Bilateral relations between Turkey and Germany witnessed relative calm in 2019 compared to previous years. Cooperation at the government level and newly-generated mechanisms for dialogue prevented moments of tension from escalating further, despite continuing differences in both countries’ approaches to domestic and foreign affairs.

So, what were the most striking developments between Turkey and Germany in 2019? Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s official visit to Berlin in September 2018 undoubtedly boosted the profile of bilateral relations, despite widespread negative coverage of the trip. In 2019, numerous German politicians paid official visits to Turkey, while Turkish delegations visited Berlin on various occasions. For instance, Germany’s Federal Minister of the Interior, Horst Seehofer (CSU) met his counterpart in Ankara where they held bilateral talks on migration. Turkey’s Minister of Industry and Technology, Mustafa Varank, visited Berlin to host the German-Turkish Conference on Artificial Intelligence together with his German counterpart, which gave high-ranking industry representatives the opportunity to share their views on the economic potential of artificial intelligence in business. Dialogue has also continued at the highest level, with the Turkish President and German Chancellor meeting on several occasions during 2019. Nonetheless, four main issues have been potential sources of tension and, unfortunately, bilateral relations have been tested on several occasions due to the ambivalent reactions of members of the German coalition government to these specific issues.

First of all, German media and opposition parties continued to criticize Turkey’s military operations against the PKK terrorist organization both domestically and abroad. However, German media representatives and even politicians also criticized Turkish police when they arrested potential PKK-affiliated sympathizers from Germany who had entered Turkey. This reaction and the criticism of Turkish security forces, indicating that Germany had not seriously considered the reasoning behind these measures, gave a strong impression that German authorities and the German public did not respect Turkey’s security concerns or its legal procedures.

Second, German media outlets and nearly all its political factions criticized the Turkish authorities’ decision not to renew the accreditation of certain media representatives. Related to this incident, Germany’s Foreign Ministry went so far as to consider calling for a limited travel warning for people planning to visit Turkey. Nevertheless, open channels of communication made it possible to resolve the problem before it escalated.

However, the third and most striking controversy concerned Germany’s active position during Turkey’s local elections on March 31, 2019 and in particular during the re-run of the Istanbul mayoral election on June 23. Although German officials and politicians had previously warned Turkish politicians not to interfere in German elections by influencing Turkish voters living in Germany, in March nearly all German political camps supported candidates in Ankara and Istanbul from Turkey’s main opposition party, the CHP.

The majority of German media coverage of the CHP’s Istanbul mayoral candidate gave a one-sided view of the CHP, even presenting Imamoglu as a future presidential candidate for the opposition. This assumption gave Germans the impression that a nationwide general election was taking place in Turkey – which was not the case. Similarly, German reactions to the Supreme Electoral Council’s decision to annul the election do not seem particularly diplomatic. Partisan statements, such as the decision of high-profile members of the German government to openly send messages of “solidarity”, had the potential to negatively affect the course of bilateral relations.

And the fourth issue that caused a slight souring of Turkish-German relations occurred during Turkey’s military operation in Northern Syria where it fought PKK-YPG terrorist elements along Turkey’s 900km southern border. Germany openly opposed Turkey’s military operation both at the political level and in the media. This happened despite the fact that moderate politicians, media representatives and German think-tanks acknowledged the link between the PKK and YPG terrorist groups. However, in addition to the federal government’s decision to ban the export of arms to Turkey, a major German company that had been planning to invest in the country cancelled, or at least postponed, its final decision on constructing a plant in Turkey – most likely due to political pressure in Germany.

President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and German Chancellor Angela Merkel tour the garden of Vahdettin Mansion after holding a joint press conference in Istanbul, Turkey on January 24, 2020. AA

Moreover, in an unexpected move, the German Defence Minister called for the creation of a safe zone in Northern Syria under international control. The proposal eventually failed for two reasons. Not only did she make a miscalculation at the international level, because no leading country took this proposal seriously and supported it, but she also failed to inform her own country’s Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, who learned about the proposal from the media. Maas, the chief person responsible for Germany’s foreign affairs, subsequently travelled to Turkey to personally consider the Defence Minister’s proposal with his Turkish counterpart. This led to a very uncomfortable situation for the federal cabinet, in which the German Foreign Minister openly ruled out the Defence Minister’s proposal, describing his colleague’s idea as unrealistic.

In spite of these controversies in 2019, both formal and informal channels of dialogue remained open on both sides. This made it easier for representatives from the two countries to clarify any misunderstandings, although the German media continues its efforts to escalate tensions. Another positive point has been the calm and diplomatic leadership skills of the heads of both governments. Economic cooperation has facilitated communication between the two countries. Informal channels, through think-tank cooperation and joint events, also contributed to maintaining bilateral relations.

