Transcription
If the world were to be shaped according to Trump's morality, woe to us. This planet will be uninhabitable if we continue to act this way, and if it engages in more unpleasant actions, distasteful actions, and makes decisions like Venezuela, then giving a very close image to America might also present some, uh, drawbacks. Turkey's true place has always been the geography of democracy. That is, the fundamental priority above all else must be to be a geography of democracy. Other matters. >> Hello, we continue our conversations discussing the agenda with Sedat Ergin. Welcome, Sedat Bey. >> Welcome. Uh, now, throughout December, you wrote a series of articles regarding the National Security Strategy document published by America, and, uh, we saw the points you mentioned and emphasized in these articles materialize in the first days of the new year. America's intervention in Venezuela in January, uh, >> there were very serious clues about both what the US wanted to do and its style, and we saw them happen. What happened in Venezuela, how did it confirm and materialize your writings? My writings, nothing in the National Security Strategy, uh, >> roadmap that was laid out, it shows that it will be implemented, put into practice, and has been implemented without any hesitation. Uh, more precisely, this document was published on December 4th. Uh, when we look at it, uh, in the Trump administration's view of the world, defining American interests and where American interests are in this world? How will it proceed to realize these interests? Uh, the priority is the Western Hemisphere, its fundamental priority, its fundamental area of interest is the Western Hemisphere. And what do we understand by the Western Hemisphere, predominantly, uh, the Americas, North America, Central America, the Caribbean, South America, and of course, let's not forget to include Greenland above North America. So, it's actually a much larger area. The Western Hemisphere, but, uh, in a continental sense, we need to focus here. That is, we can look at it as the United States' backyard, upper yard, immediate neighborhood. My priority is here, it says. Look here, and this is the most striking part of this document, uh, everyone saw it from there. Uh, they focused on that part. Uh, this says, "I will add an amendment to the Monroe Doctrine." It says, "An amendment, an interpretation will be made." >> "We will make it," it says. Now, when this came out, everyone turned to history, political history books. What is the Monroe Doctrine? Uh, it says that in 18, uh, the then President of the United States, James Monroe, put forth a doctrine at the beginning of the 19th century. Now, at that time, of course, European colonial powers, including, uh, the English, Germans, Dutch, Spanish, all of them, Portuguese, they had all come to Latin America, Central America, and were roaming the American continent. It says the Monroe Doctrine, "From now on, the Western Hemisphere, the American continent, is closed to Europeans." It says, "This is America's sphere of interest." It draws a line there. This is actually the birth of American imperialism. Trump, in 2025, meaning at the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, at the beginning of the second quarter, says, "I am taking the Monroe Doctrine. I am bringing a new interpretation to it." Uh, he says. Everyone found this a bit far-fetched. Such interpretations were made. It turned out that it was not such a far-fetched thesis at all. The old Monroe Doctrine was more about closing off to Europeans. It was a doctrine that closed off to European, uh, great powers, colonial countries, while with Trump, it closes off to all foreign powers, meaning foreign elements, primarily China, Russia, are implied here, to foreign elements, to China. I won't let anyone into this region, he says. And this is interesting. He says, "Assets in the Western Hemisphere," he used the word assets. He elaborates on this: ports, canals, telecommunications infrastructure, energy facilities. He says, "We will prevent foreign elements, foreign interests from penetrating these." Now, Venezuela became the first place where this was tested. In a sense, we have understood how serious his words are. With the Venezuela operation, the military operation he organized, we need to draw this lesson, or rather, this conclusion. Let's not call it a lesson, but this conclusion. Trump, I'm not saying this in a positive sense. I'm saying it independently of its content. Whatever he writes, whatever he says, whatever he means, he does it. That is, the question of whether they would write this but not implement it, uh, is removed. No. Everything he says. Therefore, I brought this document with me. Everyone probably needs to study it carefully. Yes. Uh, when we study it like this, as I said, there is the Western Hemisphere. The second strategic priority is China. In fact, one and two are intertwined. That is, first, to close off to China. To close off his own backyard to the People's Republic of China. That is, in the second objective, he sees China as a rising power. So, to summarize, Trump's administration's view of the world, its view of the globe, first the Western Hemisphere, securing his own backyard. Second, then to turn to the competition with China, to turn to the Indo-Pacific basin. Then other issues come, like Europe and the Middle East. >> Yes. That is, a period where Europe has shifted to the category of other issues, and is no longer much of a priority. >> Russia is also not prioritized. It's not that it's not prioritized, but in the order of priority, Russia is a point that everyone underlines in the document. It also caught my attention. I looked at previous documents. What was the document, the National Security Strategy document, during the Biden era? When I compared it with the National Security Strategy document