“Turkey will not abstain from acting against persecution in Syria, as it never remained silent against any persecution in the past”
In 2010, for the first time in the history of Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), of which Turkey had been one of the founding member states back in 1949, a parliamentarian from Turkey has been elected as the President for a term of 2 years. Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, who was nominated by the Alliance of Democrats and Liberals for Europe (ALDE), has participated in the election at the General Assembly as the only candidate. Çavuşoğlu, among the founding members of Justice and Development Party (AK Parti), has evaluated the PACE presidency term, which is currently held by Jean-Claude Mignon since last January, rising racism in Europe, the Arab Spring, domestic political issues in Turkey and the AK Parti for ResearchTurkey.
Some excerpts from the interview:
‘We dealt with various hindering efforts and difficulties while forming Ak Parti’
‘We saw in the elections that the people’s trust in us was growing and therefore our electoral success was no surprise for us as we were already expecting to gain 49 to 51 per cent of the votes in our last election’
‘During my Presidency term for PACE, I believe that it has been a much more politically-oriented, stronger, and more recognised and more visible institution in the international arena’
‘It should be taken positively that, whereas, racism, xenophobia, discrimination, Islamophobia, intolerance and anti-Semitism are all rising trends in Europe today, people are asking for democracy and more rights in our neighbourhood’
‘The Syrian fire is burning right by our side, and it is for this reason that we cannot react like Russia in this situation. It is not out of nothing that 8 out of 10 countries in the world support Turkey’s election to the UN Security Council. It is because of the leadership role Turkey has assumed, and because of the trust it has gained. Turkey should not waste this role’.
‘There is no retreat in our endeavours as well as our dedication to join European Union. We do show effort, we do our part, and we also acknowledge that we have to do more. We always make progress yet we still hit the brick wall of the Southern Greek Region within the European Union’
‘When you examine the criticisms about the Ergenekon case, you come across internal contradictions within them. When military commanders, policemen, and businessmen are detained there is no problem. But why is a reaction against the detention of an academic or the detention of a journalist under basically the same accusation?’
‘For God’s sake, which step have we taken led to a regression in Turkey? All of them brought Turkey to the European Union accession and have modernized Turkey. Has there been construction of this many schools for modern education in Turkey before? We constructed half number of schools that had been built all over the history of the Turkish Republic’
‘We had shortcomings, maybe we could make reforms more rapidly, maybe we could succeed in completing the judicial reform by now but in the end it continues with commitment now. For me, the biggest three successes of the AK Parti is its health care and social security policies’
‘We dealt with various hindering efforts and difficulties while forming Ak Parti’
Let us start with the London chapter of your life. You studied in London between 1993 and 1995. You were the President of the Turkish Student Society at the London School of Economics (LSE) during your time there. Could you tell us about your experience as a foreign student in London?
I was disappointed when I arrived to London in 1993. I had studied in New York before that time, so I had naturally pictured London to be more or less like New York City. When I arrived in Leicester Square and Piccadilly Circus, they told me: “Here, this is the centre of London”. I couldn’t believe it, I thought they were joking. I had left Alanya wearing only a t-shirt, I switched first to a jacket and then to a coat afterwards. I didn’t see the sunlight for 15 days! However, over-time I got used to the weather and the city and London really is a great city to live in and to be a student. Studying at LSE is a privilege. Studying at LSE is a preparatory phase for people like me who aim to be involved in politics. Like you mentioned, I was the president of the Turkish society at LSE, and that was also my first election campaign. Back then, the Turkish society at LSE was a very active one–it was selected as the society of the year with all the activities we had organised. Overall, I spent two very pleasant years at LSE. The good thing about London is that you never feel like a foreigner in this city. If I was asked right now “where would you want to live” (excluding Turkey, obviously–Istanbul, Antalya and Ankara are cities that I also love) I would opt for London.
You are one of the founding members of the Justice and Development Party (AK Parti) which has been in power in Turkey for 10 years after being elected for the first time in 2002. You have also been serving as a Member of Parliament for Antalya. Would you tell us a little about the establishment phase of AK Parti? How was the idea of the party formed, and what difficulties did you encounter while founding AK Parti?
