Barçın Yinanç

Turkish democracy is the casualty of Europe’s rediscovery of Turkey’s strategic value. To better understand the context of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s visit to Ankara next week, one has to go back to the end of the Cold War. Whereas European countries have benefited from the peace dividend, the contrary happened for Turkey in the aftermath of the fall of the Iron Curtain. After enjoying the relative stability of the bipolar order of the Cold War era, Turkey found itself in the midst of several conflict zones. While most European countries downsized their defense budgets, Turkey had no such luxury. The fight against separatist terrorism, the turbulence created by the Gulf War, and regional conflicts like the ones in the Caucasus dictated the maintenance of a big and well-equipped army.

When the AKP came to power it had to prove to the outside world that it was not an Islamist party. The way to convince Western capitals went through luring in Israel and the Jewish lobby. By 2008, the party had consolidated power internally and received a high degree of acceptance from the Western capitals, which led to overconfidence. When the Arab Spring began, the AKP did not have to hide its true ideological leaning. Convinced that the moment for political Islam had finally come, the AKPs ruling elites did not hide their ambition to lead Muslim Brotherhood to power in Middle Eastern countries.

When a European expert based in Bulgaria received an invitation to a conference in Tbilisi, he decided to take the maritime route, boarding the ferry from Burgaz to Batumi. At one stage of the 64-hour crossing, while sailing in the open sea, the ferry shut its transponder and turned off its lights. A Russian fuel tanker approached and docked with the ferry to provide fuel to the ship, which is mainly used by trucks. The expert later found out that Russia sold the fuel 30 to 40 percent less than the market price. The captain of the ferry confessed he had all the official documents proving that the fuel was purchased from Romania.

It was already known that the questions posed to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on board the presidential plane were pre-prepared by the Directorate of Communications. Media Ombudsman Faruk Bildirici has revealed, with concrete evidence this time, what has been an open secret. Bildirici received the full text of the questions and answers long before the conversation took place on the plane taking Erdoğan and journalists back to Turkey from Washington.

It is not unusual for a Turkish citizen visiting China to receive a knock on the door in the middle of the night by a police officer. On my third day in China, I received a call from the reception telling me a police officer wanted to come up to my room to ask a few questions. I said that I would come down and while I was trying to get in touch with the German think-tank that had invited me to China, the receptionist and the police officer were at the door of my hotel room.

When I say Turkey is a European power, pro-government pundits often react with visible discomfort. Yet, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s message on European security is a testament to Turkey’s geostrategic positioning as a European power.

As soon as talk emerged about a possible meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Turkish press began speculating about the potential venue—expressing wishful hopes that Turkey might serve as the host for the highly anticipated summit.

“Turkish newspapers should do more than the Washington Post,” wrote Fatih Selek in pro-government daily Türkiye, recalling that the American newspaper published the names of nearly 20,000 children murdered in Gaza.

Turks have become so accustomed to living under anomalies for the past decade that anything normal is welcome with great joy. Take the visa issue.

The debate kicked off following an article by journalist Zeynep Gürcanlı, who asked why Turkey did not join the statement issued by the Hague Group during their meeting in Bogota on July 16. Turkey was among 30 countries at the Bogota conference, yet opted not to sign the statement, which included measures against Israel. Among these measures are the denial of arms to Israel, a ban on ships transporting such arms, and a review of public contracts for possible links to companies that benefit from the Israeli occupation.