As journalists who closely follow Turkish politics, we are used to the inner debates and quests for new leaders within the Republican People’s Party (CHP) following every election. But this ritual will be reversed in the morning of June 24 since our eyes will turn to the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) this time. No matter what the result is, some accounts will be settled within the party on the day after the election.

There are only a few examples of failure in the history of the AK Party. To name one, the party’s vote share decreased from 46.5 percent to 38.4 percent in the 2009 local election due to the serious economic shrinkage with the effect of the 2008 global economic crisis.  

But this decline did not cause any major intra-party debate despite the resignation of Abdüllatif Şener, one of the co-founders and leading names of the party. The unquestionably strong position of the party leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan expedited Erdogan’s embarking on a serious restructuring effort within the party.

Afterwards, Erdoğan consolidated his position within the party as the AK Party won the 2010 referendum by receiving 57 percent and then won the 2011 election with 46.6 percent.

However, the attempts to hinder then President Abdullah Gul’s presidential candidacy for the first presidential election with a direct national vote caused some disaccords in the party for the first time. The murmurs stopped when Erdoğan ran for and was elected president, Gül did not make any move to chair the party and Ahmet Davutoglu was assigned as the new chairman of the AK Party.

But in a short while, some groups within the party started to voice their opposition to Davutoglu. Especially a group that gathered around Binali Yıldırım managed to hamper some decisions of Davutoglu in an unprecedented way in the AK Party’s history and culture.

Meanwhile, in the general election held in 2015, the AK Party’s vote share fell to 41 percent and thus the party lost the parliamentary majority under the leadership of Davutoglu. At that point, President Erdogan, who organized rallies and meetings and always spoke in favor of the AK Party during the election campaign period, intervened and operated the Constitutional election renewal rule by showing that a government could not be founded. So, a re-election was held in November 2015, at which the AK Party had a great success by receiving 49 percent and came to power alone again.

To whom must the victory in the re-election be attributed? According to many AK Party supporters, the success was achieved thanks to the President, who did not accept the results of the first election and called for a re-election. But according to another group gathering around Davutoglu, the success was thanks to the persuasion of the President to stay one step behind between June and November and the party’s restoring of factory settings in the meantime.

A few months after the election, Davutoglu resigned from his post as prime minister and from the AK Party leadership after a series of events that have not yet been fully illuminated. The party organized a Congress, in which Binali Yildirim was elected as the new chairman and prime minister. Davutoglu and his team, meanwhile, were completely pushed aside.

An array of splits in opinion and tone played a role in the process leading up to Davutoglu’s discharge from the party, but the two most crucial aspects, in my opinion, were Davutoglu’s raising difficulties in transition to the new executive presidential system and laying claims to the election success in November 2015.

Soon after Yildirim’s assignment to the prime minister’s office, Turkey experienced a catastrophe. On the night of 15 July, 2016, the Gulenist Terror Group (FETO) attempted to stage a military coup to seize control of the country. The insurrection was ruled out thanks to the people who took to the streets to defend democracy, and Turkey underwent a tremendous transformation after that night.

As one of the most significant changes throughout this process, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), which had always been the most outspoken opposition party, started siding with the AK Party for the stability and perpetuity of the country. When the MHP gave green light to the new presidential system, the endeavors in this regard were expedited. Eventually, the Constitution was amended and a referendum on whether to approve the new system was held.

The referendum results set a significant indicator displaying the changing political split in Turkey. In the general election held in November 2015, the total vote shares of the AK Party and the MHP were above 60 percent, but the “yes” campaign run by these two parties for the referendum won with a 51.4 percent vote share – with a vote difference less than 1.5 million. The referendum was followed by the June 2018 general election. The two parties ran for the election by forming an alliance on a legal basis. The AK Party declined to the June 2015 levels by receiving 42.56 percent whereas the MHP received 11.1 percent. The vote share of the People’s Alliance was almost at the same level as the “yes” votes in the referendum. (As for the presidential election of the same date; however, President Erdoğan won by receiving 52.6 percent in the first round.)

For Turkey, President Erdogan’s leadership was beyond question; his vote share was more than the sum of all his opponents’ vote share, but that did not apply to his party. The AK Party lost the parliamentary majority and the alliance with the MHP turned out to be an exigence.

This situation seems as the root cause of the problem currently experienced in the AK Party because it is believed by some that the alliance relations have drawn the AK Party’s stance closer to the MHP. This is the argument of some bashful opponents within the party. Nevertheless, the AK Party clearly rejected some demands of the MHP, such as the declaration of general amnesty. But this negative answer would nearly dissolve the People’s Alliance on the eve of the local election.

