FROM AUTHORS
Namık Tan

New Global Mediator : China

27 March 2023
PAYLAŞ

In about two months’ time, Turkey will hold perhaps the most important election in the history of the Republic. On the eve of such an election, which will determine the fate of the country, the people are faced with the unprecedented material and moral destruction caused by an earthquake, which has been described as the disaster of the century. In this difficult period of frustration and fatigue in the country, no one is properly interested in what is happening in the world. However, very important developments are taking place in the international arena that also concern Turkey’s future.

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in its second year

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has entered its second year. In a vote in the United Nations (UN) General Assembly last month on the anniversary of the aggression, 141 of the 193 UN member states once again condemned Russia’s aggression. However, there was no consensus among those who voted for or against the resolution on how to resolve this issue. There was, so to speak, a voice from every head.

On the other hand, the massive arms aid provided by the US and the European Union (EU) to Ukraine has not yet made the expected difference in terms of pushing Russia back. The economic sanctions against Russia have also not yielded the desired results. On the contrary, the sanctions have not only severely shaken the economies of Western countries, but have also raised questions about the sustainability of unity and solidarity on the anti-Russian front.

Political economic turmoil in the US

In the meantime, we should not lose sight of the serious political and economic turmoil going on in the US. On the one hand, the Biden administration is trying to keep the anti-Russian front intact, on the other hand, it is trying to prevent Donald Trump and his supporters from regaining power. In addition, the recently erupted banking crisis is also straining the country’s economy and the reputation of the dollar.

We also need to take into account that by the end of 2023, the presidential election process will begin in the US and that the Democratic Party in particular has not taken any significant steps in terms of nominating a candidate. Add to this the fact that former President Donald Trump has yet to be held to account, and it becomes clear that in the coming period, the US may have to focus on potential political turmoil at home before global problems.

China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia

While the Russia-US rivalry is being dragged into a deadlock in this way, we are witnessing interesting moves by China in the cold war that the US has initiated with China. In the past few days, China first mediated the restoration of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran. This mediation attempt, which was successful, caused a significant surprise in the world public opinion.

Then, for the first time since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine, Chinese President Xi Jinping paid a 3-day visit to Russia. In his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping discussed, among other things, the 12-point peace plan proposed by China to end the war in Ukraine. Putin said they had analysed the plan in detail and called Xi “my dear friend”. Xi, on the other hand, praised Putin’s “strong leadership”.

He said he was confident that the Russian people would re-elect Putin as President in 2024. He emphasised the importance of the close relationship between Russia and China. During their meeting in Moscow, the two leaders also signed an agreement on “deepening comprehensive partnership”.

China’s Trump cards

With these two moves, China has shown its rivals that it has important trump cards that can change the balance in the new generation cold war with the US. It will be remembered that a few years ago, China signed an economic cooperation agreement with Iran worth 400 billion dollars. It is clear that China will use this agreement, which is particularly important in terms of oil purchases from Iran, to drive a wedge between Saudi Arabia and Iran and to consolidate its energy needs through Saudi oil. It is also possible that China may be aiming to further distance Saudi Arabia, whose relations with the US have been strained recently, from the US.

On the other hand, China’s mediation move may also be perceived as a message to Russia in a sense, as it shows that it has alternative sources to its oil purchases from Russia. It is known that almost half of Russia’s annual revenues come from oil and gas sales. Finally, it is extremely meaningful that China has been able to attract two countries that have problems with the West to its side with a peaceful move.

On the other hand, China has given the impression that it is ready to be a conciliatory actor in issues far beyond its region. After the Iran-Saudi Arabia deal, it is clear that if China can take another step towards global peace, it will earn Xi a lot of credit.

Xi Jinping’s visit to Moscow

The fact that Iran and Saudi Arabia prefer China for mediation instead of, for example, Turkey is thought-provoking for us. It is interesting to note that Iran, which once agreed to Turkey’s mediation offer together with Brazil in order to overcome its nuclear problems, did not think of making a request to its neighbour this time, nor did Saudi Arabia make a similar request.

The official visit of China’s leader to Russia at a time when the Kremlin is under great international pressure is a clear show of support for both Russia and its leader Putin. However, by presenting a peace plan to stop the Russian aggression in Ukraine on the occasion of the visit, China also drew attention to the fact that its support for Russia is essentially peaceful. Indeed, in its message to the world community, China is saying that the sovereignty of all nations (i.e. Ukraine) must be respected, but that the “legitimate security concerns” of other countries (i.e. Russia) must also be respected. This is a skilful diplomatic move.