As you may remember, Turkey had experienced a deep economic crisis and several political crises during the late 1990s and into the 2000s. The coalition governments had consecutively been unsuccessful and Turkey was in the middle of searching for a new government. Our Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, during his time as the Mayor of Istanbul, had shown a very impressive performance. He was becoming more visible in politics day by day. At this very point, he was banned from holding public office because of a poem he had cited in public. Nonetheless, we went on with conducting surveys to find out whether a new political party was needed, who its leader should be, and what exactly was to be prioritised. We asked 4000 individuals in total and we (the founding members) concluded that the majority of the Turkish public thought that a new party was needed. It was stated by the Turkish public in those surveys that a new political party was needed with the leadership of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. We also saw people’s priorities in the surveys. When it was time to prepare our party program, we took these priorities into consideration. Forming a new party is a process which is both difficult and exciting as we were approached with great prejudice and as attacked as a continuation of a party which was formerly banned. These were very harsh criticisms. On the other hand, there were initiatives to prevent Recep Tayyip Erdoğan from re-engaging in politics. These initiatives occurred both within political circles and also in the media. We also encountered legal initiatives which were directed to hinder our efforts. At the time, there were hesitations about female participation in the party. We were not very successful in raising the number of our female members. But in hindsight, now we see that we no longer have this problem. None of these difficulties could strive as obstacles in our way thanks to our determination. On the contrary, these hindering efforts made us aware that we should work even harder towards our goal. This is how we got to the point we are at today.
‘We saw in the elections that the people’s trust in us was growing and therefore our electoral success was no surprise for us as we were already expecting to gain 49 to 51 per cent of the votes in our last election’
Given that the AK Parti’s rule has been uninterrupted since its establishment in 2002, while it has also increased the percentage of the votes it received in both the 2007 and 2011 elections, were you expecting this successful performance while founding the party, and to what factors do you relate this success?
We were in fact expecting this success. We did not start our journey with political slogans; instead we did everything scientifically and well-researched. As I mentioned earlier, we paid great attention to what the public was asking for and we founded our party accordingly. We conducted polls frequently and regularly. We saw in these polls that the people would put AK Parti in power. Apart from that, we travelled around the country and met with different segments of society. On the one hand, we had foreign policy and EU as one of our priorities–we had to get a date for the EU accessions negotiations. On the other hand, we had to urgently carry out the necessary reforms. During out first term there were two parties in the parliament. We were in harmony with Republican People’s Party (CHP) regarding the reforms. The fact that our government always reaches its targets never abandons its fiscal discipline and cares for a civilian democracy appeared as criteria for the next elections. We saw in the elections that the people’s trust in us was growing and therefore our electoral success was no surprise for us as we were already expecting to gain 49 to 51 per cent of the votes in our last election.
‘During my Presidency term for PACE, I believe that it has been a much more politically-oriented, stronger, and more recognised and more visible institution in the international arena’
You are the first Turkish MP to be elected as the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) even though Turkey has been a member since 1949. What were your aims upon the start of your presidency? Do you think you could achieve these aims during the 2 years you served as president? Also, given that your Muslim identity was highlighted before you started, what were the advantages and disadvantages of serving with this identity?
Running for PACE President used to be unthinkable for a Turk and a Muslim. Turkey was a second class country which had to go through supervision to be in PACE, and after this ended we felt as though we had been let go of our chains. We shifted from being on the defensive to going on the offensive, and started holding a pro-active and influential position within PACE. First, we started having commission presidencies. Later on, I set a personal goal to become the PACE President and the first one from Turkey. One of our observations at the time was that although the Council of Europe was in a central position for the advocacy and the advancement of human rights, it was still being overshadowed by the Member-States of the European Union, as 27 out of its 47 members are EU states. For this reason, we thought that we needed to empower and transform this institution from within and by also engaging the other twenty states that are non-EU members. We had to strengthen its ties with the region’s countries in order to increase its visibility. We wanted to make it an institution which could confront the serious problems that are faced by Europe today. Hence, we had a clear list of goals and priorities upon our presidency, and we were able to achieve most of these by the end of my term as president.