from Trump's first term, I saw this: In both, Trump mentions Russia as a threat in his first term, and very openly and clearly, and that this threat must be countered. We must be careful, we must be vigilant. There is such a strong threat analysis and assessment. The entire National Security Strategy was defined accordingly. When we look at where we are now, he does not define Russia as a threat. Putin himself made a statement from the Kremlin. It will be remembered, and they announced that they found this new National Security Strategy to be positive. Now we are in a situation where it reverses all our templates, our established thought patterns. That is, there is an American strategy, an American strategy that is applauded by the Kremlin, and there is a condescending view of Europe. We can discuss the reasons for that. A condescending view of Europe, a view that says, "Let Europe fend for itself." There are very critical statements about Europe. >> When we say West, we are accustomed to not separating Europe and the United States. >> There is a holistic view. >> Yes. We look at it together. That is, uh, Europe is its locomotive of civilization. >> Historically. >> Historically, America is its economic and technological locomotive, and the security locomotive that both of them jointly created is NATO. >> Now, we see these >> almost dismantled, piece by piece. >> Exactly. It's cracking. >> It's cracking. >> It's cracking. Trump looks at it. Today, there are 75,000 to 80,000 American soldiers in Europe. They arrived after World War II and stayed. These soldiers are still in Europe for Europe's security, in Germany, England, Belgium, Italy, very few in Turkey as well. It has decreased a lot, but >> Turkey is there. And America spends a lot of money for Europe's security. It allocates a significant portion of its defense budget to NATO for Europe's security. Trump, of course, measures everything with money, so he looks at it like this. Perhaps to express it in colloquial terms, these Europeans are all well-off. I'm looking a bit, but in the field of defense, they don't reach into their pockets much. Let them fend for themselves a bit. >> Am I, will I forever undertake their defense, stand by their side? He wants to pressure Europe a bit in this sense. In the past, after World War I, the defense order, the world order that emerged, the defense of the Western world, Europe and America, were intertwined. This was expressed in Article 5 of the NATO treaty. That is, what was it? An attack on an ally, a NATO member. The threat is Russia. By the way, an attack will be considered an attack on all allies, and it will be considered an attack on the entire alliance, and all allies will come to the aid of that country within their capabilities. NATO already has pre-prepared defense plans. It won't be like, "You do this, you do that" by chance. These need to be implemented and put into practice automatically. This was the entire understanding. The weakening of this means the collapse of NATO's fundamental philosophy, the fundamental understanding that created NATO. That is, after this document was announced, a great debate began among these Western think tanks, opinion leaders, and leading experts in the field of foreign policy strategy. It caught my attention. For example, there is a very prestigious publication called Forum Polis. Many articles were published there. For example, one comment was, a few days after it was published, an article titled "The Roadmap to the Death of the West," or something to that effect. That is, "The End of the West." In another article, Natalya Toki, a very prestigious Italian academic, had an article in Forona Ferz magazine. It was titled "How Europe Lost." Another one, for example, whom I consider very important, a professor of international relations at Harvard University, Steve Walt, one of the thinkers, a representative of the realist school. His article on common defense >> meaning NATO, he means. The intertwined common defense of America and Europe was linked to a life unit of common defense. This is another, another article, all of them by influential authors and thinkers. Another one was titled "Putin Won." When we look at the discussions among opinion leaders and strategists in Europe and America today, these are the ideas that emerge. >> So, it's not just that cooperation is weakening, cracking, but the West as we know it is coming to an end. >> It's coming to an end. Yes. Yes. Those are the headlines. German Chancellor Merkel, immediately after this document was released, her first statement, I'm paraphrasing, was that "we Europeans must understand that it is time for us to act more independently after the announcement of this strategy." In essence, "Europe must act more independently." This has been said for a long time. Trump was constantly circulating these ideas before the election. He says, "If Europeans don't put their hands in their pockets for their defense, if they don't spend much money, then I, as America, will reconsider my commitments to Europe," he says openly. More importantly, he had statements about Greenland. This Republican, I don't see it as anything other than this Republican party. These MAGA people, Trump, Bannon, this team, have a different political understanding. Uh, I think, when they look at Europe, of course, Europe represents liberal values. And the European Union is bound by commission rules, by regulations. Now, for this team, such a liberal structure, where everything is bound by rules, where everything is done by the book, they equate it with Democrats. That is, they are very angry with the Democrats, with the liberal values represented by the Democratic Party in America, with the values they are so angry about, called "woke culture," and they see it as an ideological rival. They position themselves on the opposite line. Just as they