Nevertheless, the overall attitude of German media outlets continues to be a source of negativity and misunderstanding. If Germany refrains from making partisan statements, bilateral relations would be expected to remain positive. Turning a deaf ear to Turkey’s legitimate fight against the PKK terrorist organization has the potential to increase tensions, as does disregarding Turkey’s legal rights in the Mediterranean, as seen in responses to the recent case of Turkey’s agreement with the internationally recognized government of Libya. Initial positive steps in this regard were visible during the Berlin Conference on Libya on January 19, 2020. In addition, the plan to finally open Turkish schools in German cities such as Berlin, Cologne and Frankfurt has the potential to positively boost bilateral cooperation. However, biased media reporters have already started a negative campaign to discredit these moves, despite the existence of German schools in Turkey, which have deliberately been downplayed in public discourse.

As long as formal and informal channels of dialogue are kept open, and a fair, reciprocal and unbiased relationship is established between German and Turkish authorities, then, there is always the chance to overcome difficulties.

Even though the annual convention of the CDU’s youth wing held on 6 October got public attention due to some of the critical statements made against Chancellor Merkel’s leadership, one interesting stance by the CDU’s General Secretary Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, who is known as one of Merkel’s closest allies, has been partly disregarded in particular by the Turkish public.

The annual convention was elaborated as a first stage right before the CDU’s party congress in December, during which Merkel is hoping to be re-elected as the party’s chairperson. Despite several other potential and younger candidates, it seems quite obvious that Merkel is going to win the election in December. However, following the current period of her fourth government in three years, another CSU personality will most likely take over the party leadership.

It’s striking that potential candidates aim to push towards a rather nationalist bias by insistently making use of anti-Turkish discourse. This happened once again during the recent annual convention, as Mrs. Kramp-Karrenbauer addressed Turkey-Germany relations in the context of dual-citizenship for Turkish people living in Germany.

During her speech at the annual convention, Kramp-Karrenbauer criticized Turkey’s President Erdogan by stating, “If President Erdogan continues to push Turks into a loyalty struggle, the right to have dual-citizenship has to be reconsidered again. If Erdogan wants to divide the Turkish community in Germany, this topic will be on the table, in particular for Turks with a dual-citizenship.”

No doubt, the CDU’s General Secretary Kramp-Karrenbauer is trying to make us of anti-Turkish mood by falsely accusing the Turkish president in order to increase her profile in the eyes of the younger and more nationalist voters. One should remember that despite the CDU’s historical disapproval of the right for dual-citizenship, Chancellor Merkel was – together with and due to the pressure by the coalition partner SPD – able to pass an amendment to the citizenship law in 2014, which finally allowed for young and newborn Turks to hold both Turkish and German citizenship.

Other EU citizens already have this right. However, till this date, some CDU members have continued to problematize this step, in a rather blackmailing manner. Such politicians have implied, or directly threatened, Turks in cancelling this right, particularly in cases when either President Erdogan receives support from Turks in Germany, or if the CDU’s votes decrease due to domestic problems.

In such conditions, politicians do not hesitate to make use of a nationalist discourse as in the most recent case of Kramp-Karrenbauer. However, on the other hand, no concrete steps are taken or no sincere statements are made by CDU politicians when Turks or Muslims in Germany face difficulties in their daily lives, caused especially by far-right and anti-Islam circles.

It’s very likely that people would rather welcome statements by Germany’s conservatives who are not playing in the hands of far-right voters and dividing society by themselves. In recent years, the bias of conservatives in Germany has reached a peak of absurdity.

Although these kinds of topics have nothing to do with Germany’s current problems, politicians with certain future career goals regularly and insistently address similar populist and Turkey related topics. This is a fundamental problem for major conservative parties and circles.

My estimation is that Kramp-Karrenbauer will be the CDU’s next chairperson, unless more controversial and even more nationalist personalities such as Jens Spahn are able to mobilize more supporters. In this context, Kramp-Karrenbauer was appointed by Merkel as the party’s new General Secretary in February and quit her job in the German state of Saarland.

The reason for this was the fact that federal CDU members became increasingly critical against Merkel’s policies and her weakness to build a new federal government. Consequently, in order to silence criticism, Merkel brought a close ally into the federal stage who is also a rightist and more conservatively oriented in societal topics. Kramp-Karrenbauer appeared in the media in 2017 when she banned Turkish politicians from holding election campaigns in Saarland – despite the fact that no politician from Turkey had actually planned to campaign in Saarland.

One notices a similar pattern and a symbolic act of which certain politicians regularly make use of in order to achieve some populist goals within a party. But these kinds of abnormalities cause an unrest among the Turkish community, encourage far-right circles and contribute in a negative way to Germany’s image. One has to consider these ambivalent and populist maneuvers in depth and decide who is dividing German population.

Turkey’s President Erdogan paid an official visit to Germany last week. One of the striking features of the visit was the fact that it came after Erdogan called for extensive reform of the United Nations during his speech at the UN General Assembly in New York. This was a direct challenge to the U.S., which while is the hegemon of the international system, has grown isolationist, unilateral, and offensive in its foreign policy under Trump’s presidency. This isolationist turn undercuts international institutions, which are mainly the products of the U.S.-led liberal international order in the post-WWII era. Erdogan’s call for a new – just and democratic – international organization pointed at the opposite direction of current U.S. foreign policy.