The most important of all accomplished was that we were able to complete the reform process. I believe that today the PACE is a much more politically-oriented, stronger, and more recognised and more visible institution in the international arena. One of our goals was to strengthen the ties between the Council of Europe and other international organisations. We developed positive relations with the United Nations and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. We did this through both personal efforts but also by making amendments to the internal legal procedures. On the other hand, we had to strengthen and institutionalise the dialogue between the PACE and the European Parliament (EP). We set up a commission to work on this and started seeing concrete results as well. Now we are waiting for the intergovernmental agreement to be signed. We held a meeting with the EP in September 2011 and agreed that the EP will also attend the General Assembly of the Council of Europe with a delegation of 18 MEPs. They will specifically attend the judge elections, and the European Union itself will also have a judge. This way, we consolidated our relations with the EP and they became a member to our parliament just like a country. This means that PACE stands as an overarching organisation, a parliament for 47 countries, and a parliament which includes both the European Union and the European Parliament. This also means that the Council of Europe will be the focal point for the protection and empowering of human rights in Europe. Apart from this, I personally believe that another very important achievement we have made is a new body of membership–the “Partnership for Democracy” initiative. This initiative aims the integration of those neighbouring countries who are not likely to become full EU members. The Moroccan parliament in June 2011 and the Palestinian National Council in October 2011 were made members to PACE within the scope of the partnership. Now we are in the process of making Kyrgyzstan a member too. Within this framework, representatives from member countries find the chance to enjoy all the institutional rights that we ourselves possess, except for voting rights. They are able to join political parties and engage in all sorts of commission activities, petitions, and discussions in the general assembly.. This is a very important development for PACE. In return, we encourage and help these countries to raise their democratic standards, and also assist them in the preparation of crucial laws, and the drafting of new constitutions, where need be. In the following period, we are expecting a similar request from Tunisia, Algeria, and after the elections are settled from Egypt. Other countries we are aiming to cooperate with are Jordan and Lebanon, while Israel already has observer status. Kazakhstan, similarly, is currently evaluating its status. Overall, we achieved many important goals such as the ones I listed.
Another problem we took very seriously was racism and discrimination in Europe. For the first time in the history of PACE, we were able to bring together the representatives of 5 different religions and sects to deliver messages against racism. In this struggle, we carried out a large campaign with Pope Benedict, the leaders of the Orthodox and Catholic churches, the Protestants, Muftis from areas with Muslim populations, and Rabbis from areas with Jewish populations along with universities and politicians. After all, we were able to achieve a large proportion of the goals we had set. I personally did not encounter any disadvantages about being Turkish or Muslim; on the contrary, I encountered advantages. With Turkey’s strong economy and successful foreign policy, I received more regard for representing Turkey than for being the President of PACE. On the other hand, with a Muslim president, the ‘neighbours’ policy’ which I just talked about gained speed. This helped the neighbourhood to understand more easily that we had good intentions, and that we sought mutual cooperation without any different agenda. In this regard we encountered many advantages in the Balkans, Caucasus and Russia as a result of me being both Turkish and a Muslim.
‘It should be taken positively that, whereas, racism, xenophobia, discrimination, Islamophobia, intolerance and anti-Semitism are all rising trends in Europe today, people are asking for democracy and more rights in our neighbourhood’
During your PACE presidency, you mentioned several times that the most threatening element against European democracies were racism and xenophobia. You also made warnings that with the deepening of the Eurozone crisis, the situation was expected to become worse. We can observe in the recent elections in a number of EU countries that extreme right-wing and racist parties have increased their votes significantly. How do you interpret this situation? Do you think multiculturalism is reaching an end in Europe?