For Turkey, President Erdogan’s leadership and his vote share are kept separately from the AK Party. The AK Party lost its parliamentary majority and the alliance with the MHP turned out to be an exigence.

The 2019 local election once again verified the 48-52 percent balance, which has been persistent since the 2007 referendum, but the method of calculating ballots employed in the local election is far from showing how the 52 percent is portioned among the parties. So, although the AK Party claims to have a 44 percent vote share, the MHP electorate comprise a part of this share.

The generally accepted opinion suggests that the AK Party’s vote share this time fell under the 42 percent received in the general election whereas the MHP consolidated its power thanks to AK Party voters.

The general decline in the AK Party’s vote share, the party’s loss of Ankara and Antalya municipalities, the decision of re-running the Istanbul mayoral election at the moment when hopes for Istanbul faded… All these developments caused the critical views in the party to be voiced in a more articulate way.

Some have criticized the AK Party’s alliance with the MHP, claiming that the party has moved more in line with MHP’s rhetoric. 

The bitter criticism was issued by former Prime Minister Davutoglu. For him, the convergence with the MHP undermines the AK Party’s values and cause and makes the MHP take advantage of the AK Party votes. Davutoglu abstained from criticizing President Erdogan and called him “our leader” but went on to claim that a group, which he did not specify, surrounds Erdogan and causes him to make mistakes. This criticism is hard to swallow, and it has been uttered by a former prime minister from the AK Party who also chaired the party. As expected, these severe criticisms were met with a profound silence, the ones talking about the criticisms spoke in a low voice. President Erdogan, meanwhile, completely ignored Davutoglu’s manifesto.

But Davutoglu’s remarks led to another rumor. It was alleged that two separate groups within the AK Party were mobilized to form a new party. One of these groups gathered around Davutoglu while the other one gathered around former president Abdullah Gul and former economy minister Ali Babacan.

It will be useful to look at the profiles of Gul and Babacan in this context.

Gül repeatedly expressed his resentment for the attempt to hamper his presidential candidacy with the enactment of a law in 2014. It is also known that Gul and Erdogan had a fall out to the point of no return with their different reactions to the Gezi Park protests in 2013. Subsequently, the reactions they gave to the December 17-25 judicial coup attempts sharpened this split. Gul argued in this context that the threats must be answered within the limits of law and extraordinary legal practices must be avoided, while Erdoğan displayed a strict attitude. So, we have many reasons to believe that a similar divergence might have occurred in the scope of the stance against FETO in the aftermath of the coup attempt.

In Ahmet Davutoglu’s critique against the AK Party, he did not give the name of the President, but rather claimed that there was an inner circle of advisors that were leading to ill-judged decisions being made. 

Because of these splits in opinion, Gul allowed his mention as a joint presidential candidate of the opposition parties in 2018; and in a statement he issued later on, he said that he got such an offer and did not refuse it since he hoped for reconciliation. So, he seemed determined to run against Erdogan if conditions had been suitable. This is also hard to swallow in the AK Party culture. Gul also issued a diatribe against the YSK decision to cancel and renew the Istanbul mayoral election by comparing the decision to the illegitimate 367 ruling of the Constitutional Court that hampered his presidency in 2007.

Babacan, on the other hand, is lying low since he left office. Although he is appearing at iftar dinners nowadays, he does not make any statements, but only smiles to cameras. It is alleged that Babacan will chair the new party that will be founded with the background support of Gul. However, it is a little puzzling how a leadership will be manifested with this habit of lying low that reaches to the point of bashfulness.

As a journalist who has been closely following Turkish politics since the 1980s, has witnessed the birth of the reformist movement within the Virtue Party and its evolution to the AK Party, I can say based on my experience that some trying days await President Erdoğan and the AK Party.

There are rumors that former AK Party members will form a new political party or two. On the one side there’s the possibility of a party with the leadership of Ahmet Davutoglu and on the other, one in the leadership of Ali Babacan with support from Abdullah Gul. 

It is obvious that neither Davutoglu nor the Gul-Babacan duo has any potential to directly target or undermine Erdogan. For this very reason, they prefer to target Erdogan’s inner circle instead of Erdogan himself and hold this circle accountable for the failure.

Therefore, what really matters is the steps to be taken by the President Erdogan rather than Davutoglu’s or Gul-Babacan’s groups.