Under Erdogan’s leadership, Turkey has developed a two-tier foreign policy in the last couple of years. On the one hand, it has highlighted the problems of the existing international order and has called for reform. “The world is bigger than five” is the motto of this reformist policy. On the other hand, it has sought to adapt itself to the emerging post-global international order.

This post-global order has two main features. One of them is that excluded social groups have begun to challenge and gradually increase pressure on the international system. Terrorism and refugee crises that have hit the global metropoles are examples of this pressure. In the face of this rising instability on the international societal level, the leading powers of the international system avoid taking responsibility.

The U.S. has started to withdraw behind its borders and has called for the others to take responsibility for global problems. However, important powers such as China, Russia, and the European Union do not show any eagerness to fill the vacuum that the U.S. has emptied. While the world cries for the need that great powers should carry out their leadership role, those powers, which are able to play that role, ignore the call.

The withdrawal of the U.S. gave pace to the emergence of regional hegemons, such as China and Russia. This gave start to the process of transformation of the unipolar international system into a multipolar international system. So, currently we have an international system where instability and multipolarity have become the norm.

Turkey struggles in its attempt to allay the instability by fighting against terrorism and extending its hand to refugees both in its vicinity and in distant places. Turkey also strives to adapt to the emerging multipolar and de-institutionalizing international environment. Alongside increasing its own capabilities to tackle with the dangers of international anarchy, it seeks to multiply and diversify its allies. Different from the past, Ankara tends not to take any side and keeps it options open.

German-Turkish rapprochement

President Erdogan’s recent visit to Germany can be seen in this context of adapting to new international realities. In fact, the German-Turkish rapprochement is a good example of how states seek to adapt to the new multipolar international system. Both Turkey and Germany bear the burden of instability in the Middle East and suffer the refugee crisis that came after it.

More, both countries are the victims of Trump’s trade war. Germany struggles to lay the foundation of a new security order for Europe as the U.S. retreats from sustaining European security. Turkey has the second largest army in NATO and this makes it a significant partner in forming a new security regime in Europe. The economic and political interdependence due to the large Turkish diaspora in Germany also bring the two countries closer together.

Yet the German state’s unrelenting support to terrorist organizations such as the PKK and FETO, bowing to the demand of its anti-AK Party and Turkish civil society and media outlets tends to poison bilateral relations. These negative attitudes create a rather irrational foreign policy for Germany in an international environment where ideology is pushed back to the backburner. In this new international environment, states are supposed to give weight to realpolitik and rational behavior, and thus prioritize security concerns.

However, Germany’s continuation of an ideological critique towards Turkey and its decision to cut economic aid to Turkey (the EU is supposed to provide Turkey with €70 million) do not respect those sensitivities. In turn, Turkey has started to discuss reconsidering its EU membership. President Erdogan stated that Turkey may bring its EU membership bid to a referendum if the EU keeps this anti-Turkey tendency. Turkey can rightly expect for the EU, and in particular for Germany, to leave its ideological foreign policy and to act in accordance with new international realities that are defined by multipolarity and rationality.

On Thursday, Turkey’s President Erdogan arrived in Germany for a three-day lasting official state visit. As was planned, he met with both Germany’s President Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Chancellor Merkel in Berlin. On the third day, Erdogan concluded his visit by opening one of Europe’s largest mosques in the German city of Cologne.

Several analysts and commentators addressed and stressed the meaning of this visit and its importance with regard to bilateral relations between Turkey and Germany. Of course, there are several aspects that might be analyzed in more depth in the upcoming days. However, the main question, which rose subsequent to the visit, is about the realist expectations right after a period of serious challenges that both countries have faced in recent years.

It has to be underscored that all in all the visit is with no doubt a positive and official step in order to, at least, try to overcome the disputes between the two countries. Besides various topics, it’s not that wrong to state that during the bilateral meetings and discussions, the focus was set on important issues such as the refugee problem, economic relations, and the security priorities of both countries. While there still remains disagreements in regards to the activities of certain groups in Germany, which are elaborated as a national security concern by Turkey, positive steps taken to strengthen economic relations and improvements in the dialogue to fix the political discourse in general seem promising.

From a broader perspective, Germany and the EU still have to face the refugee problem, while Turkey is also considering a burden sharing with potential future escalations in Syria; above all, in a potential future case of a worst-case scenario regarding the Idlib issue.

Apart from the fact that many German media outlets continue to problematize the -cautious- rapprochement of both countries from a single perspective, it’s an apparent success that nevertheless both Turkey and Germany were able to launch a new and fresh page.

With this, one has to keep in mind that Germany’s perception of Turkey is mostly shaped by three major circles. As Professor Kemal Inat recently emphasized, the official visit once again entailed the existence of 1) a circle consisting of rational German politicians and business people, 2) an aggressive anti-Turkey lobby and, finally, 3) a so-called group, which still perceives Turkey as a country to impose Germany’s own interests.

