BY ZEYNEP GURCANLI
Hakan Fidan, who had influenced Turkey’s destiny from the ‘land of shadows’ for years as the National Intelligence Organization (MIT) Undersecretary/Director, appeared before deputies at the Parliament and answered questions during the Foreign Ministry budget talks at the Parliament’s Planning and Budget Commission.
Fidan chose not to touch on troubled issues in his first challenging test before the public. For instance, he never talked about the U.S.-Turkey tension. He preferred not to mention the U.S. while complaining about the international support to PYD/YPG, the PKK terrorist organization’s proxy in Syria.
Fidan’s presentation didn’t detail Turkey’s long-standing veto on NATO enlargement and why the right to veto was used or was lifted. Fidan even touched on the relations with Russia through the Ukraine war. He didn’t mention national interests with Moscow in Syria and Libya and their effects.
Instead, he talked about the Gaza issue at length. It was a very comfortable area for the Foreign Minister to talk about, considering that the operation by Israel against Gaza, which has reached genocide, brought the already existing sympathy of the Public in Turkey towards the Palestinian people to a peak.
THE KURDISH ISSUE, AFGHANISTAN AND CYPRUS
Hakan Fidan answered the questions posed by the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (HEDEP) deputies about the Kurdish issue by distinguishing the Kurdish identity from the PKK terrorist organization. He held Turkey’s good relations with the Kurdistan Region administration in Northern Iraq up as an example of this situation and said, “We are categorically the enemy of the PKK.”
The two interesting points in Fidan’s speech were his description of relations with Afghanistan as pragmatic engagement and remarks about Cyprus.
Fidan’s expressions made it clear that the two-state solution initiated for the Cyprus dispute was equalizing the statuses of Turkish and Greek Cypriots first and then coming to the table. That statement evoked a confederation system in Cyprus rather than the two independent states in Cyprus.
CRITICISM OF THE EU FOR “CIVILIZATIONISM”
The most salient part of Fidan’s speech was about the relations with Europe.
Fidan stated that the AK Party government is determined to maintain the European Union (EU) membership process. He explained the obstacles against Turkey with a civilizationism approach and said:
“One has to denigrate another nationality or culture to widen his base and has to factionalize it so that he can canvass. When you create votes and power from here, it inevitably is reflected in your foreign policy, and you cannot do anything. The EU chose identity politics due to the imposition of its internal policy. This situation isn’t relevant to us.”
Of course, Fidan used this statement as a criticism of European politicians. However, this expression may create other evocations for Turkish citizens, considering the AK Party government’s habit of using foreign policy for domestic political purposes, especially in recent years.
COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND POLITICAZITON OF THE JUDICIARY
Deputies also asked Fidan about the fact that Turkey has been in a fix in the Council of Europe as it hasn’t implemented the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision to release Kavala and Demirtas. The Foreign Minister answered that some cases concerning Turkey are politicized in Europe. Then, he said:
“The answer to a politicized case will also be political. Dear deputies, there is nothing wrong with that. Well, they understood when we said this. Come to us with principles; don’t politicize. When you politicize, you become a part of the internal political competition and struggle in Turkey.”
There are decisions of an international court that Turkey officially recognizes. Of course, foreign politicians may want to use these decisions against Turkey. But does the same politicized manner by Turkey against the actions of these politicians befit a country with the Constitution where “the rule of law” is written?
If only Fidan had answered the questions about this issue as he did about the questions by deputies who criticized MIT’s failure not to be pre-informed about July 15, he shouldn’t have answered at all…