are engaged in an ideological struggle with the Democrats, they reflect the same thing onto Europe. That is, for Trump and more ideologically minded individuals like Bannon, for the leading figures of the Trump administration, when they look at Europe, when they look at the European Commission, when they look at European liberal politicians, they see Biden and the Democratic Party. That's why they support the far-right in Europe. Of course, for example, in this National Security Strategy document, there is such a negative view of Europe that it states that America's allies in Europe are the "patriotic parties" in Europe. That is, this liberal, what they mean by "patriotic parties" are the far-right parties. >> They can't say it, so they say "patriotic parties." Patriot parties, patriotic parties, such expressions. Patriots, nationalists, and so on. They are also far-right. >> A closed Europe that is against multiculturalism, pluralism, diversity, different religions, different cultures, that defends Christian values entirely, that represents and speaks for Islamophobia. Even, for example, the party in Germany that represents this line, which is on the rise, the AfD party, for example, it is no secret that there are some neo-Nazi elements within that party, that symbols are used. It's not America's direction, let's not say America, because Trump doesn't represent all of America. When the Democrats come, these things might be reversed, but there's no guarantee of that. Because America is now heading in that direction. >> Now, this team sees the far-right in Europe as its ally, and perhaps what worries me is that it says that these political parties, this political view, this resistance in Europe, this resistance against liberal values, will be supported. What does this mean? It means that in the upcoming elections in Europe, in Germany, Austria, France, America will throw its full weight behind the far-right. They will mobilize all their resources. Trump has already done this for the past year, in Argentina, he put his weight behind the election, supported his close cadres. And then he says it openly, "I intervened, I put my weight in, and he won." He doesn't hold back his words at all. So, the problem for Europe is this: If Trump remains president for the next 2-3 years, I think there will be a lot of trouble in all elections held in Europe. And of course, we need to be prepared for all scenarios. This is already happening, we see a rise of the far-right in Europe, in France, in Germany, in other countries. We see a rise in xenophobia. If this rise continues with the wind Trump is giving, and let's say in Germany, France, the leading countries of the European Union, this line moves towards becoming a coalition partner or a sole power, let's not say these are far-fetched predictions, we don't know what will happen in 5 or 10 years. Then the question of how the European Union will continue its path arises. NATO has already entered a process of dissolution, it's cracking, this is a fact. But how the European Union will respond to this situation, I don't know. Its name is union, but how much of that union can be preserved? So, there seems to be a problem there too. The European Union could also dissolve. This could also happen. We need to be prepared for all these possibilities. Now, let's see this. 27 countries, and decisions are made unanimously. >> Mm-hmm. >> They can hardly make quick decisions on any issue. Now, look, regarding Ukraine, meetings are being held. Last week, it was held in Paris. NATO and the European Union are coming together. Decisions are made. A series of decisions regarding Ukraine's security. Hungary is not there from the European Union, Slovakia is not there. And decisions cannot be made by the European Union. This is a very critical issue. They can't make decisions about Turkey. Why? Because Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration are blocking it. The European Union wants to update the Customs Union with Turkey. The Greek Cypriot administration says no. And because they say no, it doesn't happen. Indeed, this Western world, NATO is entering a process of dissolution. How the European Union will fully respond to this decision-making structure is a major challenge. I think we need to be prepared for all of this. Europe is facing a very difficult period. >> Sedat Bey, Europe is still Europe. There is money, established democracy. It will save itself. What will we do? Now, how should Turkey prepare itself for this new strategy document? Is the warm relationship between Tayyip Erdoğan and Donald Trump enough for us? >> In my opinion, it is important. Undoubtedly. In such a period, America is once again presenting itself as a world power, showcasing all its strength. For someone in this position, with so much power, of course, having a close dialogue with the President of Turkey has very significant advantages for Turkey. But we also need to leave some room for caution. Let's look at it objectively. Turkey is very closely concerned with what is happening in Syria. How Syria will emerge, and of course, America is a very decisive actor there. Therefore, if this dialogue channel is good, if it is open, you have the opportunity to influence the United States, to advise it and influence its stance. For example, a result was achieved in the Syrian issue. Gulf countries, Saudi Arabia, they also got involved. Turkey also put its weight in. For example, it had an effect on the lifting of sanctions, on the lifting of sanctions against the Syrian regime. That is, I don't accept the arguments that Turkey has no influence at all. This dialogue yields results in some areas, but you have many other bilateral issues with America in many other areas. Who will you solve these issues with? You will solve them with America. With the administration, solve them now. And to the extent that