Despite the continuing efforts of the anti-Turkey lobby to prevent these steps, which includes utilizing certain German media outlets and broadcasting preferences, and through the support of groups such as the PKK-friendly Left Party, it seems that nowadays the first circle in discussion has gained fragile power. Steps taken by the first group, which have an ambition to continue dialogue, can be observed as positive. However, given the fragile conditions, one has to be prepared for the likely absurd and non-realistic engagements from the second and third groups, and even from parts of the first group due to some future elections in German federal states, such as in Bavaria on October 14.

Nevertheless, Turkey is aware of these conditions and President Erdogan simply does not accept the ambivalent behavior of some of Germany’s leading figures – including President Steinmeier – who attempted to criticize the Turkish President even during his speech at the official state dinner banquet. Dis-regarding these comments, President Erdogan once again stressed Turkey’s ongoing dissatisfactions by stating, “Unfortunately, hundreds and thousands of terrorists (such as FETO members) are walking freely in Germany. And we’re not going to talk about them? I didn’t want to bring this up tonight. But when the president (Steinmeier) mentioned these issues, I had to.”

Thus, while on the one hand it can be stated that a new era is launched with Germany, on the other, the negative ambitions of several circles in Germany in regards to Turkey will continue. Leading personalities of the two countries have to take these conditions into account, and German authorities ought to be aware of this trap that they may well easily fall in to. The focus on certain issues concerning the interest of both countries will most likely deepen the dialogue between the two and strengthen bilateral relations.

Nowadays, European politicians continue to stress the importance of Turkey’s economic stability for their states, while urging their governments to find ways to support Turkey – in any case if Turkey needs to seek financial support from Europe. But more interestingly, the current leader of the Social Democrats in Germany (SPD), Andrea Nahles, who is not an MP in the German Bundestag, recently pointed to this issue, while many major German politicians and circles made it clear that they do not consider any current proposals with regard to Turkey. Subsequent to statements made by Nahles, interestingly, the former chairman of the SPD and Germany’s former Foreign Minister (2017-2018), Sigmar Gabriel, supported Nahles by stating, “Turkey is our NATO partner. It is within our own interest to have an economically stable Turkey without monetary turbulence.”

The main point about Gabriel’s interview, though, was about a strange prophecy. By warning that Europe would pay the price if Turkey was to become destabilized by sanctions imposed by the Trump administration, Gabriel also added that if Europe does not do everything to keep Turkey a part of the West, “nationalistic forces” in Turkey could “reach for the atom bomb, as in Iran and North Korea, to make themselves unassailable.”

Well, first of all, it has to be mentioned that even though Gabriel acted as the Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs for approximately 14 months, it was ultimately a good choice not to allow Gabriel to continue his job as foreign minister – not only because of his statements regarding the party’s previous Chancellor candidate and SPD chairman Martin Schulz, whom he attacked with harsh and personal words, but also because of his strange elaborations and positions regarding Turkey’s alleged ambitions.

As one remembers, when Gabriel was in office not so long ago, relations between Turkey and Germany had reached a historical low point. Today it seems that Gabriel is still continuing to make meaningless – and even populist – comparisons by using improper words, similar to previous statements made in the past.

However, foreign policy requires a thoughtful preference of words and a fair-minded vision regarding the continuation of long-lasting relations. Unfortunately, relations between Turkey and Germany suffered heavy turbulences due to several stances and statements during Gabriel’s era as minister – even though some mutual steps aimed to deescalate relations had been initiated towards the end of his period. Nevertheless, it was obvious that during that period the German minister personalized most disagreements between the two countries by making use of non-acceptable statements; which were particularly non-compliant from a social-democratic point of view.

But to come back to his recent prediction or “prophecy” that Turkey’s “nationalistic forces” will reach for a nuclear weapon unless Europeans don’t keep Turkey close to themselves. It’s interesting that Gabriel does not explain who he refers to when he says “nationalistic forces.” It would be quite interesting to know whether he’s addressing the current government or other – maybe Kemalist, secularist or alleged social-democratic/leftist – circles? Despite this vagueness, Gabriel made a fatal mistake by comparing a democratic state, which became a NATO member in 1952 – even before Germany – with non-democratic and dictatorial regimes. More, Gabriel’s words resemble some biased German media outlets, which brought the topic of Turkey’s alleged “nuclear weapon ambitions” four years ago with baseless arguments.

Some conservative foreign policy politicians recently played down Gabriel’s accusations. According to them, while Gabriel exaggerated the situation, he was only emphasizing “Turkey’s importance for Europe.” In addition, some media commentators implied that even if experienced politicians such as Gabriel state such extreme prophecies or speculations, these would not be that wrong. Thus, Gabriel’s comments unfortunately show what unreasonable statements might cause in politics.

The former foreign minister made these statements at a time when some German media outlets and conservative – and nationalist – circles are biased to promote a potential German-made nuclear weapon. Only a couple of weeks ago, some circles close to the current CDU/CSU-SPD coalition addressed this issue by supporting the idea of a “German nuclear weapon.” No leading political figure has given a stance or statement in regards to this proposal. However, now, Gabriel indirectly accuses Turkey of wanting to allegedly reach a nuclear weapon – even though there has not been any discourse in Turkey regarding this topic.