Erdogan is probably waiting for the June 23 election in order to make a move. (According to a claim, Erdogan implied at his party’s latest Central Decision and Execution Committee meeting that right before the election and after the Ramadan holiday he might send Davutoglu to the disciplinary board with the request of a complete discharge.)

The rerun of the Istanbul mayoral election on June 23 took on new meanings and significance. If the AK Party wins the election, we might see sweeping discharges in the AK Party that will not be limited to the dissident figures in the party. If they lose, the groups who are already expecting to be discharged (for various reasons) might gather and kick off a more widespread intra-party opposition movement.

No matter what the result will be, we will be talking about the AK Party on the morning of June 24.

From 2003 up until the present day, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has towered over Turkish politics and has been the most internationally visible and influential Turkish leader since Atatürk. As such, if he were to retire from political life tomorrow, it could be said with objectivity that his effect on Turkish politics and society has been monumental and that under Erdoğan’s leadership, Turkey’s economy has modernised, its society become more materially equal, its role as a major international player has increased and its global partnerships have diversified.

Of Erdoğan’s many political talents, winning elections is clearly one of them. Since 2003, his AK Party has never lost a national legislative election and he has twice been elected president after passing a series of reforms which changed the nature of the Turkish presidency. This year’s local elections are no exception. The AK party’s alliance with the MHP proved to be a formidable combination even though the leading opposition CHP has made some noticeable gains.

This itself will be important when future generations study the Erdoğan era and realize that as Erdoğan strengthened democratic institutions, his popularity remained largely stable whilst opposition forces were able to stand on their own merits. This is the case because Erdoğan’s anti-corruption reforms helped to largely eliminate the culture of political patronage which stagnated Turkey’s democratic progress in the last decades of the 20th century.

When future generations study the Erdoğan era, they will realize that as Erdoğan strengthened democratic institutions, his popularity remained largely stable whilst opposition forces were able to stand on their own merits.

Furthermore, by injecting fresh ideas into Turkey’s political arena, Erdoğan was able to convince the people that politics could once again be about broad ideas and specific policies rather than about political tribalism and patronage.

Erdoğan’s overall economic record is one that has seen sustained periods of growth whilst Turkey’s robust foreign relations under Erdoğan have given Turks an ever more global perspective on Turkey’s role within the rules based international system of relations.

But most importantly, Erdoğan has prioritized results based politics over the politics of low expectations. This itself explains why during local elections the opposition CHP gained back some political territory that had long thought to have been permanently lost. Because of pressures against the lira due to the provocative actions of western currency speculators, the Turkish economy did not perform as well in 2018 compared with the rest of the otherwise economically strong Erdoğan era. As such, voters were looking for solutions and while most still expressed confidence in the AK Party and its MHP partner, others turned to the opposition for answers. This makes it clear that Turkey’s democracy is in good health as throughout healthy democracies, it is commonplace for long governing parties to lose some ground in the aftermath of a period of economic challenges. In this sense, the fact that the AK Party still dominated the election is a sign that more people still trust Erdoğan’s model than those who were willing to give the opposition a chance.

This itself is indicative of the flexibility that has defined the age of Erdoğan. Because the Turkey of Erdoğan is one that refuses to submit to foreign intimidation, relations with the EU and U.S. have at times been difficult. In spite of this, Erdoğan and his ministers continue to strive for equitable relations with Europe and America. Elsewhere, relations with Russia that in 2015 hit rock bottom, have been rapidly reversed. Now Russia is one of Turkey’s most important trading partners and in spite of some lingering differences, both are cooperating in order to ensure a successful peace process for Syria.

The fact that the AK Party still dominated the election is a sign that more people still trust Erdoğan’s model than those who were willing to give the opposition a chance.

Relations with Iran also continue to improve in spite of some well-known political differences. A recently conducted joint military operation targeting PKK terrorists along with Turkey’s opposition to unilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran are a further sign of good neighborly relations during a difficult time for the region as a whole.

Pakistan’s relations with Turkey have always been strong and under the leadership of Imran Khan’s PTI, relations look set to grow at an even more rapid pace. Imran Khan has often cited the Erdoğan model of economic reform as something to which PTI aspires in respect of reinvigorating Pakistan’s economy.

As an early supporter of the Belt and Road initiative, Turkey continues to increase bilateral trade with China whilst looking to be an important member of the global trading project that will link the wider Asia-Pacific region with the Afro-Mediterranean region. As such, Turkey’s expanding relations with multiple African partners will likewise help the Belt and Road initiative to develop along positive multilateral lines.