Unfortunately, racism, xenophobia, discrimination, Islamophobia, intolerance and anti-Semitism are all rising trends in Europe today. Europeans are restraining some feelings, for instance, anti-Semitism is as common as Islamophobia in Europe today in my opinion. Discrimination of all sorts, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are crimes against humanity and severely threaten our values. For this reason, we are also alarmed by the gravity of these threats in Europe. Looking at the point Europe is at right now, it seems as if this is not only a problem of racist seats in parliaments, we see that even moderate parties have started using discriminatory rhetoric. Looking at Sarkozy, we see that not only did this kind of rhetoric prove not to be useful, but has also shown that it comes with a price. What is most alarming is that this has even manifested itself in terrorist activities. You see what has happened in Norway when a man called Anders Breivik suddenly emerges and kills 70-80 people. This is atrocious. Similarly, we see the neo-Nazis in Germany re-emerging. People are being killed with the support of the deeper state and intelligence. Most of the people who fall victims to these atrocities are of Turkish origin and Muslim. In Greece, a neo-Nazi influenced party (Golden Dawn) has entered the parliament. Why were institutions such as the Council of Europe established? So that similar tragedies would not take place after the Second World War. Why did the Second World War start? As a result of similar movements during those times at first, nobody in Europe thought anything serious was going to happen, they were in a state of apathy. But the whole world stood as a witness to the tragedy that followed. I fear that if we are unable to confront this threat, similar tragedies may take place. It is for this reason that we attach importance to inter-cultural dialogue with a religious dimension. Do I think multiculturalism is reaching an end in Europe? Well, in my opinion, German Chancellor Merkel’s statement that multiculturalism has “utterly failed” was an unfortunate one. Multiculturalism and multi-religiosity is in the nature of Europe. Would you ignore people of different ethnic and religious groups in Europe today? Christians themselves are not only Catholics. they are comprised also of Orthodox Christians, Protestants, and different sects within each of these. There are also approximately 20 million Muslims in Europe. The multiculturalism, social integration and cohesion policies of some governments in Western Europe have failed. However, as we had warned from the beginning, these policies were in fact faulty to being with. Regional integration policies, isolation or assimilation will never be successful. Integration first and foremost means respect for the immigrant community’s own culture, language and religion. It is not possible for a community which does not preserve its own culture, language and religion to integrate successfully to another country’s culture, language and religion. Otherwise it is assimilation. The fact of the matter is that these policies have been constructed with errors and this is true specifically for those of Chancellor Merkel.
You prepared reports one by one on different countries during your PACE membership and presidency. You found the chance to analyse the minority issues and problems related to all sorts of freedoms-both personal and communal- in these countries. Moving on from this experience, how do you read the rise of the extreme right in Europe and what has been termed the ‘Arab Spring’ in Arab countries?
For me, the Arab Spring is above all a process of change which has started with the own initiative of Arab people. This shows that those values to which we have committed are not special to the European continent. Democracy, human rights, freedoms and the superiority of law constitute the living standards which everybody desires around the world. Such an initiative started in the Arab world also as a result of the damage caused by deep economic crises. It started first in Tunisia, which also seems to be the country that has dealt with it most successfully. Similarly, Morocco and Jordan have also taken progressive steps in a short time. For instance, in Morocco, King Mohammed VI has transferred most of his power to the Prime Minister and to the parliament. The subsequent elections proved to be successful as well. This has been the same in Tunisia. But on the other hand, when we look at the case of Libya, we see that it was not only a struggle for democracy, it was also a clash of interests. There was a clash for gas, oil, and among the different ethnic groups. We see that during this process, those countries which have listened to their people and taken progressive steps turned out successful. Unfortunately in Syria, President Assad did not carry out the reforms he had promised. Had he done otherwise, perhaps Syria could have come out of this crisis differently. It all stemmed from the fact that Assad and the Ba’ath partisans did not want to share their power with others. Similarly, fragility persists in Yemen. As for Egypt, things started off quite well, however, given the fact that Egypt is a large country there is always room for fragility. I hope the presidential elections in Egypt also go smoothly and everything continues that way. It should be taken positively that while racism is on the rise in Europe, people are asking for democracy and more rights in the neighbourhood. Our expectation during this phase is that these reforms will be carried out peacefully and not lead to violence as in the case of Syria.
How do you think Turkey’s and AK Parti’s role has been in the course of the ‘Arab Spring’? Turkey’s stance was often criticised for being inconsistent by the national opposition parties and the media. How do you address these criticisms?
What we saw during the course of the Arab Spring is that Arab people want a “Turkish model”. Moreover, they want an AK Parti model. Our Prime Minister Erdoğan has become a phenomenon in the region. He is the common leader of all the people in these countries. In the past 10 years Turkey has shown that harmony between Islam and democratization, and cooperation with Europe and the West are indeed possible. Furthermore, our economy is doing well and our foreign policy is proving to be successful. Taking these as examples, the Arab nations started forming political parties similar to the AK Parti model, and some of them even named their parties “Justice and Development”. It is interesting that both in Tunisia and Morocco, those parties who have openly advocated an AK Parti model have won the elections. None of this happened because Turkey wanted to be a role model for these countries, it all happened organically. Turkey acted objectively and without taking sides. It supported the struggle of these nations for democracy, and offered them help, especially to Tunisia and Morocco. This was one of Foreign Minister Davutoğlu’s priorities when he was serving as the President of the European Council Committee of Ministers. For example, if Gaddafi had listened to our advice, perhaps his end would have happened differently. Similarly, in the case of Syria, we delivered a friendly message to Assad on what he should have been doing. We made it clear that this needed to be dealt with without any problems and without any people dying. Assad did not do any of the things he had promised. Now, when people criticise us for being inconsistent, where exactly is the inconsistency here? Is what is being meant an inconsistency with our ‘zero-problem’ policy? If we are being asked: “you were once friends with Assad, what happened now?” we would have to assert that we made an effort to keep good relations with Assad as he is a neighbour. However, we cannot turn a blind eye on the bloodshed that is going on right beside us.