It has to be addressed once again that Turkey is a country that attaches great important to the issue of arms control and disarmament. It is also party to all relevant international treaties and conventions, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) – which Germany is also party to. However, as addressed previously, some German voices have recently been trying step-by-step to persuade the public towards a likely dangerous direction. Thus, it is irrational to claim that Turkey is going towards this direction, without any mention of the actual real discussions that are occurring in Germany.

Turkey will most likely appreciate Gabriel’s intention to stand on Turkey’s side in the current dispute with the U.S. However, he should definitely correct his considerations and “prophecies” in terms of Turkey’s alleged future nuclear ambitions. Nevertheless, the decision made by SPD leaders, who did not select Gabriel as the current foreign minister in March of this year, seems to be a wise one.

It seems that the dispute over a detained U.S. pastor between Turkey and the U.S. has triggered new dynamics in Turkey’s relations with leading EU states, above all with Germany. As Burhanettin Duran recently addressed, “The Trump administration’s policy of economic selfishness … encourages the world’s leading economies to work more closely together. The U.S. decision to weaponize the dollar and customs compels them to form a common line of defense in international trade. … At the end of the day, the Russian, Chinese, German or French support for Turkey in the face of U.S. sanctions wasn’t just about the potential problems that they would face if the Turkish economy suffers a crisis.”

By looking at the last week, it wouldn’t be wrong to say that reactions from German officials were in compliance with these statements. For instance, members of Germany’s coalition government made some positive comments regarding Turkey-Germany relations in order to stress the country’s stance with regard to Trump’s irrational sanctioning steps against Turkey. In addition, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel had a telephone call in which both leaders discussed the current developments as well as regional issues, such as the situation in Syria. While the Turkish and German leaders pledged their determination to strengthen relations between the two states, some details regarding President Erdogan’s planned visit to Berlin in September were also addressed.

Even before the phone call, Chancellor Merkel clearly stated that “Nobody has an interest in an economic destabilization in Turkey” while adding that “Germany would like to see an economically prosperous Turkey. This is in our interest.” It has also to be mentioned that Germany’s Economy Minister Peter Altmaier (CDU), who is one of the closest politicians to Chancellor Merkel, was one of the first European officials opposing Trump’s tariff policy on Turkey. Altmaier explained, “This trade war slows down and destroys economic growth and produces new uncertainties.” While Altmaier also emphasized that Germany is willing to keep good economic relations with Turkey he stated, “Turkey stands for security and reliability in Europe. We are working together well with Ankara in terms of migration.”

A similar positive step came from the junior coalition partner, the Social Democrats. Besides Foreign Minister Heiko Maas (SPD), the party’s chairperson Andrea Nahles stated in an interview on Sunday that Germany could help Turkey should it become necessary. According to Nahles, despite the possibility whether her predictions became true or not, “A situation could arise in which Germany must help Turkey, regardless of the political discrepancies with President Erdogan.” While she also stressed that it is in everyone’s interest that Turkey remains economically stable and that currency turbulence is curtailed, it is also crucial for her to keep up dialogue on all levels with Turkey, which is a member of NATO and part of Europe.

In addition, some publicly funded German media outlets, which are generally and unfortunately known for their biased broadcasting in the case of Turkey, published some news, in which a rather neutral –or even pro-Turkey– media language and stance has been observed — this was surprising but was also an understandable step due to the current political conjuncture. However, many German media outlets, commentators and columnists, on the other hand, still preferred nearly similar arguments, stating that the Turkish economy is in a very bad situation and accusing the country’s President. In most of these articles, a known language regarding Turkey has been preferred. Without going into detail, one might just mention, that those pieces generally include one-side criticisms while disregarding the U.S.’ role and the contextual impacts.

Nevertheless, it seems obvious that despite certain opposition politicians and known media representatives’ biased perspectives, the German government’s recent steps can be elaborated as rational ones in order to achieve some –in particular economic– objectives. This, with no doubt, aims an improvement of relations between Turkey and Germany – on both sides. Thus, under these circumstances it is also no surprise that, for instance, the German government’s Commissioner for Tourism and Parliamentary State Secretary, recently promoted travel to Turkey by stating that “there is no reason not to go on holiday” to Turkey.

It’s obvious that Germany’s federal government does not have any interest in supporting the U.S. President’s sanctions against Turkey. Even though Germany’s recent positive position regarding Turkey is based rather on economic interests and short-term goals, which are also based on President Trump’s personal and similar negative attitudes against Germany, relations between Turkey and German might mutually benefit from this current situation. Above all, in regard to the Turkish President’s planned visit on 28/29 September to Germany, some additional steps in order to intensify the mutual confidence might be advantageous for both countries – also in fields other than economics.

