Speech by Andros Kyprianou, General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL, at the event organized by the Confederal Group of GUE/NGL “The Eastern Mediterranean Furnace – The role of Turkey”
22nd June 2016, European Parliament, Brussels
To discuss the role of Turkey in the wider area today, we must first bear in mind certain factors which did not exist previously. I stress this need because unfortunately we often talk about Turkey as if nothing has changed, within and outside, the country over the last 40 years. However, that isn’t the case.
After the 2008 economic crisis and the impact it had on the United States of America and the European Union, in conjunction with the high growth rates recorded by countries such as Russia, Brazil, India and China, but also by smaller states like Turkey, Mexico, Malaysia and Indonesia, there was a shift in power away from the USA and the West. The gradual movement of capital, trade and manufacturing away from the West towards developing countries in recent years, is the basis on which the competition for hegemony is changing in the global system. The flow of foreign capital from the developed towards the thirty strongest developing economies in 2001 was $ 169 billion. In 2007, this flow of capital reached 919 billion dollars. In 2001, 74% of world’s total trade was being conducted from the developed economies and the remaining 26% by developing countries. In 2007, the developing economies share of world trade rose to 33.7%. The forecast has indeed been made that by 2030 it is expected that the developing economies will have a 70% share of the world’s trade, reversing the reality that prevailed at the beginning of the 21st century. Approximately the same situation is also recorded with regards the level of industrial production on which the International Monetary Fund has predicted that its concentration will be in the East and Asia by 2030. This material basis of the global reality appears to affect the growing influence of “non-Western” forces. Furthermore, it also seems to be changing their stand too with regards the geopolitical chessboard.
It was therefore not by chance that the Justice and Development Party (AKP) declared in 2011 that “in the years ahead, major changes in the current global political and economic system, in the structure of the United Nations, but also in the relations between countries and nations, will be inevitable”, setting as its aim and vision “the safeguarding of Turkey’s position as one of the co-founding and influential countries of this new system and status quo.” The objective of Turkey not only to play a role in developments, but it itself to shape developments is very clear. The first weapon in its arsenal is the presentation and portrayal of the country as an example of a “post-secular” and capitalist modernization beyond the West which manages to combine Islam’s cultural and religious values with the content of the prevailing global market. Within this framework, Turkey plays the role of a leader and protector of the region, which it is seeking to guarantee the security and stability “for itself, but also for the neighboring regions”, in line with Erdogan’s expectations.
Does the picture of the intensification of violence in the Middle East and competition in the eastern Mediterranean represent an opportunity for Turkey to emerge as such a power? The answer cannot be given without taking into account the economic and political structures of the country itself, but also the international and regional changes. In other words, Turkey cannot consider itself a regional leader if, for example, it loses instead of strengthening its position in the G-20 or if it does not itself operate as “an agency of neoliberal integration” for itself, but also for the region too.
The Eastern Mediterranean is an important area at the heart of the new regional order whose hegemony Turkey is asserting. The figures for the Eastern Mediterranean reaffirm its importance, as well as the sources of tension of the antagonisms/rivalries. According to data of 2012, 75% -80% of the world’s trade is conducted by the sea. At the same time profits from maritime trade have reached $ 400 billion. The figures of the same year illustrate that 30% of world maritime trade is conducted through the Eastern Mediterranean, as well as 25% of marine transport of oil. Roughly 200,000 ships are on the move annually in the Eastern Mediterranean. In 2010, the Centre for Geological Research of the USA in a report it released, estimated that the value of the Eastern Mediterranean energy reserves amount to approximately $ 1.5 trillion. In 2012, about 25% -30% of Turkey’s total foreign trade was conducted from its ports in the Eastern Mediterranean. These are just a few reasons explaining why competition and rivalries are escalating.
Turkey’s hegemony in the region may be considered as the natural consequence of the period 2008-2009, when the country was being portrayed as a force for changes and economic success. Turkey was also presented as the mediator between Israel and Syria to solve the problems between them. It was a period when Turkey held joint meetings with the Ministerial Cabinets of the governments of Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Russia and Greece. It was a period when the then newly-elected Barack Obama chose Turkey for his first transatlantic visit and proclaimed his desire for a “strategic partnership” between the two countries, when back then Turkey was being presented by the liberal academic community in the West and elsewhere, as the model of modernization that societies in the wider region of the Middle East and North Africa should follow. However, today things are completely different. Assad’s resolute continuance in power, despite Turkish hopes about his “velvet removal”, the emergence of the Islamic State organization, but also the impossibility of the Muslim Brotherhood to eventually exist as an alternative proposal for power turned everything upside down. Turkey in the end chose to become a part of the Syrian civil war. However, although developments were stormy they did not lead USA -Turkish relations to a rupture. The USA remains cautious about some of Turkey’s sensitivities, in relation to the regional influence of the armed Kurdish movement. Ultimately if Turkey continues to insist on a solution that will safeguard the unity of Syria, then it will accordingly seek to change its international cooperation too. This is not expected to change its role as a leading force of the region, but it may affect the alliances it wants to forge.
