Can Baydarol
First of all, a small apology. Sometimes due to health issues, sometimes due to a heavy workload, I am forced to take a break from writing; I apologise in advance to my readers who are waiting for my commentary. Before we try to make sense of what is happening together, I would like to wish everyone a happy 19 May Youth and Sports Day.
At this very point, whilst wishing Mr Aziz Yıldırım, who is standing for the presidency of our eternal rivals Fenerbahçe, every success, I strongly condemn him for his response to a journalist who asked ‘why there were no female candidates on his list’—namely, his remark to the effect that ‘men go to war’. Leaving aside the veiled insult to women, sport—whatever the discipline—is not a war, but at most an arena of gentlemanly competition. The winner is congratulated, and the loser works harder to win the next match. Unfortunately, the concept of “war” can never be placed side by side with “19 May Day”.
Anyway, without provoking my Fenerbahçe-supporting friends any further, let us return to our main topic: what is happening in the world.
Undoubtedly, the most talked-about topic of the past week was the meeting between US President Trump and Chinese President Xi. Following the meeting, the main questions on everyone’s mind were how US–China relations would develop and how this would impact the global economy and politics. Naturally, Trump’s gaffes, the photos he posed for, and other tabloid-style elements were quick to make their mark on people’s memories.
If we were to immediately ask and attempt to answer the question, “Who was the winner of the meeting?”, whilst it is still too early to provide a definitive answer, there is certainly no harm in stating, “It was definitely not Trump!” As far as the public is aware, it appears that within the first few minutes of the meeting, Xi raised the issue of Taiwan as his own ‘red line’, mentioning the possibility that any intervention in this area could lead to armed conflict. It is also reported that, in response to this stance, Trump was unable to say anything to protect Taiwan, which has increasingly become his long-standing ally.
The order for 200 Boeing aircraft from China, which Trump wished to present as a concrete success, is not even a third of the expected 700. The numerical expressions of the mutual goodwill expressed in other areas do not look particularly encouraging at present either. The question of what points will be reached in future inter-delegation negotiations remains uncertain.
The fact that all the gifts received from China by the US delegation were thrown away before being loaded onto the plane on the return journey, due to concerns about cyber espionage, is actually quite revealing regarding the nature of the contacts: “The US does not trust China!” So, after all that has happened, is there anyone left who trusts the US? This question is likely to be the most defining one of the coming period.
In particular, the extent to which US President Trump can trust the responses he received from China regarding his expectations on the Iran issue is another cause for concern. As we have previously noted, we cannot say whether the US will withdraw its support for Taiwan in order to secure assistance in reopening the Strait of Hormuz or to halt arms supplies to Iran. Following the talks, the US’s imposition of conditions for peace that amount to almost a complete surrender by Iran, coupled with Iran’s stance of acting as if it were a ‘victor in war’, means that the US and the Israeli front continue to keep endless war scenarios on the agenda.
There is no way to say that the Trump-Xi Summit has played a role in resolving the current situation.
So, how is the European front approaching the situation?
At this point, it is worth briefly looking at the study by my son, Dr Ali Baydarol, published by the Istanbul Policy Centre, entitled “The rise of Selective Protectionism within the EU’s evolving economic architecture”. In my view, Ali draws attention to an important perspective through his conceptualisation of the “Selective Protectionism” approach. In response to US-China competition, the EU is adopting high levels of protectionism; less protectionism towards medium-sized economies; and finally, developing economic cooperation models through Free Trade Agreements with certain countries and groups of countries, as well as the Customs Union of which we are a part. Furthermore, within the discussions on capitalism featured in Ali’s work, we are introduced to the concept of “à la carte capitalism”, which I have attempted to conceptualise. Classical neoliberalism, state capitalism and the capitalist state will emerge as concepts we will discuss at length from now on.
Naturally, the European front’s security concerns and the lack of trust in the US will continue to form the hot topics of the coming summer days, alongside debates regarding NATO’s existence in this context. In this regard, the NATO Summit to be held in Ankara on 6–7 July will seek answers to the questions: “Shall we continue with the US?” or “Is it over?”
Again, naturally, our country’s relations with the EU under the current outlook will also feature among the topics we will continue to discuss. As I noted in my most recent article, I believe we must strongly oppose the notion that Turkey should appear as a country ensuring the EU’s security—beyond full membership—particularly in the context of our relations with Russia. Is full membership a pipe dream under the current outlook? This question will continue to be asked with an open-ended nature. Unfortunately, it does not seem very likely,
Finally, returning to the US. Is Trump on his way out? Or is he here to stay?
I am among those who view the completion of his term with scepticism under the current circumstances. The growing anti-Trump sentiment in the US public sphere could lead to him becoming a ‘lame duck’ following the mid-term elections in November. Indeed, even before that date, an escalation in challenges to Trump’s mental fitness could lead to his impeachment.
We shall wait and see. If Trump leaves, can Israel—which is becoming increasingly unpopular in the global public eye—continue with its actions? What will the repercussions be for our domestic politics? As we said, the uncertainties are at their peak.
To conclude, let us recall the late Süleyman Demirel’s saying, “Yesterday is yesterday, today is today,” or, in the words of the important principle of international law, “rebus sic stantibus” (circumstances have changed); we shall all see what tomorrow brings.
Stay well…