Last week, it became official that Turkey’s recently re-elected President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will make an official visit to the Federal Republic of Germany on September 28-29. During the visit, Germany’s President Frank-Walter Steinmeier will greet President Erdogan with military honors, and a meeting with Chancellor and CDU leader Angela Merkel has also been planned. This will be Erdogan’s first official visit to Germany as President, since his last visit was in February 2014 when he was Prime Minister.

Regarding the planned visit, though, some German media outlets and biased opposition politicians took – once again – an aggressive stance by focusing on President Erdogan personally. In this sense, it seems very opportunistic that in particular some opposition politicians, who generally sympathize with parties such as the HDP, are making aggressive and non-rational statements.

For instance, former Greens leader Ozdemir once again criticized the planned visit by stating that the Turkish President has to be treated differently in contrast to other “normal” presidents. In addition, politicians from the Left Party, which is officially in favor of uplifting the PKK ban in Germany in its election program, declared their discontent regarding the visit. Furthermore, the far-rightist AfD party, which is actually the main parliamentary opposition in Germany, also opposed the planned visit by bringing the visit in relation with potential and alleged conflicts within the Turkish community in Germany.

On the other hand, parties represented in the current grand coalition government made some rational, reasonable and careful statements by emphasizing the need for dialogue between the two countries.

Besides these political statements concerning particularly domestic concerns, one should also underline some issues which may become of great importance in order to strengthen bilateral relations in the upcoming near future. By this, it shouldn’t be that wrong to address some potential mutual expectations for both sides.

For instance, and more importantly, Turkey is likely to expect the strengthening of bilateral relations while the main emphasis will be set on economic relations. In addition, Turkey’s expectations in the fight against terrorism are also one of its greatest priorities. In the context of Germany, strong support for a long-lasting ally is expected. That is to say; in contrary to Germany’s current ambivalent behavior regarding the PKK terrorist organization and other terrorist organizations –even on German soil–, which are threatening Turkey’s security, an active fight against these terrorist organizations will be welcomed by Turkey.

Germany’s reasonable re-orientation in this field will definitely contribute to a positive future of bilateral relations. Furthermore, a blind non-acceptance of FETO affiliated groups, which are seen as a security threat by Turkey, will be expected. Henceforth, Turkey’s concerns, especially in this field, have to be taken seriously into consideration. Moreover, it wouldn’t be a bad step to treat Turkey as a partner on the same level. Unfortunately, both German politicians and media representatives prefer very striking double standards with regard to Turkey and Turkish personalities close to the government. While on the other hand, politicians from other countries are treated extremely different due to economic reasons. However, one must not disregard the fact that Turkey has a long and successful history with Germany. Turkey is also a NATO member and an EU candidate state of strategic importance.

Marginal and so-called ‘Turkey experts’ who are not – rightly so – taken seriously by anyone in Turkey, should be less welcome and less promoted on German television in comparison to the Turks that actually represent the majority of Turks living in Germany. The latter of these groups are without doubt deliberately and systematically disregarded. This ought to be changed if one honestly expects an improvement of mutual confidence.

On the other hand, Germany will most probably have some expectations as well. Whether these are sincere expectations is a question that goes beyond the borders of this column, but Germany will address the improvement of human rights and the rule of law. However, it’s most likely that the German government will stress the need to continue and develop efficient cooperation regarding the refugee crisis. In addition, it is also in the interest of Germany to develop economic potentials regarding both countries in the near future.

Thus, the Turkish President’s planned visit in September might enable the opportunity for both countries to broaden their horizons, to reduce tension and to deepen bilateral relations. We will see whether this chance will be taken into consideration. In the upcoming weeks, I will also continue to write on this issue in detail.

SETA has recently published a second, extended report on “The organization of FETO (Fethullah Gulen Terror Organization) in Germany and Germany’s Policy on FETO”. The comprehensive report expounds the structure and activities of the organization in Germany, considered a safe haven for FETO fugitives and offers a holistic account of FETO in Germany spanning the profile and historical institutionalization of the organization, structure of their network, recruitment methods, affiliated NGOs, schools, financial resources, lobby activities, media outlets, close relations with the German government and provides solutions and strategies for the combat against FETO. The report also conducts an elaborate comparative analysis of FETO prior and following the 15 July coup attempt, which marks a turning point in their operations, the result of four decades of covert operations, dedicated planning, foreign alliances and gradual infiltration into many state apparatuses and strategic organizations.

FETO’s structure, network and educational institutions

FETO’s second largest presence after Turkey amongst 170 countries worldwide is Germany. The report notes that FETO capitalizes on the fact that Germany is home to the largest Turkish diaspora and has largely gained ground by “exploiting the void created by unsuccessful integration strategies employed on Turkish expatriates”. FETO begins indoctrinating future followers at their schools governed by a separate and cunningly devised curriculum “that synthesize Gulenist teachings with modern science”. FETO opens numerous “light houses/Lichthauser” for students across Germany where the extracurricular indoctrination continues in a communal environment. As delineated in the report, there are around 25-30 private schools and 150 prep centers in Germany and it notes the resignation of a principal of German origin from one of these schools citing his farewell statement: “The teachers are admirers of Gulen and take decisions in my absence. I can no longer take responsibility for this school.”