‘The Syrian fire is burning right by our side, and it is for this reason that we cannot react like Russia in this situation. It is not out of nothing that 8 out of 10 countries in the world support Turkey’s election to the UN Security Council. It is because of the leadership role Turkey has assumed, and because of the trust it has gained. Turkey should not waste this role’.
When we consider the most recent developments and especially Erdoğan’s statements, do you think it is possible for Turkey to intervene in Syria? Do you think the fact that Russia is against any intervention and that Turkey receives 45 per cent its energy from Russia would change anything in this course?
It is possible that Turkey may have a different outlook on neighbouring areas than that of Russia. Russia has a different concern. It does not want regimes that are close by to change. The Cold War fears still persist. Russia thinks NATO is also trying to surround its borders, but it is still not acceptable that it tolerates the violence in Syria for a concern as such. This fire is burning right by our side, and it is for this reason that we cannot react like Russia in this situation. As AK Parti, in the past 10 years, we never considered hiding our thoughts with the concern that some countries may turn against us. We have a model partnership with the US right now, but we do not say yes to every single thing that the US says. We often say no to most of the wishes of the US. There have been many occasions where we disagreed with the US, including decisions regarding Iraq and Iran. We encountered US disagreement when we first started normalizing our relations with Syria, but we insisted on going ahead. Israel also disagreed with this. Israel is a country that receives a high volume of our exports and is a strategic partner. We similarly cannot turn a blind eye on what Israel has been doing in Gaza solely for the fact that we are strategic partners or that our economic relations are advanced. We do not base our reactions on what other countries will think about them, instead we base our decision on whatever is right. The fact that we want “zero problems” with all our neighbours including Syria and Russia does not mean that we will stay silent to the negative conditions prevailing in the region. The ‘zero problem policy’ is a vision statement, just like that of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk who argued for “peace at home, peace in the world” when he founded this Republic. The ‘zero problem with neighbours’ vision, therefore, complements Atatürk’s way of thinking. We argue for peace at home, but when we look at our country since 1923, we see that there has not always been peace and there have been clashes, conflicts, and military coups. Similarly, there has not always been peace in the world. We did not stay silent to what Bulgaria did in the years following 1989, for instance. We did not stay silent when violence erupted in Cyprus, when we rightfully intervened. The ‘zero problems with neighbours’ policy does not mean ‘we mind our own business and we ignore problems’. Turkey is no longer a reserved, passive state; there are expectations of Turkey and it is now a global actor. Turkey’s role in international organisations and its stance in regional and bilateral relations require that Turkey acts this way. It is not out of nothing that 8 out of 10 countries in the world support Turkey’s election to the UN Security Council. It is because of the leadership role Turkey has assumed, and because of the trust it has gained. Turkey should not waste this role.
Turkey’s steps are being watched as it portrays a strong state image in its region with its proactive foreign policy. One of the most important items on the agenda is the US-Israel-Iran tension and the path Turkey will follow within this context. What policy is Turkey going to pursue about this tension? There was a large conference on this in Istanbul pertaining to this issue and how do you evaluate the results of the conference?
Turkey’s stance on this subject has been clear from the very beginning. Turkey is against a nuclear power in its region. Turkey is against nuclear power both in Iran and in other countries. It has played a very important role, especially with Brazil, in overcoming the tension between Iran and the West following a nuclear crisis. The agreement Turkey had with Iran 2 years ago was a very important step. Unfortunately, U.S. and the West did not respect this agreement. Along with Brazil, Turkey also voted against sanctions on Iran in the UN Security Council. Now, how was this agreement made? It was made in accordance with a letter from President Obama. Turkey is openly stating this, and so is Brazil, in all platforms. Turkey has been portraying a principled stance from the beginning and does not fall into any inconsistencies. Not everyone can be successful when faced with what we call “Persian politics”; therefore no one should underestimate Turkey’s achievement in this context. Turkey is in a key position at this point and will continue its stance in favour of a solution.
