Is it not bizarre: even before French President Emmanuel Macron welcomed his guest Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Friday 5 January, in Paris – for what after listening live on air to the press conference were very good bi-lateral talks indeed – that some in Europe’s anti-Turkey lobby had already pressed the panic button, pre-event and pre-press conference!

Probably shocked to witness the Turkish government not only continuing with, but now bringing its successful 360 degree foreign policy (back) to Europe, too, anything seems apparently justified to erect roadblocks.

It is however a shrinking group of self-styled Turkey ‘experts’ who would not hesitate to whenever, wherever – and even if the topic has got nothing to do with Turkey – somehow manage to utter negative statements about whatever contemporary Turkey is up to.

Rather alarmingly they continue to find a number of willing hosts and thus multipliers, unfortunately. My case study today follows. Why would otherwise a very successful European television channel – Euronews – reserve airtime? At stake: a broadcast from the day before President Erdogan took off for France and now available in a printable online summary, ‘What next for EU-Turkey relations?’ quoted Mr. Marc Pierini, an analyst with Carnegie Europe.

Someone with so many years of being on location in this enterprising nation should basically know better but here is what he said yesterday and what was still online as the two President’s prepared to meet before their press conference which kicked off at a few minutes after 1600 hours local time: ‘On the question of negotiations between the EU and Turkey, I don’t believe the visit will bring progress because the dismantling of the rule of law, in the context of European values, is now enshrined in Turkish law.’

If this well-respected commentator would have only waited until after the meeting as from the onset President Erdogan’s trip had a totally different agenda anyway.

Macron and Erdogan seal deals, re-vitalize ties

Please note: this is an opinion piece and not a factual, minute by minute summary of President Erdogan’s trip to Paris. Shortly before his departure the president told reporters in Turkey that today’s face-to-face was a vital step in the furthering of bi-lateral relations, as well as for peace and the wider region in general, too; French commentators pre-event focused besides others on defense (industry) issues and the relevance to maintain contact plus Syria and the fight against terror. Turkish colleagues had mentioned Jerusalem, immigration and many other bi-lateral concerns besides the items already listed above. Yes, some in Europe referred to Erdogan’s visit (plus the Germany trip by Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu the day thereafter) as a charm offensive, but this is a totally different linguistic style and seen from a journalistic perspective still very much acceptable.

Before the two leaders addressed the media a number of protocols were signed, most notably Eurosam which concerns a consortium involving France, Italy and Turkey with regards to Turkey’s very own missile defense development capacities yet with so much wider economic and strategic relevance. Another priority protocol signed, which will be put into effect between Turkish Airlines THY and Airbus allows for closer cooperation in a sense of financial guarantees and acquiring new Airbus airplanes.

President Macron spoke first highlighting the importance of cultural, intellectual but as well strategic bi-lateral relations. The fight against terror, the economy and the on-going crisis in Syria were stressed. With a view to Turkey’s full EU membership Macron said that Turkey must stay solidly anchored to the EU and Europe. His guest in turn recalled that his country was by now waiting for 54 years outside the EU’s doors and that it is understandable when many of his citizens display EU fatigue.

But it seems that the Turkish delegation did not travel all the way to Paris to obtain a fixed date for EU accession. He and his delegation came to talk hard talk; talk tangible politics and this is exactly what he achieved, statesmanlike yet frank, same as his French host.

Economic and defense cooperation, agricultural cooperation and the fight against terror paired with the wider regional situation including Syria topped both leaders’ agendas.

The Turkish president came across as a real statesman. I would of course not say Emmanuel Macron did not, but somehow I got the impression that Ankara talks regional and global threats and politics whereas France still talks more Europe. Erdogan warned of global terror threats by DAESH but as well by FETO and the PKK, and discussed Jerusalem and the Palestine question and the United Nations.

Macron acknowledged that due to its 9000 kilometers long border with Syria and Iraq it would be Turkey facing (terror) threats first.

Both leaders need one another. Macron can gain regional and global stature via Turkey; Turkey can gain renewed influence in other European capitals via Paris. Both nations’ business communities prosper as a windfall profit so to speak. Both nations’ civil societies become closer to each other as another bonus.

Gardeners of terrorism

A term coined by the Turkish president during the press conference is important. He referred specifically to those supporting terror either professionally including journalists or otherwise as the gardeners of terror. What he probably meant was that there is a core, but a much wider soft periphery of people who under various disguises float ideas either outright promoting, or latently supporting terrorism and that his government has started to locate, and judge those people by means of an independent judiciary.