Visit message to the US

It is clear that Xi Jinping’s visit to Moscow also sent a message to the United States. In this way, Xi showed that Russia is not alone against the US and the West. Indeed, the Kremlin, which is known to have to increase its trade with China, especially in the energy sector, in order to counter Western sanctions and keep its economy functioning, needed such a message. In addition, in response to the harsh messages of President Biden and administration officials and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s statements such as “We should prepare for more conflict in Ukraine”, Xi emphasised the discourse of reconciliation and peace and underlined that China is not in favour of conflict. In this context, China did not neglect to emphasise that it is not in favour of direct arms supplies to Russia.

It can be said that Xi Jinping’s frequent expressions of being personal friends with Putin during the visit were the result of a conscious choice aimed at disturbing the US. It may even be thought that the US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan last year, despite China’s opposition, may have been aimed at causing a similar disturbance in the US as the one caused in China.

Currently, China is the most powerful country in the world according to purchasing parity. If you consider it together with Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia in its neighbourhood, China is the world’s largest economic power.

Today, China is also at the forefront of technology. In the field of artificial intelligence, renewable energy, space technology, and the management of oceans and arctic resources, China is trying to play a dominant role. The US, perceiving such a China as a threat, is trying to continue the new generation cold war, which it started in order to prevent China’s gradual rise to prominence, without slowing down.

At a time when global alignment is becoming more evident, we need to closely follow the development of this cold war in order to protect our interests and take the right position. However, we are busy fighting with ourselves in the narrow lane of domestic politics.

YAZAR

Namık Tan

Ambassador (R). Served as Turkey’s ambassador in Tel Aviv and Washington. Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson, chief of cabinet for the minister and deputy undersecretary for political affairs in the Foreign Ministry. He joined the Ministry in 1982. Worked in Turkish Embassies in Moscow, Abu Dhabi and trice in Washington.

Tüm Yazıları

İlgili Yazılar

Russia is Playing With Fire; Settling Scores with the West

3 March 2022

The Ukraine crisis has shown that the use of force in the 21st century can cause serious public backlash. And even in countries that are party to the conflict, the public antagonizes against harming civilians.

 

Reports that only 12 percent of the Russian population is supporting the war against Ukraine – if accurate – illustrate this point. While some Russian soldiers in Ukraine are hesitant to use their weapons and parts of Russian society protest against the war, these realities will not cause Putin to reverse his course.

 

And while public outcry in the West is also important, it does not automatically lead to western policies that will force his hand either. Polls suggest that an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose Putin’s war but 73 percent of Americans are also opposing direct US intervention in Ukraine. Especially with support for President Joe Biden declining since the Afghanistan withdrawal fiasco and concerns about his health rising, he does not enjoy the political mandate needed to take decisions that can lead to American casualties. The fact that Vice President Kamala Harris isn’t able to fill this (perceived) leadership vacuum makes matters more concerning. Adding to this dynamic is Mr. Donald Trump returning to the political arena as an isolationist presidential candidate with 40 percent of Americans believing the last Presidential elections were stolen from him.

 

American and European indecisiveness exposed

 

Biden was already on shaky ground among allies. His failure to properly manage the withdrawal from Afghanistan caused further disappointment among European friends of the United States. European citizens are also questioning the leadership qualities of their own politicians. The Prime Minister of United Kingdom, mr. Boris Johnson, doesn’t instill trust, and French President Emmanuel Macron is not taken seriously either. The other European power, Germany, is still mourning the loss of Angela Merkel, while her successor Chancellor Olaf Scholz has clearly difficulty filling her shoes.

 

Like their American counterparts, Europeans are tired of policing the world and anti-war sentiment in European countries is higher than ever. With the pandemic nearing an end, the average citizen wants to enjoy European prosperity while avoiding tension and conflict. This popular sentiment rendered European defense budgets lower than ever and the appetite for military adventures even lower.