‘There is no retreat in our endeavours as well as our dedication to join European Union. We do show effort, we do our part, and we also acknowledge that we have to do more. We always make progress yet we still hit the brick wall of the Southern Greek Region within the European Union’
Let’s touch upon the issue of European Union. Do you agree with the contention that Turkey’s endeavours to join European Union lost energy in recent years? If we take the economic crisis that European Union has been facing into consideration, is it a conscious choice on the side of the Turkish Government to drop the issue of European Union accession from the political agenda?
I do not agree at all. There is no retreat in our endeavours as well as our dedication to join European Union. We do show effort, we do our part, and we also acknowledge that we have to do more. We always make progress yet we still hit the brick wall within the European Union. One obstacle is because of a little Southern Greek Region with a small population of 800 thousand, because of their blocking none of the chapters out of 8 chapters opened could be completed. Another example is France, as former President Sarkozy had temporarily suspended a couple of chapters. Chancellor Merkel did similar blockings. All other countries signed in the beginning and then have become a full member when the negotiations started. This is not the case with Turkey and of course; this discourages the people of Turkey and makes them think of a double standard. Because of this, we observe that people’s support for European Union membership has declined over the years. Despite this, the establishment of a ministry for EU relations, continuing efforts of Mr. Egemen Bağış and full compliance with EU criteria in all laws promulgated proves our commitment to the process. But unfortunately the EU does not do its part. It does not even fulfil the responsibilities originated from the treaty it already signed. Neither to Turkey nor to the Northern Turkish Republic of Cyprus. The EU did not implement the decisions it had taken before. What did the European Commission decide on April 26th after the referendum on April 24th? Did the EU decide on the lifting on embargoes? What happened, could the EU implement it? No, it couldn’t. Why? All because of a small member state that they mistakenly accepted it to the EU. They regretted it then but it already happened. Because of this, to tell you the truth, I don’t agree with these criticisms.
During your presidency of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, you have made studies on human rights abuses of many countries, you have made examinations, and you have prepared reports. When you look at Turkey when you were President, how do you analyse the situation in Turkey? For example, how do you analyse the criticisms that the AK Parti is becoming authoritarian day by day and Prime Minister Erdoğan is establishing an authoritarian regime as voiced by some EU bureaucrats, media institutions, and NGOs?
Now there is such a trend in Europe. Once a right wing party has become powerful and its power has been strengthened, counterattack starts immediately. This is not only against Turkey as counterattacks have also started against the government of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in Hungary. The same thing also happens in other countries as well. How does the AK Parti become authoritarian? Does the AK Parti remain in power through means that are not democratic? Does the people’s trust in a political party and democratic elections that renewed the parties mandate of that party mean autocracy? Do the people bring a political party to power as a single party government mean dictatorship? To start with, this nation does not want a coalition government. This is because coalition governments in the past have always created a crisis in this country. When we look at the past, we see that former Prime Ministers’ Menderes and Özal realized very successful reforms in single party government periods. Which law we have passed or which implementation we have done is in conflict with European standards? Let them name one. How do you establish an autocracy? You promulgate laws accordingly, for example to do this, you pass anti-democratic laws, you ratify them and you implement them. We know the real reasons behind these criticisms. They attempt to accuse us especially of developments in the judicial processes. Responsibility of the legislator is to legislate. Which negative law we have passed in this process? Let them name one. On the contrary, we take measures to solve the blockages in the judicial processes. There is no doubt that Prime Minster Erdoğan is a powerful leader who processes a strong character. If you cannot get over this, then it is not our problem.
‘When you examine the criticisms about the Ergenekon case, you come across internal contradictions within them. When military commanders, policemen, and businessmen are detained there is no problem. But why is a reaction against the detention of an academic or the detention of a journalist under basically the same accusation?’
Let’s move on to the on-going Ergenekon case. Many express their reactions against the detentions. World-known journalist organizations showed significant reactions especially against the detention of journalists. This is one of the issues on which Turkey’s chief negotiator to the EU Mr. Egemen Bağış has received most criticisms. Freedom of press is one of the critical issues for Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. Have you received criticisms about the Ergenekon case? How do you analyse this process?