Coming back to my opening paragraphs and if an Open Letter would be allowed incorporated into this short analysis: ‘Dear Sir, what would your proud nation do if heinous terrorists and coup plotters bomb your nation’s parliament, kill innocent citizens and plan on establishing a military dictatorship? Imagine your nation would do the same as the Turks hopefully re-gain control – how would you punish the perpetrators, the criminals, the murderers and above all else, their sympathizers who might still be plotting for a second try? Would you sit idle and wait for exactly this to happen? And what if a journalist misuses her or his professional immunity to actively support those coup plotters, either before, during or after the attempt to destroy a nation’s democracy? Would you let her or him walk free as one profession must be exempted from the rule of law? Turkey’s rule of law was not abolished by the government post-coup; it was almost destroyed by the coup plotters themselves instead. It did not work out. Turkey more than ever belongs to Europe and Europe more than ever needs a strong Turkey. Faithfully yours…’

The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has refrained from stepping back from the decision to hold a referendum on independence, where residents in KRG-controlled provinces are scheduled to vote on breaking from Baghdad on 25 September.

The oil rich province of Kirkuk is also among the contested areas where the vote is planned.

In spite of heightening tensions and calls from the US and Turkey to postpone the referendum, calls from Baghdad for further negotiations, the KRG President Masoud Barzani has not announced any cancellation of the referendum.

The statement provided by the Security Council added that the referendum risks detracting from the fight against Daesh, and that it could also disrupt efforts to ensure the safe return of over three million refugees and internally displaced persons to the country.

Council members “expressed their continuing respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of Iraq,” urging all issues between the central Baghdad government and the Erbil administration to be resolved “through structured dialogue and compromise supported by the international community.”

International call for referendum to be cancelled

In addition to President Erdogan and the US President Trump who are both in agreement that the vote should not go ahead, French President Emmanuel Macron also stressed the importance of maintaining Iraq’s territorial integrity.

During a phone call made with Barzani, Macron reportedly asked the KRG President to postpone the controversial referendum.

A statement issued by Barzani’s office stated that the two men discussed the “important role” played by the Kurdish Peshmerga forces in the ongoing fight against Daesh in Iraq.

Barzani nevertheless confirmed to Macron that the referendum would be held on schedule, while also stressing Erbil’s readiness to hold dialogue with Baghdad after the poll.

http://thenewturkey.org/the-kurdish-quest-for-independence-in-iraq-and-its-repercussions-for-turkey-and-the-region/

Turkey to debate military operation in Iraq and Syria

The ongoing developments in Iraq and Syria remain high on the political agenda.

In this regard, according to the Justice and Development (AK) Party’s parliamentary group deputy chairman, the parliament will hold an extraordinary session on Saturday to debate the extension of Turkish military operations in northern Iraq and Syria.

Mustafa Elitas stated that “the general assembly of the Turkish Parliament will hold an extraordinary session on Sept. 23 at 16.00 [4 p.m. local time] to debate the extension of the Prime Ministry’s motion that enables the government to conduct cross-border operations in northern Iraq and Syria.”

The motion had previously allowed the Turkish military to carry out cross-border operations from Oct. 2, 2016 until Oct. 31, 2017.

This must be the post-truth world. It seems to have started with Trump… He became the President of the US with a discourse against the global system, the same system Trump himself owes his wealth and power. Even the UK, the founding father of the liberal-capitalist system that is currently dominating the globe, is an opponent of the system! They have left a certain system with Brexit, after all. From now on, it seems that the politicians of the Western democracies addressing the public will try to prove that they are the opponents of the system and establishment.

This is indeed the buzzword of the French presidential elections. There isn’t even one candidate who is a proponent of the system! While all of the candidates claim that they are against it, each and every one of them accuses the others of being a proponent of the system. Looking at what each of them said, you can understand what they mean while talking about the system and what they are against. Otherwise, being just an opponent of the system is nothing but ambiguous. The discourses of Trump and the presidential candidates in France reveal that being against the system in Western democracies primarily means being against immigration with a hint of critique of globalization. A hollow and magical word which was created against the masses that shouldered the burden of 2008 financial crises and were desperate in the face of global capitalist system and technology! Moreover, the French have been governed by two contrasting figures, Hollande and Sarkozy, in the last 10 years and there were no differences, no changes. As change has lost its meaning, the experts of  political marketing provided a new product: being against the system.

Look at the left; firstly to Emmanuel Macron who seems to be leading the polls. ENA graduate, former employee of Rothschild Bank, never elected before, became the Minister of Economy of the Socialist Government by the will of President Hollande and garnered the support of the capitalists; yet, he is against the system. Isn’t that a bit odd? A student at Colombia University asked the “centrist” Emmanuel Macron whether he was anti-system. “It’s not enough to just claim that; we should observe how the system reacted to my candidacy. The establishment wanted to destroy me when I became a candidate,” he replied. Establishment, for Macron, is the Socialist Party, which didn’t support his candidacy and conducted a pre-selection process.