 

While all of the above was already well known, the Ukraine crisis caused these realities to be more visible. If Russia hadn’t overplayed its hand in Ukraine, it would have been very difficult to establish harmony on the need to focus on collective security among NATO member states. But instead, we are now withnessing a growing realization that Russia’s recent violations of international law pose a clear and present danger to the rule-based order the West was enjoying for the past 7 decades. NATO allies are now closing ranks to an extent that was difficult to imagine only weeks ago.

 

Putin wants to settle Cold War scores

 

The Ukraine crisis in many ways served as a wake-up call to a world that was moving away from a rule-based order, and brought about a consensus that a new version of the Cold War is loading bringing about extreme risks for humanity.

 

The West under American leadership brought Soviet Russia to its heel 30 years ago, but neglected building a security infrastructure that anticipated the needs of the 21st century. Blinded by their excitement of “winning” the Cold War, our leaders didn’t realize solidarity among NATO members was slowly but surely weakening. While many analysts today like to speak about a new cold war with China, Russia’s attack on Ukraine exposes that some scores of the old Cold War were not yet settled. The international community is now realizing the need to truly end the cold war that began in the 20th century.

 

Russia’s KGB-trained leader was clearly more aware of the disintegration of the West and was looking for an opportunity to avenge its defeat in the cold war. He decided that it was time to hold us accountable for the collapse of the Soviet Union, an historic event which he described as “the disaster of the century”. And by attacking Ukraine, he has taken a road of no return.

 

Is reconciliation possible?

 

It is no longer likely that a compromise can be reached with Russia and considering a nuclear escalation is no longer unimaginable. Similarly, the West cannot back down as policymakers realize that every concession made on Ukraine would result in fundamental concepts such as sovereignty and territorial integrity losing their significance. Consequently, the Ukraine crisis now poses a clear and present danger to global peace and security. While many commentators make references to the Cuban crisis of 1962, expressing hopes that common sense will eventually prevail, the comparison is flawed. The Soviets were ruled by a political elite with a head of state acting as a representative of the ruling class. While it was a totalitarian state in many ways, ultimately, the Soviet Union was not ruled by a classical dictator that resembles what mr. Putin has transformed into today.

 

The crisis is just beginning

 

The international community is trying to cope with externalities caused by the pandemic, while struggling to develop solutions to structural problems such as climate change, refugee crises, income inequality and energy security. These challenges leave little time to formulate, build and protect a balanced security architecture.

 

Moreover, global political leadership lacks the skills needed to manage these issues without causing a metaphorical hull-loss accident. And to make matters worse, recent developments such as the threat of terrorism and a global pandemic have already eroded our fundamental freedoms, while populist politics have undermined our democratic culture.

 

The lack of consensus culture and growing populism is leading to more authoritarianism and less international cooperation. And since it is not possible to solve the challenges we face without such essential ingredients, it is going to be very difficult to agree on a new and equitable global security architecture. The problem is that we must find a way to succeed despite these odds as the alternative is an unimaginably bleak future for humanity.

A MORIBUND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT IN A MAELSTROM OF PEAKS

1 July 2024

SUMMITS ON STAGE

In the last five years, when global politics has been heating up, the months of June have witnessed important Summits, especially in the Western world. June 2024 was in line with the recent pattern of Summits.

On June 13-15, the leaders of the G7 countries gathered in Apulia/Italy to mark the 50th anniversary of the G7, in the midst of a world-wide flux with the start of 2024. At the end of the summit, they issued a comprehensive Declaration setting out their positions on the fundamental issues shaking the world.

Immediately after the G7 Summit, the Ukraine Peace Conference was organized in Bürgenstock/Switzerland. 92 countries participated in this Conference . Within this framework, 60 Heads of State and Government and nearly 100 delegations took part in the Conference. Russia was not invited to the Conference and therefore China did not attend, while US President Biden did not take part in the Conference despite the intense efforts of Ukrainian

President Zelensky. Acting President Harris represented the US at the Conference. Foreign Minister Fidan attended the Conference from Turkey. At the end of the Conference, 80 countries signed the short “joint” Declaration. Therefore, not all participants were in agreement with the Declaration. For instance, India, which is an important actor in the Asia-Pacific alongside China and claims to be the voice of the “Global South”, as well as South Africa, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Mexico and the UAE were among the countries that attended the Conference but did not sign the Declaration. Turkey was among the countries that signed the Declaration.

Most recently, EU Heads of State and Government met on the occasion of the

Summit in Brussels on June 27-28. Prior to this Summit, on June 25, the EU Council decided to open accession negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova, which was expected but noteworthy.