When you examine the criticisms about the Ergenekon case, you come across internal contradictions within them. Undoubtedly, this is a judicial process and even though this is a very complicated process; our hope is also rapid completion of this process. Turkey has to get rid of the reality of the deep state. Remember, there was an attack against the Council of State. On that day, even in the Parliament, there were rumours claiming the AK Parti had it made religious people had it made…
After that it came out another issue arose and it turned out to be a part of the Ergenekon. Military coups happened in this country numerous times, Prime Ministers were hanged, mayors were jailed, books were burnt, and people were oppressed and executed. This country had been administered by this deep structure for decades. Is it possible to tolerate these structures in a democracy and in a demilitarizing country? When we examine the criticisms raised, Europeans and most civil society organizations think “it’s great” as the military commanders in charge have also been detained. But this structure is really complex. There are soldiers, policemen, businessmen, academics, media, and some civil society organizations that have formed this deep state over time. When military commanders, policemen, and businessmen are detained there is no problem. But why is a reaction against the detention of an academic or the detention of a journalist under basically the same accusation? Is this not a contradictory response? There is a contradiction about the number of the journalists. One source mentions 108 journalists, while the National Union of Journalists mentions 8 journalists actually working as journalists. The Ministry of Justice recently prepared a full list and none of those arrested is because of crime of thought of what he or she had written. Instead it’s about a journalist who had taken a press card from somewhere in Anatolia. Then he or she was detained because it is believed the journalist might be a member of many terrorist organizations such as PKK, KCK, DHKP-C. In this process, the Prime Minister took a right step in the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. He told to the General Secretary to please come and see how many journalists have been detained, how many of them have been detained due to which accusation, see it in your own eyes and do not make judgments from outside without knowing. The General Secretary appointed an official. That official visited Turkey and met with all the detained journalists. Most important thing is that Turkey adopts a transparent manner in this matter. But whatever happens, when a journalist is jailed, it is always hard to explain this. Then what you should do? . After the Ministry of Justice made the initiative, as you know, 15 thousand people were freed. With new laws, Turkey will make a clear break in its handling of imprisonment. Another important matter is that Turkey takes steps to overcome the problems and misunderstandings in the judicial implementations. Our job is to pass the necessary laws as soon as possible.
‘For God’s sake, which step have we taken led to a regression in Turkey? All of them brought Turkey to the European Union accession and have modernized Turkey. Has there been construction of this many schools for modern education in Turkey before? We constructed half number of schools that had been built all over the history of the Turkish Republic’
Turkey has undergone a serious transformation in many aspects in the AK Parti period. Serious promises were made in various aspects, serious contentions emerged in between that continues to this day. First of all, it has been argued that there is a serious disintegration and polarization in the society and this will pose a problem in the future. Do you think that the AK Parti could realize the transformations that it aimed? How do you analyse these 10 years?
The AK Parti government has made a silent revolution throughout its 10 years. It succeeded in making a great transformation. Undoubtedly, making a revolution, initiating reforms, making changes are not easy in this country. Remember, Menderes wanted to do something, he wanted to change Turkey and he was hanged. Özal, who rose to power in the aftermath of September 12th military coup, made radical reforms that we could only recently start to appreciate. Most of us declared Özal as a traitor. We attacked him and his policies. However, at the time, we were also young and we couldn’t comprehend that there were some issues that we had been criticizing as well. Now we come to understand that everything Özal wanted to do was a revolution for Turkey. We come across the same problems today. Remember we wanted to make a change in health care system. Remember the headlines at the time: “It’s over; it’s coming to an end”. The World Health Organization today has given our health care as a best practice example. If the AK Parti comes back to power that strongly today, this constitutes one of the reasons. They showed the same inertia against many laws in the beginning. How does polarization occur in Turkey? You make improvements and there is a group showing strong reaction against these improvements. This group includes both political parties and civil society organizations. You attempt to institutionalize Turkey. This, of course, brings a reaction. In the beginning, they attempted to spread fear, what was that: Sharia law will be brought to Turkey. For God’s sake, which step have we taken led to a regression in Turkey? All of them brought Turkey to the European Union accession and have modernized Turkey. Has there been construction of this many schools for modern education in Turkey before? We constructed half number of schools that had been built all over the history of the Turkish Republic. Haven’t there been organized successful campaigns for girls and women to participate in education? Once you start to take steps, undoubtedly there occurs division and polarization. But I do not consider these as polarization of people or division of people into camps. Turkey, of course, has made many reforms in the AK Parti period. But in order to make the intended changes, a change in the people’s mentality has to first change. Changing mentalities takes time and is the main reason why we have problems in implementation is our failure to succeed in changing mentalities.
