and surveillance operations across Europe

The partnership between Yatom and Hanning reached beyond political lobbying initiatives into the cybersecurity sector.

Hanning reportedly served as a consultant for World Health Energy Holdings, a cybersecurity company linked to Yatom.

Firms of this type, established or managed by former intelligence personnel, provide commercial platforms on the international market for Israeli-origin surveillance, cyber intelligence, and political influence capabilities.

The operational presence of private Israeli-based surveillance technologies across Europe has recently entered judicial records through scandals in Poland, Spain, and Greece.

Polish prosecutors announced on 12 October that data collected under the previous government via Pegasus spyware against political opponents had been transferred out of the country, adding that manufacturer NSO Group maintained access to the technical infrastructure.

In Spain, the 2022 CatalanGate investigation established that at least 65 people, including politicians, lawyers, and civil society representatives, were targeted using Pegasus or Candiru software, with Citizen Lab researchers publishing strong evidence linking the operation to Spanish authorities.

In Greece, the surveillance operation targeting journalist Thanasis Koukakis and Member of the European Parliament Nikos Androulakis was determined to have used Predator software, linked to Intellexa, a company founded by former Israeli intelligence officer Tal Dilian.

In the German espionage investigation, the traffic between Hanning and Yatom involving paid reporting, contacts with electoral candidates, and commercial partnerships does not yet provide conclusive legal evidence regarding the final destination of the roughly 2,000 classified documents.

Nevertheless, the disclosed correspondence gives German investigators a concrete line of inquiry to assess whether classified state secrets reached commercial networks tied to Israeli intelligence.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Trump dismisses US envoy to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle

Published

on

US President Donald Trump has dismissed Kimberly Guilfoyle, the US ambassador in Athens, following serious press reports concerning her conduct.

White House Press Secretary Katie Zacharia told reporters during her first briefing that Guilfoyle had been asked to resign.

“She was doing a good job, but we didn’t like what we read in the press,” Trump said. “She was not a member of my family. I think she dated my son a long time ago.”

In a social media post, Guilfoyle stated: “These claims are unfounded, and I will resolutely defend my name, reputation, and integrity.” She added that she was particularly proud of the embassy’s work.

According to Kathimerini, her removal came as no surprise in Washington. Days of successive disclosures and vigorous exploitation of the matter by Democrats had been inflicting political damage on the White House ahead of the sensitive midterm elections.

The US State Department was instructed not to comment, with crisis management transferred entirely to the White House.

Reports indicate that most of the president’s team swiftly favoured Guilfoyle’s dismissal, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio was reportedly uneasy with the demonstratively warm public welcome she had staged for him.

Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee have called for an investigation.

“Her resignation does not absolve her of responsibility,” the lawmakers wrote, adding: “While American families struggled to make ends meet, she used her position as a Trump administration official to enrich herself.”

Chargé d’Affaires Josh Huck will assume ambassadorial duties until a successor is chosen.

Meanwhile, Guilfoyle’s departure is expected to cause delays in agreements between Greece and the US.

These include the so-called “Rubio package”, comprising approximately $4 billion in arms deals finalised only days before the secretary of state’s arrival.

Several procedural steps still remain before the contracts can be signed.

In Athens, opposition parties are demanding answers. Dimitris Mantzos of PASOK called for a detailed briefing on the agreements reached during Rubio’s visit.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey