Abdullah Gul in “TA NEA”: To jointly withdraw 12 miles and casus belli
If the Greek claim to the twelve miles of Greek territorial waters is withdrawn, then the Turkish statement on the casus belli will automatically lose its necessity and function, former Turkish President Abdullah Gul argues in his interview with “TA NEA”. Regarding the Cyprus issue, the former Turkish president, who will participate in the Delphi Economic Forum (April 22-25), favors considering the possibility of negotiating a two-state solution. Regarding the war in Iran, he criticizes the American operation, believes that it will have serious consequences and long-term consequences for the region, while emphasizing that there will be a shift in the Gulf towards deeper cooperation with Beijing and a rapid distancing from the US.
The war in Iran is escalating, it has taken on the dimensions of a regional war, while the global economy has been significantly disrupted. How do you see the war developing and how decisive is the war for how the balance of power in the region will be shaped?
First of all, we need to note that the attack on Iran was not legal or legitimate, from the point of view of international law. It is now a well-known fact even stated by some American officials that Tehran did not pose an imminent threat to the United States. Israel and its lobbies have managed to push President Trump into this disastrous campaign. The U.S. now has become complicit to Israel’s actions by bombing schools in Iran and creating huge devastation in the region.
It was not a surprise that as a response Iran targeted U.S. military facilities located in the Gulf. Following this, hostilities will not vanish, with long term consequences reshaping the dynamics in the region. The American miscalculation will have severe consequences and costs for all.
Washington is now seen as an unpredictable actor by Gulf states. It is not a protector anymore, but the very reason for instability. My guess is that there will be a shift in the Gulf towards deeper cooperation with Beijing.
China appears as a more predictable actor that can play a role in a future dialogue between Iran and the Gulf – it has good relations with both sides. It was Beijing
that managed to broker a diplomatic deal between Tehran and Riyad in 2023. Beijing already has the economic upper-hand. Its style of governance and diplomacy is also closer to the vision of countries in the Middle-East, as opposed to the interventionist approach of the U.S. The shift away from the U.S. will be faster than most think.
Israel may see itself as a victor. But it is now more isolated than ever. It is seen as the main instigator and responsible of the war and devastation in the region. The leaders of Middle-Eastern countries cannot ignore the strong popular feelings and risk any attempts of diplomacy with Tel-Aviv. Israel, for the foreseeable future, has forced its citizens to live in fear, inside a garrison-like country.
What are Türkiye’s aspirations and how does this particular war affect Türkiye-US relations?
The Turkish leadership has been successful in keeping the country out of the reach of the conflict. This first objective was achieved through a correct geo-political positioning, together with balanced diplomacy and dialogue with regional partners and Washington.
The second objective is for peace to be established to our south. Ankara has taken a responsible stance and is contributing to efforts to end the war and create regional ownership. I think that such diplomatic effort is appreciated by Washington, especially at a time when President Trump seems to be looking for a way out of the war.
This does not mean that we agree with the American operation in Iran. Turkish government officials have criticised the attack on Iran. NATO military assets in Türkiye are not being used in combat operations in the campaign. So this stance is clear.
At present, the U.S. is having a similar difference in opinions with most of its Allies. I believe that Türkiye’s stance as a country in the region is understandable for Washington.
How likely do you consider the possibility of a lasting war and what will this mean?
All wars end at some point. This one will also end. What is important is the when, how and at what price. The military power and technology factors are not on its side, so Iran prefers undertaking assymetric warfare. Such a conflict can drag for a long time. The U.S. and the global economy would bare a significant cost from this. Iran, on the other hand, seems ready to bear the cost of resisting. This is why they are a difficult rival for the U.S. at the moment.
Tehran already lost its head of state alongside other leaders, and cities across the country have been bombed for weeks. But Iran showed that the State mecahisms are intact and that its forces can keep fighting. Those familiar with Iranian culture will know that they are resilient and will prefer a lose-lose outcome when the rival creates such a situation.
Unless the U.S. is ready to end the war, the conflict might drag on. So, for its own good as well as regional stability, Washington should find a way out as soon as possible.
Greece and Türkiye are in the process of positive rapprochement. However, the “difficult” issue of the delimitation of the EEZ and continental shelf in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean remains off the agenda. At the same time, Turkey is seeking a closer relationship with the EU, also in defense. Mr Mitsotakis, has called on Turkey to withdraw the casus belli. Do you think this would be possible, and what steps can be taken towards a more substantial settlement?
Reciprocal visits and positive statements by the leaders of Türkiye and Greece are a necessity of good neighbourliness. We should support exchanges that are based on goodwill, openness, trust and empathy. The agenda needs to remain positive, and not all difficult topics can be included at once.
When it comes to Aegean issues, The Turkish approach is that these should be taken into consideration as a whole, and not as topics that are separate from each other. The solution should be holistic and enable the Aegean to become a sea of cooperation. Of course, here again bilateral work will need to be done in goodwill.
You mention Türkiye as seeking closer ties with the EU, especially in defense. It would be wrong to see such cooperation as only a gain for Ankara. Türkiye is the second biggest army in NATO and has greatly contributed to the security of the Europe during the Cold War. Today, Türkiye is once again willing and capable of contributing to European security in the face of new threats and a new order. Such cooperation is mutually beneficial for Türkiye and the EU.
Regarding your question on Greece’s “casus belli” claim. The step taken years ago by the Greek Parliament to authorize the Greek Government to unilaterally extend Greek territorial waters from 6 to 12 nautical miles, would mean to erect a wall around Türkiye in the Aegean and cut off our exit to sea. I think it would be useful for our Greek friends to envision it this way and try to look at the matter from the Turkish perspective.
Ankara had to react to such a possibility, which it did one week after the initial step by the Greek Parliament. The correct solution to this problem would be to withdraw these decisions together. If the Greek claim to 12 miles is withdrawn, then the Turkish statement would automatically loose its necessity and function. Reciprocal goodwill is the key here.
The UN Secretary-General is planning to put the Cyprus issue back on track with a specific framework in mind. How do you see this prospect? Is there the necessary will on the Turkish side or will it continue to insist on a two-state solution?
In Cyprus, there is a reality with two different entities. In the past, the 1960 Republic was established according to a reality of two distinct peoples. The tragic events and aftermath are documented in archives.
For decades, UN-led efforts have tried to solve the problem and reunite the island. The Annan Plan with two equal constituent states came closest to a solution. I personally led the process on our side. At the referendum in 2004, Turkish Cypriots accepted the plan, however Greek Cypriots voted against it. Unfortunately, a realistic and major opportunity was then lost. Subsequent negotiations based on UN-criteria did not manage to advance toward a resolution.
According to the most recent report by the UN Personal Envoy of the Secretary General on Cyprus, the two sides on the island are not ready for a new negotiation process. Since the Greek Cypriot side is a member of the EU, they are not interested in power-sharing, which might make sense from their perspective. Since a compromise does not seem possible, after decades of unsuccessful attempts, it seems like a healthier option now would be to consider negotiating a two-state solution in Cyprus.