One of the next major goals of Turkey is to create more trading and investment opportunities with ASEAN. The Turkish Foreign Minister’s 2018 visit to Singapore during an ASEAN summit helped to begin a process that will ideally result in ever more global connectivity between Turkey and one of the world’s most economically and culturally dynamic regions.

While some Turkish leaders would have seen a period of difficulty with Europe and the U.S. as a cataclysmic event, Erdoğan saw this as an opportunity to strengthen foreign relations elsewhere whilst still demonstrate to both the EU and the U.S. that Turkey is an invaluable trading and security partner. Indeed, without Turkey’s leadership the wider refugee crisis of the Middle East and North Africa may have been far worse than it has been thus far.

Whether working around economic challenges or instigating new opportunities with foreign partners, the age of Erdoğan has seen Turkey become one of the bright spots in a western Eurasian region plagued with difficulties. While the lights of opportunity have shut from Kiev to Cairo and from Sana’a to Gaza, Turkey has remained stable due to strengthened political institutions whilst President Erdoğan’s flexible mentality has seen Turkey go from strength to strength. The fact that the dire 2016 coup is scarcely talked about outside of Turkey is ironically a symptom of Turkey’s success in rapidly restoring normalcy after FETO terrorists conspired to destroy Turkish state institutions. This too is an example of democracy in action during a deeply important period. Had Turks not believed in the importance of state institutions, they may well never have gathered in the streets to confront the terrorists and end the coup only hours after it began.

Whether working around economic challenges or instigating new opportunities with foreign partners, the age of Erdoğan has seen Turkey become one of the bright spots in a western Eurasian region plagued with difficulties.

Just under three years later, Turkey remains one of the few functioning democracies in its region. The key for others to learn from is that without strong economic foundations, ordinary people will quickly lose faith in political institutions. Secondly, without tackling corruption and fighting terror with an unshakable commitment, political institutions cannot develop along normal and healthy lines. Finally, just as a bird requires two wings to fly, a healthy democracy needs patriotic parties on both the left and right in order for the nation to achieve social harmony even whilst political debates continue to rage.

The local elections give the world an opportunity to reflect on how Turkey has gone from an economic basket case to one where rapid development is the rule rather than the exception. Turkey has likewise survived a terrorist coup by strengthening rather than weakening political institutions and patriotic political parties. Lastly, while many western Eurasian powers have ceased thinking beyond their own borders, Turkey remains an active player throughout the world.

Like all larger than life political figures, Erdoğan has many supporters and also vocal detractors. During the local elections, both sides settled their argument at the ballot box and as a result Turkey is stronger as a nation whilst foreign provocateurs who sought to meddle in Turkey have been exposed as incapable of doing so. 

With almost a month left until the local elections, political parties have put all their efforts to cross the finish line in lead. All parties have made and continue to make efforts to maximize their gains in local administration. While on the one hand local elections dominate the agenda of domestic politics, there is a rising discussion on the possibility of the formation of a new political party on the other. Some political circles imply that former AK Party ministers are about to establish a new political party as an alternative against the government. Even if there have been no official statements made about these allegations, Turkey is nowadays discussing the possibility of the establishment of a new splinter party.

Indeed, Turkey’s political history is full with splinter parties founded as a result of disagreements and intra-party rivalries. The prominent examples of splinter parties in Turkey are the Great Union Party founded by Muhsin Yazicioglu, the New Turkey Party founded by former MPs of the Democratic Left Party, and Turkey Party established by Abdullatif Sener, a former minister of the AK Party currently serving as an MP for the CHP. All of these political parties were divided into various functions due to increasing conflicts and clashes of ideas at the time.

Why has the AK Party never faced any massive intra-party opposition in comparison to other political parties?

Since the AK Party has been in power for 17 years, there have always been some rumors about new splits within the party. However, even if some politicians leave the party because of the clash of interests, there has never been a massive intra-party opposition movement within the party.

Why has the AK Party never faced any massive intra-party opposition in comparison to other political parties? The answer of this question lies behind the powerful and consolidated leadership of President Erdogan, which has been acknowledged by the masses for years. Nonetheless, other political parties experienced some problems in providing consensus and the acknowledgement of the party leadership by society. For instance, both the CHP and Iyi Party have experienced a leadership crisis in the last year, which has resulted in the resignation of some prominent party officials from both parties.

Abdullah Gul, Ahmet Davutoglu, and Ali Babacan have been proposed as challengers of Erdogan’s leadership. Do these names really have the capacity to challenge Erdogan or get mass support?