The decisions taken at these three important Summits, which will shape the practices of the Western world in the coming period, can be summarized as follows:

G7 DECISIONS

As with many previous G7 Summit Communiqués, the latest G7 Summit

Communiqué is extremely comprehensive. It is observed that the Declaration assesses global challenges in a wide range and in almost every component. In this framework, an analysis of the Declaration, which consists of nearly 200 paragraphs and 32 separate chapters, reveals that the G7 summarizes the global challenges as follows:

  • Continue to show solidarity with Ukraine in its fight for freedom from Russian occupation and in rebuilding its economy and infrastructure, no matter how long it takes. In this context, the proceeds from Russia’s frozen assets abroad, amounting to some $50 billion, should be used to rebuild Ukraine in accordance with national and international law.
  • An immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the release of all hostages and a credible path to peace that leads to a two-state solution. In this context, implement UNSCR 2735 and provide substantial and sustainable humanitarian assistance to Gaza.
  • Engaging African countries in a spirit of equitable and strategic partnership. In this context, increase efforts to invest in the sustainable infrastructure of African countries.
  • Empower countries to invest in their future and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Support the creation of better, bigger and more effective Multilateral Development Banks to increase the World Bank’s lending capacity by $70 billion over the next decade. Mobilize the international community to address countries’ debt burden.
  • Reaffirm commitment to gender equality. Together with International

Financial Institutions, release at least $20 billion to empower women.

  • Address the triple crisis of climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss, and commit to National-Scale Contributions to meet the ambitious target of 1.5 degrees Celsius increase in global climate. Lead global efforts to protect forests, oceans and end plastic pollution.
  • Addressing the challenges and opportunities posed by migration in partnership with countries of origin and transit. Focusing on the root causes of irregular migration, improving border management, preventing transnational organized crime, identifying routes to make migration orderly and safe, preventing migrant smuggling.
  • Deepen cooperation to harness the benefits of Artificial Intelligence. In this context, support the implementation of the International Code of Conduct for Organizations Developing Advanced Artificial Intelligence.
  • Encourage strong and inclusive global economic development, ensure financial stability, promote employment in economic investment, and accelerate the transition to digital and clean energy. Continue the commitment to strengthen the rules-based multilateral trading system and implement an international tax system that is more stable, fair and fit for the 21st century.
  • Promote economic resilience, oppose non-market policies and practices aimed at undermining a level playing field in economic relations and economic security; coordinate to address global (productive) overcapacity challenges.

The salient features of the G7 Declaration can be summarized as follows:

  • While reaffirming the commitment of the G7 member states to the system of values on which the Western world is based and their determination to maintain a rules-based world order, the Declaration paints a picture of the current global environment that is evolving towards multipolarity, with inclusive, broad representation for all stakeholders, multilateral pursuits and initiatives, based on the rule of law as a value, aiming at the spread of global prosperity, and in this context, envisaging more openness to the “Global South” with a focus on Africa and more cooperation with this geographical belt.
  • The Declaration reflects the spirit of a period of heightened geopolitical tensions. In this framework, it is observed that the G7 has preferred to prioritize geopolitical and geostrategic issues, while its decisions on other issues of concern to the global order have been included in the lower sections of the Declaration.
  • In the very comprehensive Declaration, 17 paragraphs are devoted to Ukraine. This is followed by the Gaza issue with 10 paragraphs and China with 9 paragraphs under the sub-heading

“Indo-Pacific”. It is interesting to note that the “China question” is mentioned after Ukraine, Gaza, freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, Iran and Africa. Therefore, it is noteworthy that China is not mentioned under a separate heading in the Declaration. In the writings on China, there seems to be a preference for dialogue and engagement with this country. The necessity of cooperation with China in areas such as the climate crisis, biodiversity, global environmental pollution including plastics, combating synthetic drug trafficking, ensuring macroeconomic stability, promoting global health security, and the sustainability of the economies and financial needs of vulnerable debtor countries is recognized. On the other hand, a stance is taken against China’s use of its economic power as a coercive threat multiplier, especially in its region, the escalation caused by its military actions in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, its preference for routes that could disrupt world supply chains, including critical minerals, and the unfair competition that occurs globally through the Chinese economy’s surplus production and subsidization of its companies. Despite this stance, the G7 countries reaffirm in the Declaration that they continue to support the One China Policy. It is not possible to argue that the consensual spellings used for China are compatible with the rising US-China competition. In this context, it can be said that the non-confrontational wording in the Declaration reflects the consensus between the US and other G7 member states.

