CHP deputy chair calls Turkish government’s foreign policy ‘uncertain’

Professor İlhan Uzgel, the main opposition Republican People’s Party’s (CHP) deputy chair for foreign policy, invited Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan to explain what he meant by saying “(Kurds in Syria) know their homework towards Turkey,” in an interview with Duvar.

In a presentation at the Parliament on Nov. 21, Fidan also argued, “Turkey is the only protector of Kurds across the border,” which drew ire.

In the interview, Uzgel commented on Turkey’s policies on the Middle East, the implications of the US elections, and Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan’s statements regarding the region and the Kurds.

Below is the full translation of the interview with Uzgel. 

On Nov. 21, Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan made a presentation summarizing one year of foreign policy to the members of the Planning and Budget Commission at the Parliament as part of the 2025 budget talks of the Foreign Affairs Ministry. What did you think of Fidan's presentation?

I found it very problematic. The title of it was 'Determined Foreign Policy in an Age of Uncertainty'. A more appropriate title would have been the age of uncertainty and uncertain foreign policy. It is even unclear whether Turkey has applied for BRICS membership. Are you making an effort to be a member here or not? This is also uncertain. Why a determined foreign policy? What is determined about it? None of this is clear. Even conceptualization has serious problems.

Yes, the world is in an uncertain period, but there are some elements that are certain, such as rising geopolitical concerns. Under such conditions, there is no single statement on what the main strategy of a country like Turkey, which has a very critical geographical location, should be. We are talking about a foreign policy without principles, without a plan, without a program, without a strategy.

In his presentation, the Minister more or less described the foreign policy activities of a country of this size like Turkey as a success story. The elements he mentioned are activities that have already been carried out since the establishment of the Republic of Turkey. Doing daily, routine work was presented as if it was a great foreign policy success. I think the most important problems in the Minister's presentation were the following: Firstly, the lack of vision and strategy, and secondly, the lack of policy at the most critical points, or if there is a policy on the subject, there is indecision in presenting it.

Hakan Fidan's presentation also summarized Turkey's policies, actions, and practices in the face of the Israeli-Palestinian war. Firstly, he mentioned the suspension of trade and secondly, Turkey officially intervened in the lawsuit filed by South Africa. Similarly, he mentioned the joint steps taken with the Arab League. How would you evaluate this part of the speech and the policy pursued?

All of these are extremely ineffective, limited, and without any results. What is happening in Gaza and even in the West Bank and Lebanon has turned into a massacre, one of the biggest massacres of the 21st century. Not only was there no effective initiative to bring results, but we also witnessed the continuation of the trade underneath. The government has had the following function: By defining itself as the defender of the Palestinian cause, it politicized Palestinian sociality in itself. It told the society that 'we, as a state, own the Palestinian cause, you don't need to do anything'. Erdoğan has defined himself from here since the 'one minute' incident. He sent the message to the society that if something is to be done about Palestine, he will do it. For example, in the West, there are protests on university campuses and streets because governments do not take any steps against Israel. At this point, Erdoğan absorbed that reaction and did not take any serious steps. This was a policy that worked in Israel's favor. Harsh statements against Israel are therefore of no importance.

President Erdoğan said, “Just like we entered Karabakh, just like we entered Libya, we might do similar to (Israel).”

Yes, but then he also said 'Israel will attack us'. These kinds of outbursts lower the tone. In response to this, the Israeli Foreign Minister's statements led to an almost unseemly polemic between the two leaders. Why should Israel complain about this... So, to summarize, it was to Israel's benefit that Erdoğan expressed all the political reaction, on the other hand, the trade somehow continued, nothing was done except for a few diplomatic steps, why should Israel complain about this...

On the other hand, there are claims that a new security/political landscape will be built in the Middle East that includes Iran, Israel, and the Gulf. Considering this claim, do you think Turkey is prepared for such a change?

It is normal for Turkey to have contacts and relations with the countries in its region. The problem is taking sides in the tensions between the countries in the region. For example, we took sides in the Qatar-UAE tension, which is why Turkey was marginalized in the Gulf. As Minister Fidan said, he was able to attend the Turkey-Gulf Cooperation Council High Level Strategic Dialogue Meeting after eight years. The question here should be 'Why weren't you there for eight years?' This is not right, be part of the problems and then be very close. We have experienced this with many countries. There is even a joke: Whichever country the government signed a high-level strategic cooperation agreement with, it fought with them. 