you are close to Trump and this dialogue channel is functioning, you have the opportunity to solve these issues. However, when you are this close and this dialogue channel is this open, it also makes you open to its demands, to the demands of your counterpart. Superpowers can have such habits. We have experienced many examples of this in the past. For example, in the Jupiter missiles, the Cuban missile crisis, they can have their own ideas about you. Sometimes they can take those steps. Now, as I said, having the channel, being close is good. As long as your views are beneficial to your own interests, as long as it contributes to your ability to put forward and realize your interests, it is good. >> But it also makes you open to the demands of the other side. >> This, in my opinion, the Venezuela incident shows us that there are some limits to the closeness between America and Turkey, and there will be some. If Trump continues with this mindset, he makes decisions alone, without even informing Congress, but he consulted with oil companies, according to his own statement, he informed them. I'm going to say it, he takes the president, he says, "I will take Greenland," he says, "I can intervene," he says, "Let me buy it." Now, what you want to buy, what you want to buy is NATO territory, a territory belonging to Denmark. Now, when you look at this, such impulsive action, acting unilaterally. International law, in his latest New York Times interview. International law, he says, doesn't bind me that much. What's important, he says, when acting internationally, are my own moral principles, my own morality. I look at that. I make decisions accordingly. This means that I will do whatever I want in the world, according to my own interests and my own morality. That is, if he acts according to his own morality, then Trump is probably not a paragon of morality. If we start discussing this topic, many colorful stories can be told here. If the world is to be shaped according to his morality, woe to us. This planet will be uninhabitable. Because then there will be all sorts of arbitrariness, all sorts of lawlessness, everyone will already be back. It will enter a state of complete chaos. If it continues to act this way and engages in more unpleasant actions, distasteful actions, and makes decisions like Venezuela, then giving a very close image to America might also present some drawbacks. That is, I don't want this to be misunderstood as turning our backs on Turkey's international image. Of course, I am a realistic person. Foreign policy is conducted on a realistic basis. With so many issues and problems, you cannot go anywhere by confronting the American administration, whoever is in the White House. This is 2 plus 2 equals 4. But giving a very close image, in the medium to long term, could expose Turkey to certain risks. I have concerns in this regard. I think the real stress test between Turkey and America will happen very soon. It will be regarding Greenland. Greenland is part of Denmark. It has a special semi-special administration. Although it is Danish territory. If we go to everyone can do this. Let's open our computers, or it can be done from a mobile phone. Let's go to NATO's page, its website. When you find the relevant page on NATO, the NATO geography area is shown. There is the continent of Europe, all NATO countries. Uh, there is the continent of America, Canada, America, and Greenland above. It says Denmark on Greenland. Because it is Danish territory. >> When you look at it, you have to calculate that. NATO's geography, I mean, America is very large, but in terms of size, it's quite extensive. Europe, the entire continent of Europe, is a vast area. This is NATO territory. Something like this has never happened before. NATO was established to protect Europe from Russia, from the Soviet Union at that time. The threat is written in all NATO documents. It was never thought that the threat would come from the United States. That is, this is not far-fetched. Let me say it. The threat comes from the United States, from the most powerful country in the alliance. It comes from America. Because the person who is the president of America can say, "I can intervene," he says, "We want to take Greenland." It is useful to look at Trump's latest interview with the New York Times newspaper. It also gives us an idea. New York Times reporters ask him. You are very insistent on this Greenland issue. Why do you want Greenland? You want to acquire it. And they say, "Greenland, when you order Greenland, it causes discomfort in NATO because it is NATO territory." >> Mm-hmm. >> Which is more important to you? Is it more important to take Greenland or the continuation of NATO? NATO or Greenland? Which one, they ask. The reporters' comment is that he avoided answering this question. He didn't answer. And he said, he looked, he said, "This is a matter of choice, a matter of decision." That is, he doesn't bind himself. What would the Europeans expect? What would be the expected answer? Of course, NATO solidarity is above all else. He doesn't give such an answer. And it is understood that he will exert a lot of pressure. Now, as I said, this is a scenario we cannot predict. While the threat has always come from Russia, this time the threat comes from America itself. Greenland is an area belonging to Denmark. Denmark is a NATO country. If we invoke Article 5, all NATO allies, not counting America, the threat comes from it. All NATO allies, all of them, except America, need to come together and come to Denmark's aid, stand by Denmark. Now, for Turkey, for example, a problematic issue is this. >> Uh, what is it? When it becomes a topic of discussion within NATO, and the Europeans express their discomfort. Now, what position will Turkey take here? When you say NATO solidarity is above all else, the possibility of confronting Trump