  • Another striking feature of the Declaration is the inclusion of a series of initiatives and projects, with a focus on Africa, to win over, so to speak, the “Global South”, where the three major powers (the United States, Russia and China) are in competition, and to positively change the outlook and attitudes of the societies in this belt towards the rich “Global North”. In the context of its relations with the West, the door is open for the “Global South” to take advantage of the current situation of heightened strategic competition to advance its collective interests.
  • The Declaration emphasizes the importance of sustainability and diversification of global supply (and value) chains, the establishment of new chains, and the importance of connectivity at the global level. In this context, the Declaration includes references to the G7 Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII) Initiative, including the EU Global Gateway Initiative, among the economic corridors to be promoted, invested in and financially supported. Middle Corridor The inclusion of the Middle Corridor in the list of projects to be supported is noteworthy. In the context of connectivity, which is one of the direct subjects of global competition, the inclusion of the Middle Corridor among the projects to be supported is undoubtedly important and Turkey should continuously seek ways to benefit from this situation.
  • It is noteworthy that the Declaration refers to the Black Sea in the context of the importance of the “Grain from Ukraine” initiative announced by President Zelensky and the EU’s “Solidarity Lanes” project (which includes the Black Sea) in ensuring uninterrupted transportation of grain, food products, fertilizers and agricultural inputs from Ukraine to countries in need.
  • The sections of the Declaration dealing with innovative and breakthrough technologies, which are both a core issue of geopolitical contestation and an area for cooperation, also contain noteworthy insights and assessments. In this context, the commitment to provide the necessary support for the realization of small modular reactors with advanced technologies, including microreactors, which are candidates to replace conventional systems in the current civilian nuclear energy field, is important and will undoubtedly be followed up. Similarly, the transition from fission technology in nuclear reactors, which poses many safety risks, to a fusion-based system has been emphasized. In this context, it is important and imperative that Ankara prioritizes actively participating in fusion-based nuclear energy projects and initiatives, which will involve much more advanced technologies, instead of conventional nuclear energy cooperation that will bring dependence on Russia.
  • The Declaration also includes sections on symmetrical and asymmetrical current challenges such as economic-social challenges caused by irregular migration, measures to prevent irregular migration, meeting commitments and implementing decisions taken to strengthen gender equality and the social role of women, implementing anti-corruption initiatives and strengthening cyber security. In this context, the Declaration provides a concrete basis for these important areas of direct and close concern for Turkey.
  • In the Declaration, it is seen that among the groundbreaking technologies, Artificial Intelligence is predominantly evaluated and the importance of global cooperation in the regulation and management of this technology, which will have wide-ranging consequences both in the digitalization process and in sectors such as economy-trade-production-labor, is emphasized. It is noteworthy that the same idea is also being addressed in the field of quantum technologies. In this context, it is vital for Turkey to consider these two technology sectors outside of vicious domestic political disputes. The use of outer space and the profound socioeconomic impact of space technologies should be added to this. As a matter of fact, it is no coincidence that the use of outer space and its effects on economic and social life are covered extensively in the Declaration.
  • Unfortunately, the shallow agenda indexed to domestic politics, which unfortunately prevails in Turkey, did not make it possible to evaluate the various components of the G7 Summit decisions in a satisfactory framework, and the only issue that was brought to the attention of the public was limited to the issue of the use of the income from Russia’s assets abroad to support Ukraine. The fact that the decisions of the last G7 Summit, which is one of the most important formations of the Western world and which includes countries with which we have intensive relations in terms of Turkish economy, trade and defense, were pushed to the background of the agenda from the perspective of the universal values that the civilized world is trying to defend on the one hand, and the various components of the G7 vision for the coming decades on the other hand, revealed an exemplary but not surprising picture.

UKRAINE PEACE CONFERENCE

The Ukraine Peace Conference hosted by Switzerland on June 15-16 can be interpreted on its own merits. On the other hand, it should be noted that this Conference is a new link in the process triggered by the 10–Point Plan presented by President Zelensky to the G20 Summit in Bali, Indonesia in November 2022.