The report depicts the concentric and hierarchical structure of FETO where the external circle consists of sympathizers and attendees of the weekly sohbet (“discussion”) gatherings, and those that receive financial aid from FETO, the middle circle comprises the financial donors, businessmen who cover the wages of the inner circle and provide resources for the activities of the external circle. The inner circle contains teachers, journalists, lobbyists, academicians, think tanks and company employees of FETO. The report notes that their allegiance and loyalty is appraised by how much they “give back” to their community as percentage of wages “reaching up to 70% of their income”.

FETO’s income sources

With an estimated net worth of 50 billion dollars worldwide as of 2008, the report suggests that the organization operates akin to a holding rather than a religious organization and divulges affiliate organizations that generate revenues as companies, schools, media outlets, NGOs and charity organizations which funnel money to be used for alternate purposes. Their business platform BUV (Federal Union of Entrepreneurs Foundation) comprises many important companies. The report also reveals that FETO is noted for “generating illegal income via money laundering, tax evasion and spurious bills through members holding dual citizenship to facilitate undetected international transfer of money.”

“We will be useful for Germany”

Following the coup attempt which largely revealed their ulterior intentions in the eyes of public opinion (unanimously in Turkey and increasingly abroad), FETO was compelled to put on a facade to maintain their presence in Germany, by distancing and differentiating themselves from the rest of the Turkish diaspora, the report attests that FETO adopted a multifaceted rhetoric such as “moderate Islam”, “interfaith dialogue”, “educational organization”, “well-integrated/assimilated Turk” and “useful instrument to pressurize the Turkish government”. The report highlight that for Die Welt newspaper, FETO openly confesses that they will be useful for Germany (Wir Werden Deutschland von Nutzen Sein).

FETO’s infiltration into German politics

The report showcases the political infiltration of FETO in Germany via their Intercultural Dialogue Forum (Forum für Interkulturellen Dialog e.V. –FID) where former president of German Federal Parliament and member of CDU Christian Democratic Union, Rita Süssmuth and Omid Nouripour of the Alliance ’90/The Greens who currently serves as a member of the Bundestag, spokesperson on party’s foreign affairs, both served as members of the advisory board. Both members were “compelled to part ways with FID after public questioning of their affiliation with FETO following recent developments”.

Germany’s reaction to FETO and suggestions for joint bilateral action

Capitalizing on the ease with Germany provides recluse to Turkish political refugees, FETO has sought the assistance of Germany and as the report indicates “among 288 diplomatic passport holders and 771 special passport holders who have applied for asylum, 42% have been accepted by February 2018.”

Germany’s reluctance to extradite coup plotters, failure to acknowledge the criminal status of FETO and open condoning of FETO atrocities despite ample evidence provided by Turkey and the criticisms directed by German opposition parties on the antidemocratic nature of FETO, is regarded to be “in stark contradiction with their supposed stance on democratic values and hurts bilateral relations.” The report notes the remarks of Bruno Kahl, president of German Federal Intelligence Service who rejected in an interview to Der Spiegel that FETO was behind the coup attempt. When asked whether Berlin was informed of the powers behind the 15 July coup attempt, Kahl replied that answering this question would not be possible since it would be against the German government’s “vital interests”.

The report suggests that the German public is still largely uninformed of FETO’s true colors and receives a one sided view of the organization and calls the German government to take concrete steps to cooperate with Turkey to thwart this dangerous organization and raise awareness on their covert criminal operations. The report also suggests that bilateral cooperation can be triggered into motion between the two countries by providing concrete suggestions for joint action to thwart FETO which poses a mutual threat to both countries as it uses similar methodologies to permeate state institutions worldwide and has publicly announced that it will completely move its base from Turkey to Germany following the coup attempt.

*Written by Rukiye Kaya 

The German political party landscape may for sure be undergoing seismic changes but it seems fair to ascertain that they are far from any shift of a tectonic nature at least as of yet. Granted, some additional post-election fault lines are clearly visible and in particular so as a far-right movement – Alternative für Deutschland, (AfD) – entered the Bundestag for the first time. There are others, for instance, it is very untypical for Germans to spend eight weeks trying to form a coalition government without anything coming out of it.

SPD U-turn would be logical, but will it happen?

When Martin Schulz, in his capacity as a leading candidate and party chairman of the Social Democrat Party (SPD), declared on September 24, 2017 that the SPD would not be willing to continue the grand coalition with the Christian Democrat Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) many observers were surprised. Seldom do party leaders refuse to join a potential coalition or government before they were even asked. His argument and justification for his refusal on pursuing a coalition was that the grand coalition was voted out by the public. Yet mathematically it had a majority. It was only a matter of time until the party’s influential center-right Seeheim Circle would knock on Schulz’s door to ask for a reconsideration of his decision.

Then the ‘Jamaica’ talks began, which aimed at forming a coalition out of the CDU/CSU, the Green Party and the Free Democrat Party (FDP). Now this option was shelved for good by the FDP just over a week ago – although I dare say other parties could have pulled the negotiating chair away from the table at a later stage, too.