arises. That is, it enters a very difficult, very problematic situation. If NATO insists on this in the coming period, it is understood that it will enter serious turbulence. But in the end, the future of NATO has entered a serious uncertainty. >> That uncertainty seems to be moving towards an intention to build a new world. >> Yes. That's what İsmet Pasha said to Time magazine reporters after the famous Johnson letter. What will happen, they ask. Then he says, "If there is a Soviet attack, perhaps as America, we will not invoke Article 5, we will not come to your aid," President Johnson told Turkey. The whole issue is this Article 5. İsmet Pasha then says, "A new world will be built, and Turkey will take its place there." Now, your problem, İsmet Pasha, the credit belongs to İsmet Pasha. After World War I, Turkey based its entire defense framework, its main assumption, on NATO membership. >> Turkey has been a NATO ally since the early 1950s, for 75 years, right? This is Turkey's main assumption of defense. Now, the structure you are sitting on, the house you are sitting on, you are living in a house with all your allies. Its foundations are constantly experiencing earthquakes. Trump came, every day there is a tremor with aftershocks. Its foundations are being shaken. It is in a constant state of shaking, and it doesn't look very solid. Can this building carry it? That is at least being debated, and cracks have started to appear in the walls. You look at the load-bearing columns. Cracks. This building has collapsed. It will collapse. It can manage for a while, but we need to do something. Either we stop and reinforce it, put in strengtheners, or what will we do? Everyone seeks their own safety, their own shelter, right? They try to solve the issue of shelter. This is the current situation in Europe. Perhaps it's a harsh comparison, but it cannot be explained in any other way. It is probably a serious debate. Europe is looking at what to do. So what about Turkey? If you remove America from the equation, who had the largest army among NATO allies in Europe? Turkey. Turkey becomes NATO's first army, its first military power in Europe. Suddenly. >> Uh, now Europeans are turning to Turkey, of course. Turkey is in this situation, but come, let's contribute to Europe's security together. Okay, I will contribute, but you are leaving me outside of Europe's political union, outside of European integration, outside of the European Union. You have stopped accession negotiations. If I am not going to be within Europe's political union, within its economic integration, if I am not going to benefit from its blessings. But I will continue to contribute to your security, to ensure your security. We will cooperate in the field of defense. This is not a viable model. Turkey is also bringing the full membership card to the table. In return, they say, "Okay, you will be a full member." Okay, there are European countries that are not ready for this. Europe needs to come to this thinking, but Turkey, in terms of its internal workings, democracy, human rights, the rule of law, the judiciary, independence, in these areas, the European Union constantly reports. Every year, it prepares a report on Turkey. In the latest report, in their English term, "democratic backsliding," Turkey is in a state of democratic and legal regression. Therefore, negotiations cannot be made. Now, there is a deadlock here. Look where we've come from. One thing is certain: a major negotiation, a major bargaining between Turkey and the European Union awaits us. Perhaps this will be a topic for the coming years, decades. Turkey's place within the entire West will be redefined and negotiated in this framework, perhaps its global position. This is very important. Turkey needs to diversify its relations as much as possible, to spread the risk. I think multilateralism is important for Turkey. Turkey needs to diversify its relations. But a new relationship with Europe needs to be defined. It is hoped that this will be in the form of full membership and contribute to the full membership process. But for this to happen, Turkey also needs to adopt a new mentality towards Europe. I believe this. Geopolitical developments may go in that direction, or in this direction. Trump may be replaced by Democrats in the next election, but in two elections, Republicans may come again. JD Vance may come, Mark Rubio may become president, and we will go back to the Greenland debate. But what is clear is that NATO is no longer as strong as it was 75 years ago. In the past, when we looked at NATO, there was a very strong American guarantee there. That guarantee no longer stands with its former strength. A question mark remains. >> Then everyone has to fend for themselves. The important thing is what a country wants to be, where it wants to go, what values it will embrace in the future, despite everything. How will it choose its own style, its own path? Turkey's choice of the West was not just a geopolitical necessity, let's not forget that. It also reflected choices for a rules-based democracy and the rule of law. Especially when we say the "curtain West," when the Republic was founded, the West, rules, a rule-based and institutional path. >> You are choosing a path for yourselves. And this, of course, the dimension of democracy is very important. The dimensions of law, the dimensions of human rights are very important. I believe this. What is important is belonging. I believe that Turkey's place in this geography of values is very important. When looking at Turkey's future, where is Turkey's place in this new world? >> Turkey's true place. That is, its fundamental priority should be its belonging to this geography of democracy. But this never means that the security dimension is unimportant. The balance of this is important. >> Sedat Ergin, thank you very much. >> I thank you.