The Plan is expected to include nuclear safety, food security for Asian and African countries, Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, the release of prisoners of war and the return to Ukraine of Ukrainian children taken to Russia during the war, the restoration of the 1991 Russian-Ukrainian border, and the withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory, It is known to include punishment for Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine, compensation for the environmental damage caused to Ukraine by the war, security guarantees for Ukraine against possible future Russian aggression, and the organization of a peace conference and an international treaty.

In the run-up to the Peace Conference in Switzerland to achieve peace in

Ukraine, a series of conferences were held in Copenhagen in June 2023, in Jeddah in August 2023, hosted by Malta in October 2023 and on the margins of the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2024.

Each of the five Peace Conferences, including the one in Switzerland, addressed the various components of Ukraine’s 2022 Plan, emphasizing elements that could form the basis for a possible peace, but not a concrete peace agreement, but a framework for the process leading to peace.

Actors such as China, Brazil and India have emerged who see the fact that Russia, as a belligerent party, has not been invited to the Peace Conferences so far as a deficiency. On the eve of the Conference in Switzerland, Putin announced Russia’s conditions for a possible peace. Reiterating that the government elected by the Ukrainian people was illegitimate and should be “de-Nazified”, Putin stated that peace negotiations could begin immediately if Ukrainian troops withdrew from the Donbas region and if Ukraine remained a neutral country without nuclear weapons and thus renounced its NATO membership. It would be overly optimistic to expect Ukraine, which has suffered many casualties in the war, to accept these conditions in the current environment.

Despite the current pessimistic mood, a significant part of the international community continues to seek a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. The conferences held last year and the Peace Conference in June 2024 are manifestations of this quest.

At the end of the fifth Conference in Switzerland, a short Declaration was issued with three operative points. In its introduction, the main objective of the Conference was defined as “to foster a high-level dialogue towards identifying pathways towards a comprehensive, just and lasting peace for Ukraine”.

The Declaration, which emphasizes the obligation to respect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries, which are among the main principles of the UN Charter, as essentially included in the declarations of previous Conferences, has been seen to put forward a ‘vision’ for a possible peace focusing on the following three areas:

  • Any use of nuclear energy and nuclear facilities must be safe, secure, under safeguards established (by the IAEA) and environmentally sound. Ukraine’s nuclear power plants and facilities, including the Zaporizhya nuclear power plant, should be operated safely and securely under Ukraine’s full sovereign control and under IAEA guidelines and oversight. The threat or use of nuclear weapons in the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine is totally unacceptable.
  • Global food security relies on an uninterrupted supply of food and food products. In this context, free, full and secure commercial navigation and access to ports in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov are critical. Attacks against merchant vessels sailing on all sea lanes along this route and against civilian ports and their infrastructure are unacceptable. Food security must not be used as a tool of war. Ukraine’s agricultural products must be safely and freely available to interested third countries.
  • All prisoners of war must be released in full exchange. Ukrainian children deported and illegally displaced from Ukraine to Russia, as well as all other Ukrainian citizens similarly detained, should be returned to Ukraine.
  • It is believed that in order to achieve peace, it is necessary to engage all parties and establish a dialogue between them. It was therefore agreed to undertake concrete steps in the future to bring together representatives of all parties in the areas identified for this Conference.

The UN Charter, including the principles of respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all states, can/will serve to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine.

In fact, it can be argued that the 10-Point Plan announced by Ukraine in 2022 is gradually being implemented. For example, on March 17, the International Criminal Court (ICC) Arrest warrant  has been issued. This is in line with the

Plan’s proposal to “establish a special tribunal for Russia’s war crimes” in the “Justice” section. Likewise, the spirit of the G7 and EU decisions to collect the proceeds of Russia’s frozen assets abroad as a form of compensation for Ukraine is in line with the Ukraine Plan. The Peace Conference in Switzerland focused on three areas to advance the implementation of the Plan, which will be pursued in the future. In this way, the Peace Plan appears to be gradually being implemented without Russia.

Since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine in February 2022, Ankara has taken a cautious and prudent approach to the war that has erupted on its doorstep, seeking to find a middle ground between the two warring sides as much as possible. This has manifested itself in bringing the parties together at the Antalya Diplomatic Forum and in Istanbul, playing a role in the exchange of prisoners of war and in the rehabilitation of Ukrainian children who lost their parents in the war, and ensuring the implementation of the Grain Corridor under UN auspices.