Originally after the election, only three subsequent scenarios were legally possible: Chancellor Merkel who, albeit in an acting role only still the chancellor, could ask the Bundestag to be elected with a simple majority in a third round of voting and as long as President Frank-Walter Steinmeier would approve she could form a minority government. Alternatively, after a similar parliamentary voting protocol and in the case of no government being ready to take control, the president would dissolve parliament and snap elections would be called upon within a maximum time-frame of 60 days. Finally, a remake of the current grand coalition could be agreed upon leading to an absolute majority of whoever is presented as chancellor and thus automatically being approved by the president.

At first the SPD once more categorically ruled out the latter option. Actually, so did Mrs. Merkel, who said that after all she heard from the SPD, snap elections would be her favorite solution. After the president spoke with party leaders and following Thursday’s meeting with Mr. Schulz and a night marathon at SPD headquarters, it became obvious that at least the above mentioned Seeheim Circle of the SPD is up for a U-turn. Only late night Sunday 26 November, 2017 did the CDU/CSU do the same, rejecting snap elections and asking the SPD to consider coalition talks. Thus as it stands, whilst penning this article, a continuation of the grand coalition has at least become a viable solution once more.

But some SPD members are now hinting at the possibility of a fourth option, untried, but technically speaking, legally possible: forming a type of cooperative government short of a formal coalition agreement, where two or more parties agree on an issue-by-issue basis about policy.

Yet knowing German politics for a fair number of years if there is one thing most voters and politicians dislike, it is instability. Both a minority government, as well as the SPD’s fourth way would promise exactly that.

Is anything going to change for the three million + citizens of Turkish background?

Let us assume for the purpose of this short analysis that Germany opts for what is assumed to be a stable government. The good news is that as status quo oriented by nature any grand coalition would be, it does not seem unlikely that such a CDU/CSU-SPD re-run would become a policy initiator instead of merely a policy administrator, as there are many hot issues that need urgent attention: Europe, energy, education and immigration to only name a few. As the AfD is poised to continue to play the anti-immigrant card and as imitating right-wing rhetoric did not lead to a huge bonus at the ballot box for more center based parties, this time round one should expect a more welcoming set of policies towards, in particular, the just over three million citizens of Turkish background living in Germany.

Adopting anti-multicultural and anti-integration rhetoric will only make extreme movements even stronger in the long run, as ultimately voters tend to prefer ‘the real thing.’

Deep down both the CDU/CSU and SPD will have realized that misusing an entire nation as focus of unfair negativity – which is what had happened with Turkey during the run-up to the 24 September vote – was completely wrong and put citizens of Turkish origin into a very difficult, if not outright dangerous, situation. After all, if a government declares a country no longer welcome, how would you feel living in that same country being of that very nation’s origin?

A modest suggestion would be catching votes by employing negative rhetoric vis-à-vis Turkey out, winning votes by sidelining extremists in – that could be a logical way forward.

Grand coalition – only route to stability

Good bi-lateral contacts rely on sound policies between two nations’ leaders, mutual trust between their business communities and of course amicable relations between both populations. The Turkish government, her businessmen, businesswomen and her citizens were and are ready. Ever since early, Turkey has become an outward looking, enterprising, and a successful nation in the last one and a half decades. Ankara rightly complained when the German response to this outreach was to put it mildly, not always visible.

Not fully grasping the struggle against heinous criminals who aimed at destroying Turkish democracy by means of a military coup attempt on July 15, 2016 is one point. Turning the back on Turkish leaders who wish to meet their fellow citizens on German soil, another. Moreover, it is disappointing to watch such a model democratic nation as Germany – and in particular so having learned from history, for example the threats domestic anti-democratic movements and individuals can pose to herself before and during World War II, as well as during the later Red Army Faction terror campaign – that right after the July 15 coup attempt until this very day members of the Fetullah Gulen inspired criminal cult have found refuge in Germany. It would be a timely gesture for Berlin to reconsider Ankara’s very real concerns.

If we then pair this with what I label a totally non-logic, and non-understandable personal expression of hate against the Turkish president, which in some instances, for example the Green Party under Mr. Özdemir, went so far as to say no EU membership talks as long as President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is in power, which is a direct interference in Turkey’s domestic politics by inciting hatred in society, the picture looked not promising at all.

However, every winter is followed by a new spring and summer. A grand coalition composed of seasoned politicians from both German mainstream political movements is the best bet to achieve exactly that. High-level political dialogue meetings should precede more direct investments by German companies. Turkish exports into Germany could then rise further, which would lead to an increase in two-way tourism levels.

If the grand coalition is established and if it takes into consideration Ankara’s on-going willingness to cooperate more closely with Berlin, and thus materializes this opportunity, the German business community as well as her citizens will benefit from this to a great deal. As for Germany herself, it seems that any alternative scenario other than such a grand coalition would apparently force the country into a prolonged state of political crisis.