When it comes to the AK Party, Erdogan’s leadership cannot be challenged by other opposition groups. In the current process, the names of Abdullah Gul, Ahmet Davutoglu, and Ali Babacan have been proposed as challengers of Erdogan’s leadership. Nevertheless, it is a well-known fact that none of these names have the capacity to challenge Erdogan’s leadership or get mass support.

These three names have served in various positions under the AK Party administration. Abdullah Gul served as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Prime Minister, and President. Likewise, Ahmet Davutoglu and Ali Babacan have also served in critical positions in the AK Party governments. After their terms ended, they did not have a serious impact on the dynamics of the party. This means that they could not create their own followers neither under the roof of the AK Party, nor among the voters.

Due to the fact that these names have not provided a statement either supporting or denying the allegations, it is possible to see some mobilization among former AK Party officials. Nevertheless, because of the lack of leadership and support, it is difficult for these mobilized groups to turn into a new political movement against the AK Party. Turkey’s opposition parties, on the other side, will never quit their quest for an alternative conservative party against Erdogan since they cannot perform an effective opposition in Turkish politics.

Speaking at the award ceremony of The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) and the Turkish Academy of Sciences (TUBA) at the Nation Congress and Culture Center at Bestepe, Ankara, President Erdogan made some important comments after celebrating the work and effort of all scientists who had been awarded.

Highlighting the importance of the ‘national treasure’ that will carry Turkey stronger to the future, Erdogan said: “For a long time, we did not open the cover of this ‘treasure’ and benefit from it. For the past two centuries, not just as a country, but also as the Muslim world, we did not reach the success in intellectual studies, production, industry, scientific research, culture and arts. As a result of this, there is a huge impact of the attacks of imperialism on our country and the Muslim world.”

In addition to the sphere of intellectual production, Erdogan added that the Muslim world, which has a population of 1.7 billion, does not even have a permanent member at the United Nation’s Security Council.

“This is why I say ‘The world is bigger than 5.’ This is not far, not in terms of continents, religions, or ethnicities. An answer that comes out of their [permanent members] mouths finalizes everything. There are 194 members; 5 permanent members and they added 15 temporary members along just to raise and drop their hands. There is no meaning. The institution [UN] has been established to bring justice to the world, but this has not been the case. Do not expect or look for any justice from both the Security Council and the UN in general. There is no such thing.”

The Turkish president also added that during the past 16 years, the AK Party administration has managed to dismantle the ‘dependency suit’ that has been forced upon Turkey and its surrounding civilizations for centuries. He added that Turkey has made major improvements in terms of the economy, technology, industry, trade, transportation, democracy, and freedom. With these steps taken, the President underlined that the Turkish nation has increased its faith and self-esteem.

In addition to President Erdogan, during a press conference in Ankara yesterday, leader of the MHP, Devlet Bahceli, also made important remarks and answered questions.

Responding to a question regarding the expected Turkish military operation in the east of the Euphrates, Bahceli stated that Turkey has a keen and determined attitude to wiping out terrorism, which was manifested with its two military operations – Operation Olive Branch and Euphrates Shield – and their successful results.

“The Turkish nation is aspiring the expected military operation in the east of the Euphrates. We also believe that this will take place. With regard to the fight against terrorism, we [MHP] continue to give our full support to the presidential system.”

In his answer to a question on whether it was necessary to start a dialogue with the Assad regime in order to maintain Syria’s geographical integrity and to limit the influence of the YPG/PKK, Bahceli answered, “I’m against any type of dialogue with the Assad regime as a thought. Turkey has walked a long way in the name of fighting terrorism and has paid high costs in this regard. At this point, it would be a shame and a loss for Turkey to give up on this process to the will and choice of Assad.”

Bahceli underlined that saving Syria from the Assad regime had to be done through democracy and that the policies that began in Sochi and continued in Tehran ought to be followed in order to reach a result.

Commenting on the phone call between President Erdogan and U.S. President Trump on December 14, which occurred just before Trump announced his decision to withdraw troops from Syria, Bahceli said that “Turkey has already ripped its shell” and is imposing its strong state tradition to different domains.

*Written by Selahattin Emre Celebi 

Although the Turkish administration is still very cautious, Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria has been echoed for the government in Ankara and for Turkish foreign policy on an international level.