Turkey’s participation in the Ukraine Peace Conference in Switzerland at the Foreign Minister level and its signature of the Declaration issued at the end of the Conference is in line with its policy since the beginning of the war. In this context, it is in Turkey’s interest for Ankara to actively participate in all peace initiatives and activities aimed at ending the war in Ukraine.

EU SUMMIT

The conclusions of the EU Summit held in Brussels on 27-28 June appear to be largely in line with the spirit and letter of the Conclusions announced on the occasion of the Summit on 21–22 March. 

On the decisions taken at the June 2024 EU Summit Results document consists of seven headings. The main topics are Ukraine, Middle East, Security and Defense, Competition, Other Items, Future Institutional Cycle and Roadmap for Future Work on Domestic Reforms.

The decisions on Ukraine broadly follow the conclusions of the previous Summit and are in line with those of the G7 Summit in June 2024. In this context, it is reiterated that political, financial, economic, humanitarian, military and diplomatic support to Ukraine will be sustained for as long as it takes and as intensively as needed. In short, the EU reaffirmed its will to strengthen Ukraine’s resilience and overall resilience against the Russian occupation. In addition, the EU welcomed the outcome of the Peace Conference held in Switzerland on June 15-16 and expressed its support for the principles and objectives set out in the Conference Declaration.

Under the Middle East heading, the EU position on the consequences of the Israeli-

Palestinian conflict is of course explained. In this context, the EU condemns the Hamas terrorist attacks and the unlawful Israeli operations in Gaza in response, which have resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians and innocent people, condemns the illegal settlements in the West Bank and the violence perpetrated by Israeli extremists against Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and emphasizes the need to preserve the Status of Jerusalem. In conclusion, the EU will support the political process leading to a two-state solution in which Israel and Palestine can exist side by side in peace, security and mutual recognition. It is noteworthy that the EU, referring to the legally binding nature of the UNSC Resolution 2735 as well as the ICJ judgment of 24 May 2024 in the face of the situation in Gaza, emphasized the necessity to apply it also in the context of the ground operations in Rafah.

Under the Middle East chapter, the EU also expresses its concern about the growing tensions between Israel and Lebanon and in this context, although not explicitly stated, it is reported that the threat against any EU member state is condemned in the strongest terms in the context of Lebanese Hezbollah leader Nasrallah’s warning to the SCGA.

Under the Security and Defense heading, closing the EU’s critical capability gaps, the

European Defense Industrial Strategy (EDIS) and the European Defense Industry Program (EDIP) and calls for work to be taken forward within the Council, Members and the Commission.

Among the decisions taken under the heading “Other Items”, the reference to the Black Sea is noteworthy. In this context, in light of the importance of the security and stability of the Black Sea, the Council tasks the Commission and the High

Representative to prepare a Joint Declaration to establish the EU’s strategic approach to the Black Sea.

Under this heading, it is noteworthy to point out that hybrid threats against the EU and its members, especially from Russia, have increased recently and that they will be resolutely counteracted.

Among the most important decisions of the last EU Summit was the appointment of the

EU’s top officials, which was the subject of intense negotiations and bargaining among

EU members. At this Summit, António Costa, the former socialist Prime Minister of Portugal, was elected President of the European Council for the next three years, Ursula von der Leyen, the current President of the Commission, was elected to remain in office, and Kaja Kallas, the Prime Minister of Estonia, was nominated as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

The main difference of the EU Summit from the previous one is that it adopted the

Strategic Agenda for the period 2024-2029. It is necessary to consider the five-year Agenda in conjunction with the Strategic Compass, which the EU announced in March 2022, in order to have a more holistic perspective.

