DIPLOMACY

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

Published

13.03.2023 19:30

“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.

Up Next

The problem is the uncontrolled risk appetite of financial markets

Don't Miss

Green Deal of the West or Ecological Civilization of China?

Cansu Yiğit

DIPLOMACY

US overtakes China as Germany’s biggest trading partner

Published

3 days ago

10/05/2024

Harici.com.tr

The United States overtook China as Germany’s most important trading partner in the first quarter of this year, according to Reuters calculations based on official data from the Federal Statistical Office.

According to the data, Germany’s trade with the United States, the sum of exports and imports, totalled 63 billion euros ($68 billion) in the January-March period, while the figure for China was just under 60 billion euros.

With a volume of 253 billion euros, China was Germany’s largest trading partner for the eighth time in a row, a few hundred million dollars ahead of the US.

“While German exports to the US continued to rise due to the strong economy there, both exports to and imports from China fell,” said Commerzbank economist Vincent Stamer, explaining the change in the first quarter.

“China has moved up the value chain and is increasingly producing more complex goods itself, which it used to import from Germany. German companies are also increasingly producing locally instead of exporting goods from Germany to China,” Stamer said.

Germany has said it wants to reduce its trade with China, citing political differences and accusing Beijing of “unfair practices”. But Berlin has yet to take any major steps towards a policy of reducing dependency.

German imports of goods from China fell by almost 12 per cent in the first quarter from a year earlier, while German exports to China fell by just over 1 per cent, according to Juergen Matthes of the German economic institute IW.

“The fact that the US economy exceeded expectations, while the Chinese economy performed worse than many had hoped, probably contributed to this,” Matthes said.

Sales to the US currently account for around 10 percent of German goods exports. China’s share, on the other hand, has fallen below 6 per cent, Matthes said.

On the other hand, Dirk Jandura, head of the BGA trade association, said: “If the White House administration changes after the US elections in November and moves further in the direction of closing markets, this process could come to a standstill,” pointing out that the trend of Germany’s trade route shifting across the Atlantic could stop.

DIPLOMACY

BOTAŞ signs LNG deal with ExxonMobil

Published

4 days ago

09/05/2024

Harici.com.tr

Turkey’s Energy Minister Alparslan Bayraktar said state-owned gas network operator BOTAŞ signed an LNG trade agreement with ExxonMobil on Wednesday in a bid to diversify its sources.

Bayraktar said in a statement on social media platform X: “The US is one of the important countries from which we already receive LNG. With this agreement, which is intended to be long-term, we will take another step towards diversifying our resources,” Bayraktar said, adding that the agreement was signed in Washington.

Noting that Turkey is among the few countries in the world with its gasification capacity, the minister said, “We will continue to contribute to the energy security of our country and our region.

Bayraktar gave no further details of the deal. The energy ministry did not respond to a Reuters request for comment.

In an interview with the Financial Times in late April, Bayraktar said Turkey wanted to “build a new supply portfolio” in energy procurement and said it was in talks with US fossil fuel giant Exxon Mobil for 2.5 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) worth about $1.1 billion.

Bayraktar said Turkey was also in talks with other US natural gas producers for LNG deals, stressing that Turkey wanted to “diversify” its natural gas supplies before some of its contracts with Russia expire in 2025 and with Iran in 2026.

In addition to Russia, Azerbaijan and Iran, Turkey imports LNG from Algeria, Qatar, the US and Nigeria.

Russia is the country’s largest gas supplier. Last year, more than 40 per cent of its consumption was met with gas from that country.

DIPLOMACY

The World Bank’s ‘climate plan’: More expensive meat and dairy, cheaper chicken and vegetables

Published

5 days ago

08/05/2024

Harici.com.tr

A new paper published by the World Bank suggests that the billions of dollars spent by rich countries on CO2-intensive products such as red meat and dairy products should be redirected towards more ‘climate-friendly’ options such as poultry, fruit and vegetables.

The bank argues that this is one of the most cost-effective ways to save the planet from ‘climate change’.

According to POLITICO, the ‘politically sensitive’ proposal is one of several the World Bank has put forward to reduce pollution from the agriculture and food sector, which it says is responsible for nearly a third of global greenhouse gas emissions.

We have to stop destroying the planet while we feed ourselves,’ Julian Lampietti, the World Bank’s director of global practice for agriculture and food, told POLITICO.

The work comes at a strategic diplomatic moment, as signatories to the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius prepare to update their climate plans by the end of 2025.

While the world needs to accelerate emissions cuts to meet the Paris Agreement’s goals, the World Bank wants officials to pay more attention to the agriculture and food sector, which it says has long been neglected and underfunded.

To be serious about achieving zero emissions by 2050 – a common goal for developed economies – countries need to invest $260 billion a year in these sectors, the report says. That is 18 times more than countries are currently investing.

The World Bank argues that governments could partially close this gap by redirecting subsidies for red meat and dairy towards lower-carbon alternatives. The Bank argues that this shift is one of the most cost-effective ways for rich countries to reduce demand for highly polluting foods, which are estimated to produce around 20 per cent of global agri-food emissions.

As a result, the climate impact will be reflected in the cost of food, he adds.

Full-cost pricing of animal-based foods to reflect their true planetary costs would make low-emissions food options more competitive,” the report says, suggesting that switching to plant-based diets could save twice as much planet-warming gases as other methods.

Meat and dairy production account for nearly 60 percent of agri-food emissions, according to the World Bank.

Lampietti warns against focusing too much on “what not to do” and suggests paying more attention to “what to do”. Food is a ‘deeply personal choice’, Lampietti said, adding that he fears the debate, which should be data-driven, could turn into a culture war.

The biggest concern is that people start using this as a political football,” he said.