This is not foreign policy. The government should have known how to establish normal relations. We have spent the last 20 years paying the price of these mistakes. Therefore, they are now offering us compensation for these losses as foreign policy.

Developments in Syria constitute another important pillar. In his presentation, Foreign Minister Fidan mentioned the Astana process and ongoing talks with the US. He did not give any other details. How do you see the Syria policy and Trump's possible impact on it?

Syria is Turkey's most serious foreign policy and security problem in the history of the republic, to which the AKP government partly contributed. Here we saw that such an important issue was glossed over in one sentence. As CHP, we say that our first priority foreign policy issue will be Syria. Syria is a security and foreign policy wreck, to which the government has also contributed greatly. One wonders, 'Mr. Minister, did you quickly pass over the problem you created with a single sentence out of a sense of guilt?' At the time in question, he was in a critical position as the head of the National Intelligence Organization (MİT). So he was familiar with this issue. Moreover, even the Syrian National Army is now under the control of MİT. Therefore, it is not possible to understand this evasion. It was not right to come to the Parliament and pass over Syria so briefly. Syria was the subject that you should have devoted space to, that you should have elaborated on. Moreover, there is an expression used by the Minister that astonished me.

What is it?

To a question from CHP lawmaker Sezgin Tanrıkulu, Mr. Fidan replied: 'If the people there (Kurds in Syria) have good intentions, they know their homework towards Turkey.'* I think the minister let this slip, because this statement is not in the text of the speech.

He can't just say that because this is a very critical statement. Who does he mean by people in Syria? Is he close enough to give homework, is there a contact? If so, in which way were these contacts established? What kind of homework was given? I invite Mr. Fidan to explain this sentence. Did he make a statement in connection with the process we are going through, which is being carried out persistently through (MHP leader) Devlet Bahçeli, is there a relationship between them? Is there or is there not a connection between the Syrian 'people' knowing their homework and Bahçeli's statements such as 'Let (jailed PKK leader Abdullah) Öcalan come and talk in the Parliament, let DEM Party talk to Öcalan, let the weapons be laid down'? The ruling bloc has to clarify these issues.

Another topic that Minister Fidan touched upon was Iraq. When Erdoğan visited Iraq last April, there were expectations that Iraq would recognize the PKK as a terrorist organization and that joint operations would be carried out, but this did not happen. The Development Road Project was also on the agenda. However, as far as I know, the Kirkuk-Ceyhan Oil Pipeline between Turkey and Iraq has not even been opened yet. How do you interpret Turkey's Iraq policy?

Turkey is seriously pushing Iraq for a large-scale operation. However, Iraq has its own agenda and they are not satisfied with this. Iraq wants to be a normal country. They don't want to become a country where there are big operations and conflicts within the country. However, Turkey is a very big country and one of Iraq's exit points and a serious trade partner. Therefore, they partially responded to Turkey's demands. Iran's influence in Iraq has increased a lot for a while. As Iran's influence increases, Turkey's influence decreases.

In fact, what Fidan is trying to do is to restore the broken relations. He is working towards this. We see this a lot in the AKP, they present this as a great success while they are picking up what they have destroyed. We have seen this in relations with Egypt and the Gulf. There is an understanding of governing that doesn't mind contradicting its own principles and rhetoric. In fact, this is more or less what we are experiencing, Iraq was no exception.

Ukraine was only briefly mentioned in the minister's speech. He did not address relations with Russia under a special heading, he summarized the past periods. On the other hand, Trump and Putin are expected to hold talks on Ukraine. Do you think Turkey is ready for a possible change in its north under Trump?

No, they are not prepared for anything. The AKP government has created so many problems in foreign policy that it has had to adopt an underhanded style in dealing with them. This was also the case in negotiations with Egypt, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Greece. Lastly, in Syria, we gave the image of a country almost begging for talks with Assad.

At this point, both your interlocutors and your rivals took advantage of this. Turkey cannot place itself in the world system adequately with a foreign policy understanding that does not find the opportunity to chase and try to recover what it has broken. For example, where do the government and Mr. Minister see Turkey? What kind of Turkey do they envision? There is no information on these. For example, Trump was elected for a second term, but before that there was a great expectation that Trump would be elected and the AKP would do well. This is a very sad situation for a country of Turkey's size.