On the other hand, Socialist Party candidate Benoit Hamon, who is a proponent of the welfare state and has a pluralist rhetoric, says that he doesn’t want to maintain the system. Still, like Macron, he also served as a minister for more than two years in the current government. The third candidate on the left, former Trotskyist and senator, member of the Socialist Party since 1970, and a member of the European Parliament Jean-Luc Mélenchon is also against the system. He said “people are rejecting those who advocate the system that condemned them to death” and, turning towards the members of the press, added: “For instance, you are the system!”

The right-wing candidate François Fillon is also against the system! “My project will disrupt the order of those who benefit from the system,” he said. Fillon was the prime minister of the former French president Sarkozy. At first, it was revealed that Fillon made one of his businessman friends “gift” him three suits, each of them costing €13,000, while making another friend gift him two luxury watches. Then, it was found out that he had invented an imaginary job for his wife in the parliament, costing the taxpayers €800,000 over 30 years, and similarly “employing” his daughter and son for some years. He is now furious at the media, saying that it’s not the media that is to determine the next president.

What the system means for the far-right’s candidate and a member of the European Parliament Marine Le Pen is everything that stands against her party Front National, of course! Her promises offer more radical and structural reforms when compared to other candidates, that’s for sure. However, at this point, certain discourses which would be deemed scandalous a couple of years ago are now being uttered by politicians and intellectuals of both the classical right and left. It has become commonplace. Indeed, the Islamophobic approaches that were commenced over the burkini and headscarf, along with the anti-immigrant discourse, increased the power of Le Pen.

When her father Jean Marie Le Pen eliminated Socialist Party candidate Lionel Jospin in the first round and got to the runoff together with Chirac in 2002, this was a catastrophe for France. The father Le Pen had garnered 16.8% and 17.19% of the votes in the first and second rounds, respectively. According to the famous IFOP polls, today Marine Le Pen is expected to garner 22.5% of the total votes in the first round. Moreover, according to the same poll, this figure is only one point lower than Macron who seems to be leading the first round. Le Pen is ahead of Fillon (19.5%), Mélenchon (18.5%) and Hamon (7.5%), nevertheless. In a possible runoff, she may acquire twice the votes her father could in 2002. In a climate where the views of the far-right crept into both sides of the political spectrum and became normalized, Marine Le Pen who is deemed to be more moderate than her father is now a part of the system, not an outsider. Or, at least, it could be said that she has drawn the others into her system.

Le Pen’s most significant competitor Emmanuel Macron made a U-turn from his initial position at the very beginning of the election and, referring to Angela Merkel’s (in)famous statement, said “France is not a multicultural country.” When the Canadian prime minister was shown as an example on immigration, he said “I don’t agree with him. I would be much more authoritative in this issue.” Previously, these kinds of approaches would be perceived as something negative; now, it is not like that, not even a bit. Seeing that her rivals are using her discourses, Marine Le Pen felt the need to kick it up a notch and make the most assertive statement in the world: “During my presidency, there will never be a terrorist attack like those happened in Bataclan and Stade de France.” Considering all, the only candidate who seems to be an outsider to the system is the Socalist Party candidate Hamon. He was able to outmaneuver former Prime Minister Manuelle Valls who is known for Islamophobic remarks with votes from the suburbs in the pre-selection; however, he could not garner the same success in the campaign process.

While Jean Marie Le Pen wasn’t even allowed on TV, her daughter demanded the removal of the EU flag at the studio set as a precondition to her appearance on France’s most known TV channel TF1. Anti-EU sentiments were once an original discourse of her father; now, they are not. Both Le Pen and Mélenchon are promising to have a Frexit, making France, one of the two original founders of the EU, leave the international organization. It’s an interesting sight to behold; a politician of the far-right and a leftist are promising the same about the EU and we have precedence with Brexit. While they don’t want to exit the EU, Fillon is talking about the renegotiation of Schengen and Hamon is discussing that treaties should be revised. Therefore, it’s not easy to claim to be against the system and showing your difference.

If the predictions of the research companies are true and Le Pen is able to get to the runoff in France where a fourth of the voters are indecisive, Le Pen’s opponent will be elected president! For now, her most vigorous adversary is Macron; if this comes to pass, for the first time in the history of the Fifth Republic the largest political formations of the country, the Socialist Party and the Republicans, will be eliminated. He may become the president without being backed by a party, almost like Trump, and only by the support of the capitalists and political marketing. The vote he is to receive in the first round will be only a memory for him in the Elysée Palace.