The shooting down of the Russian fighter plane by Ankara was a reaction to the change in the balance of power on Syrian territory. However it represented at the same time also a development which adversely affected the bilateral relations between the two countries, challenging in a substantive way the model that was followed in recent years. More specifically, Turkey and Russia were able to develop their relations to a significant level, focusing on the economy, trade and energy. At the same time, they downplayed their differences on other political issues, as was initially the case with regards the situation in Syria and on the Cyprus problem. In short, they implemented a “compartmentalization” model of their bilateral relations and focused on the issues with prospects for forging cooperation, rather than those issues provoking disagreements. However, the changes/realignments in the region eventually proved to be stronger. Turkey’s aggressive action brought relations with Russia to a point of an open rupture and has further isolated Turkey in the region. Due precisely to this isolation it is not unmanageable that in the coming period we will witness efforts aiming at achieving even a partial normalization of relations on the part of Turkey. This does not mean that relations will be restored to their previous levels and without it meaning that disagreements will be overcome. Competition in the region is so complex and developing with such dynamics that at this stage it is preventing convergence on various political issues. Nonetheless the fact is that through the effort to normalize economic relations with Russia, Turkey is studying the possibility of a change in broader cooperation.
Within this context, no one should forget that there is also the European Union and its troubled relationship with Turkey. For Turkish society the European Union was at the beginning of the 21st century a panacea. During the same period, the AKP came to power. After the 2007 and 2011 elections and in the new given conditions created back then by the global economic crisis and the so-called Arab Spring, the AKP domestically had already to a large extent established its hegemony. Now the European Union was not perceived as the ideal that brought with it universal values, but as an equal player with whom the relationship must be maintained and strengthened, as well as a relationship that would produce serious rewards. Within this context Ankara fully understands the importance of the abolition of visa requirements to Turkish citizens. This is an issue that the country’s economic actors are experiencing. Consequently the abolition of visas, will increase Turkey’s economic activity in Europe. It is also understood that the given situation created by the refugee crisis and the European Union’s inability to handle the issue do not leave much room for negotiation. This is what Ankara is pinning its hopes on.
This specific issue is of deep concern to Cyprus and of course AKEL since Turkey continues for 42 years to occupy 37% of the territory of Cyprus and to implement continuously the policy of colonization and assimilation. Turkey also refuses to implement the Ankara Protocol, to recognize the Republic of Cyprus as one of the 28 EU Member-States and to fully comply with its Cyprus-related obligations.
The complete fulfillment of all the criteria for the lifting of visas for Turkish citizens constitutes an essential prerequisite before any decision is taken. As AKEL, we expect that the European institutions will adhere to a principled position.
Toumazos Tsiellepis will subsequently talk about the Cyprus problem and Turkey’s role. I would just like, if you permit me, to make a few basic observations, which we can discuss later. Colonization as Turkey’s long-standing official policy, the financial protocols, the agreement on the water issue, the presence of Turkey in the occupied territories (military, political and cultural-religious) are changing day by day, the identity and perspective of the Turkish Cypriot community. Turkey’s greatest ally in this endeavor is the ongoing division and occupation. At the same time, no one should fantasize that the endurance of the Turkish Cypriot community is endless.
As AKEL, we consider that the progressive Turkish Cypriot movement is our ally in the struggle for the survival of our people in our common homeland. The agony of Turkish Cypriots is also our own agony too. We are raising our voice for the whole of Cyprus. We do not perceive Cyprus’ cause and its future as a narrow communal cause. This is the reason why we insist, and will continue to insist, that the Turkish Cypriot, just like the Greek Cypriot community, will only eliminate once and for all whatever threatens their survival only when they manage to live together within the framework of a federation, only when they begin again to lay the foundations of a common life, common social and political action.
In our view, federation is not a podium of Greek Cypriot power, but an arena of creative cooperation of equal partners and fellow compatriots, within the framework of a reunified state with a single sovereignty, a single citizenship and a single international personality, where it will be ensured that the two communities will be living together and cooperating in a united and independent homeland. This of course does not mean that the historical relations of the two communities with Greece and Turkey are erased. But it does mean that our people, all Cypriots, can manage without any protectors; that Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots will have at last been emancipated and will be able to work together for their common future.
Turkey’s constructive stand regarding the efforts to solve the Cyprus problem on the basis of all that has been agreed represents a golden opportunity for it to fulfill on the substance and not for the sake of any impressions its goal: to contribute towards making Cyprus a reunified state that will become a beacon and example for the whole world. Cyprus will represent a modern model of harmonious coexistence of two communities of different ethnicity, language and religion who will be co-managing their own joint state. It will be a country that will have managed to rid itself of the armies and that will channel all its power and resources towards social investment and economic growth, without cost and with benefits for the entire region. This is where Turkey has the opportunity to mean what it says and to put its verbal declarations into actions.
Thank you very much for your attention.