The main lines of the EU Strategic Agenda document can be summarized as follows:

  • The global political scene is being reshaped in the face of strategic competition, growing instability in the world and attempts to undermine the “rules-based order”. In this context, global challenges include Russia’s war in Ukraine, the dramatic situation in the Middle East, the damage to nature and the environment caused by climate change, loss of biodiversity and pollution, and the opportunities and risks posed by innovative technologies.
  • The common values on which the EU is built represent its strength. Based on these values, the EU will resolutely support the international legal order, the UN and its Charter, and pursue efforts to promote global peace, justice and stability, as well as democracy, universal human rights and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals in all international fora. It will strive to make the reformed multilateral system more inclusive and effective. In this context, the EU seems to be moving away from the “effective multilateralism” approach that it has been advocating since the early 2000s towards “inclusive multilateralism“.
  • In a multi-polar geopolitical framework, the EU will adapt itself to the goal of becoming a “global strategic player” through internal and external adaptive measures in an environment where the world is becoming more confrontational, retail and uncertain.
  • In line with this ambitious goal, it will allocate more resources to security and defense and take steps to ensure that the European defense industry develops more capacity and capabilities. It will play a complementary role to NATO, the backbone of collective defense, and increase cooperation with transatlantic partners without prejudice to the commitments of NATO member states to the Alliance and the EU Treaties.
  • It will continue its fight against organized crime and transnational criminal activities, radicalization, terrorism and extremism.
  • The EU will strengthen its resilience, preparedness and capacity to prevent and respond to crises on the basis of a “whole-of-society approach”.
  • Taking into account the current geopolitical realities, it will take as a basis to admit its partners aiming to become members of the EU by evaluating them on the basis of merit in line with EU values.
  • Strengthen border management to prevent irregular migration in the framework of the protection of the EU’s external borders and cooperate in a mutually beneficial manner with countries of origin and transit along migration routes.
  • It will increase investments in various sectors such as energy, infrastructure, water, transport and communications to enhance the competitiveness of the Single Market and ensure a green and digital transition.
  • It will prioritize research and innovation to maintain its competitiveness in new and groundbreaking technologies in light of the fact that economies are becoming more information and data-based. In this framework, it will take steps to facilitate the work of the digitalizing business world, reduce bureaucracy, and pave the way for small and medium-sized enterprises and ‘start-ups’.
  • The EU will invest more in human resources to improve the skills and general and in-service training of its citizens, thus prioritizing the achievement of collective prosperity.

CONCLUSION

With the exception of a limited number of circles, the decisions taken at the back-toback Summits held throughout June 2024 and their possible consequences have not been sufficiently on the radar of the shallow political establishment in Turkey, nor of most think tanks that feed on this situation. In Turkey’s current sterile environment, this is to be expected.

It has been observed that the outcomes of the Summits have been subjected to evaluations, even by these limited number of circles, with a focus on the Summit in question. Unfortunately, to date, there has been no comprehensive content analysis or comparative analysis of the decisions of the Summits in a holistic framework and no mapping of the linkages between the decisions taken in this context. However, if efforts had been made for a holistic analysis, a picture would have emerged that would have made it possible to reach healthier conclusions. From this perspective, it cannot be said that such an effort has been made to better analyze at least the Western world’s perspective on the current challenges in a transitional period when the global order is in such turmoil and Turkey is also affected by this turmoil.

July 2024 will also witness a succession of important summits. In this framework, the SCO Summit will be held on July 3-4, the Organization of Turkic States on July 6, and the NATO Leaders’ Summit on July 9-11. As these Summits take place, it will not be unusual for the majority of the Turkish public opinion to be directed towards the tabloid and personal dimension of the Summits in line with the current preference rather than the Summit decisions and the interaction between them.

On the other hand, it is not a luxury but a necessity to think of the developments in our region and beyond as separate from each other, and to explain the links and dynamics between them to the public in an understandable language. Because, if the processes triggered by the Summits are not analyzed correctly, and if Turkey’s preferences within this framework are determined with an approach that is far from holistic, it is inevitable that not only Turkish foreign and security policies but also all segments of society will be negatively affected.

It is to be hoped that the pattern of fragmented and often biased approach to the June 2024 Summits will not be repeated in July 2024.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

@2024 – Ankara Politikalar Merkezi

Yayın Politikamız:
Ankara Politikalar Merkezi üyelerinin veya web sayfamızda yazıları çıkan APM üyesi olmayan kişilerin, APM web sayfasında yayınlanan yazılarında veya APM üyelerinin diğer mecralarda açıkladıkları görüşleri şahsi görüşleri olup Ankara Politikalar Merkezini bağlamaz. APM adına, yalnızca Yönetim Kurulu veya Yönetim Kurulu tarafından yetkilendirilmiş Yönetim Kurulu üyeleri açıklama yapabilir, APM’yi bağlayan açıklama veya görüşleri ifade edebilir.