While we could have been an influential and decisive country in the politics of the region, we are now looking like a country that fulfills its daily routine, that wants to pursue a policy of balance, but instead is swinging back and forth, towards the West, towards Russia, towards BRICS, towards the EU.

What do you think of Turkey’s application to BRICS?

We don't know yet if it has officially applied. But if it has applied, there is nothing BRICS can give to Turkey right now. There is no need to be in a hurry for this. As a party, we are aware that the global system is changing and transforming, so we are not categorically against BRICS. There is a rise of the global South. The importance and place of these countries in the world system has increased. We follow the BRICS and the Global South phenomenon very closely. When the time comes, Turkey can be a part of BRICS, but the government sees this as a very simplified, easily decoded foreign policy move. As part of a foreign policy strategy, BRICS or the Global South is seen as a short-term bargaining tool, not as a quest in a multipolar world. We object to this.

But are we not in a very uncertain period? Aren't the positions of the countries that can say that also changing?

Yes, you are right. There is serious uncertainty and confusion in the world. But Turkey is one of the countries managing this situation the worst. It was possible to create a more autonomous and wider foreign policy space. Turkey tried to create this autonomy but failed. This is the main problem. In the process we are going through, we do not see a Turkey that plays in global balances with a planned foreign policy strategy. It has become a country that goes to one side, does not get what it wants and goes to the other side. This is our main problem. In other words, both the EU and BRICS are distancing themselves from Turkey.

The government seems to be pleased with Trump's re-election. First of all, why is Trump a better president for the government? Didn't Trump write perhaps one of the harshest letters in history to Turkey, to Erdoğan? Do you think Turkey is ready for the Trump era? What kind of preparation has it made?

For a country the size of Turkey, I find such an expectation regarding the US elections disturbing. It is very problematic to be in a state of mind that is indexed to who will be president in the US. Turkey should not be left with the assessment that if Trump comes, it will be good for us, if Harris comes, it will be bad for us. As CHP, we neither rejoiced nor mourned Trump's arrival. Turkey should be a country that can stand on its own feet. Of course, every country in the world closely followed the US election and its possible consequences. However, the fact that the government is rejoicing is a sign of weakness. Of course, Erdoğan and Trump's management style, which bypasses institutions, and Erdoğan's expectation to solve problems leader by leader are effective here. Because in his previous term, this method worked partially, they both looked at politics like running a business, they thought that Trump would take care of Erdoğan and this would be solved. However, as Trump has started to shape his cabinet, hopes seem to have given way to pessimism.

How do you find Trump’s cabinet? 

There are many names in the cabinet who have historically been anti-Turkey. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have at times had harsh words against Turkey and Erdoğan. Rubio, like Bob Menendez, was a senator and played a role in the arms sale to Southern Cyprus. These are names that will challenge Turkey. These names could hinder Erdoğan's strategy of managing the process through Trump.

Finally, Trump announced 25 percent tariffs on Mexico and Canada, two neighbors whose immigration policies he has criticized. He had already stated that he would pursue a tougher tariff policy towards China. On the other hand, talks between Turkey and China are ongoing in areas such as energy and critical minerals. Similarly, it is rumored that a Chinese street (China Town) will be created in the Manisa province for the factory to be built by the Chinese automotive company BYD. How will Trump approach these trade relations between Turkey and China?

China has developed trade relations with every country in the world. In fact, European countries and the US are its biggest trading partners. It invests all over the world, Turkey being one of them. Unless Turkey establishes a strategic relationship with China, which Turkey does not, meaning Turkey does not buy weapons from China, Turkey does not act in strategic cooperation in certain regions. These are important for the US. Since Turkey does not have such a relationship with China, there will not be a big problem in relations with the US.

*In the relevant minutes of the Commission, Fidan's assessment is as follows:

“The PKKization of the Kurds in Syria is something we are very much against. If the people there have good intentions, they know their homework towards Turkey. All PKK cadres from Turkey, Iraq and Iran should be sent away and the Syrians there should stay, but these are separate issues, they know that it will not happen, they know that it is another issue, but as I said, we have always been sensitive about the Kurds across the border.”