There is more than one perspective on the U.S. decision to withdraw troops from Syria – a decision that was taken by President Trump on Wednesday. The reaction from the region and the U.S. reflects the two sides of the equilibrium. While Russia, Iran, and Turkey are happy about the decision, European countries such as the UK, France, Greece, and Israel are having a hard time digesting the decision. As stated by Ibrahim Kalin, spokesman for the Turkish President, Turkey is still cautious about the decision.

On Wednesday, Trump tweeted, “We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.” According to Trump himself, the decision was not a surprising one. Commenting in Twitter again on Thursday, he tweeted, “Getting out of Syria was no surprise. I’ve been campaigning on it for years, and six months ago, when I very publicly wanted to do it, I agreed to stay longer. Russia, Iran, Syria & others are the local enemy of ISIS. We were doing there work. Time to come home & rebuild. #MAGA.”

Not everyone in the U.S. administration supports Trump’s decision either. Some republicans strongly oppose the decision and criticized Trump for strengthening the hands of Russia and Iran, who are defending the Assad regime. According to some U.S. officials that spoke to Reuters on confidentiality, U.S. commanders in Syria are worried about a ‘quick’ withdrawal.

Just a day after Trump announced his decision, Turkish President Erdogan and Iranian President Rouhani came together in Istanbul with the invitation of Erdogan and emphasized that both countries will work closer together in order to end the war in Syria and to start building a political process.

Although the meeting between the two leaders had been arranged earlier, the ‘move’ was considered meaningful and was supported by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Both leaders decided not to make any comments on Trump’s decision.

During their press conference in Ankara, Erdogan found it sufficient to comment “There are many steps that Turkey and Iran can take together to stop the fighting in the region and to establish peace,” while Rouhani said “Syria’s territorial integrity must be respected by all sides. Both countries are in the same opinion regarding this.”

Both the approval of possible patriot sales to Turkey and the U.S. withdrawal from Syria will have a direct effect on the foreign policy of Ankara in the short and long term. Hence, these two events have been observed as a triumph for Erdogan.

*Written by Selahattin Emre Celebi

On Thursday, President Erdogan spoke at the TRT World Forum, which is currently taking place in Istanbul. The Forum, which began on Wednesday, brought many speakers from all across the world, with the theme “Envisioning Peace and Security in a Fragmented World.”

During his speech, President Erdogan repeated his call for serious reforms within the United Nations Security Council – an issue that he also emphasized during his speech at the United Nations General Assembly that took place in September in New York.

Speaking at the closing session of the Forum, Erdogan said, “We need to achieve a United Nations Security Council with participation from seven continents.”

Turkey’s criticism against the United Nations and the UNSC in particular has heightened due to the organization’s failure to successfully deal with the Syrian crisis, which has led to a mass refugee problem across the world.

Erdogan repeated his “The world is bigger than five” motto, and argued that reforms need to be initiated in accordance with this acceptance.

Reminding the audience of the historical context of the UN, and that it was constructed in this manner due to the circumstances of the Second World War, the Turkish President stated, “The era of the five permanent members of the UNSC is over, we are not living under the same circumstances.”

Apart from Syria, Erdogan underlined the issue of Palestine. Arguing that the Palestine issue is one that can be solved, the President argued that the main reason why this issue has been prolonged is because the UN fails to ensure that Israel puts to practice the decisions that have been made against it.

“There are many decisions that have been taken against Israel at the UN, but none of them is implementable.”

Turkey-EU relations

During his speech, President Erdogan also touched upon Turkey’s bid to the European Union. Talking about this historical process, the President also mentioned that there could be a potential referendum in Turkey regarding this issue.

“There are many things that we can contribute to the European Union. They may have things to contribute to us but what should be done is, I suppose, to consult with 81 million people [in Turkey] and see what they will decide.”

Syrian Civil War

Turkey has been an active and key player in trying to end the Syrian Civil War. While party to the Astana process, in which Iran and Russia are also guarantor states, recently Ankara and Moscow reached an agreement on the Idlib issue.

Idlib is the only stronghold for Syrian rebels, and throughout the last month the political agenda was full with news that the Assad regime in Syria were to attack the city with Russian air support.

In regards to the issues in Syria, President Erdogan emphasized that Turkish troops are currently in Syria because the Syrian people want them to be there.

“The people of Syria invited us there. ‘Come here to save us’ they said.”

Touching upon the fragile Turkey-U.S. relations, President Erdogan also accused the U.S. of sending 19,000 truckloads of weapons and ammunition to terrorist groups in Syria.

The PKK/PYD issue and the continuous support that the U.S. has provided for the group continues to be a main obstacle in healing relations between the two countries.