There is an idea that there are many issues following the crafting of a new Constitution, judicial reform, education reform, and Kurdish problem that are on the agenda. It has been spoken about the Prime Minister Erdoğan’s candidacy to the Presidency in 2012. According to the party charter, many important names will not be serving in the AK Parti in its 4th term. Do you think that the AK Parti could be able to complete all these reforms in this context? If Mr. Erdoğan will not be the Prime Minister any more, will the Party protect its institutional identity and reach its goals named as “Target 2023”?
If God permits, we will complete the new constitution with other parties as soon as possible. The judicial reform is on its way. Concerning education, we are trying to bring the 4+4+4 system that is intact in most modern countries in Europe. For the first time, there is a government that acknowledges the Kurdish problem and believes that it should be solved and has already taken numerous important steps in resolving this issue, while other parties do not render support on this issue. But this fact should not be an excuse for the government and more steps have to be taken. When the AK Parti came to power, people only knew Abdullah Gül and other important politicians in addition to our Prime Minister. Nobody knew of Ali Babacan, for instance. Nobody knew Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu. But all of us, under the leadership of our Prime Minister made significant work and succeeded in our own domains. This shows the following: The AK Parti has a rich and deep amount of human resources and comradeship. To me, I personally hope, if God permits, our Prime Minister will be the President. But our Prime Minister will not of course be in politics forever. Both this belief and our belief is that the AK Parti cadre has to be prepared for this. The main purpose of the 3rd term has shown this as we now we have many newcomers. All of them are very successful in their educational histories, their professional lives, and they are dynamic. These people will replace us someday. This party, without doubt will give birth to its future leaders from within. But this does not mean that we as MPs of three consecutive terms will split from the party and quit politics. Some of our friends will take up new responsibilities in the political party, some of them will take up responsibilities in local governments, and some of them will serve as consultants. But, however, irrespective of being or not being MPs, our responsibility is to serve this party and this country. If God permits, our targets for 2023 will not be left unreached. Whilst defining our targets, we defined them realistically. For this reason, we always fulfil our promises before the deadline or we succeeded in overreaching the targets. For instance, concerning economic growth, we always walk on eggs, we declare that we will grow by 6 per cent, and we do 8.5 per cent. But we don’t start with 9 per cent and end up with 8. For this reason, we deceive neither ourselves nor the public. All 2023 targets are realistic targets and we have the necessary tools to realize them.
Mr. Prime Minister’s health problems recently have been one of the most important topics. There were assertions based on special documents on this issue. There was a serious contention between the PM and a newspaper and reciprocal accusations had been made. The PM made declarations on the issue, yet also in Europe the ambiguity remains. What do you think of this, is this right to create a taboo out of the PM’s health condition? Do you think more transparency is needed on this?
Health condition of our Prime Minister, thank God, is great. The Prime Minister continues his intensive program of visits to foreign countries. But, as you know, there are always conspiracy theories in politics, and they acknowledged this as a good opportunity to attack. Especially as there are many countries and leaders who could not get over seeing s strong Turkey and our Prime Minister’s strong character. To start with, making claims on the life of a person is not ethical. This is also contrary to our beliefs. Only God knows how much a person will remain alive. Medical doctors have already made necessary declarations, thank God; we also know that the health situation of our Prime Minister is good.
‘We had shortcomings, maybe we could make reforms more rapidly, maybe we could succeed in completing the judicial reform by now but in the end it continues with commitment now. For me, the biggest three successes of the AK Parti is its health care and social security policies’
One of the answers the AK Parti supporters give to those opposing the AK Parti has been: “Isn’t there a one thing that the AK Parti did well?” An example of this was Mrs. Erdoğan’s question to the spouse of the former leader of the CHP while they were paying a get-well visit to Mr. Erdoğan. We would like to ask you a similar question. When you look back, isn’t there anything that the AK Parti did worse? Or, what have been three most important positive actions of the AK Parti and what have been the most important three wrong policies or practices of the AK Parti?
We rightfully ask that question because when you look at the opposition in Turkey everything we seem to do make something else worse. Yet, the indicators do not correspond to that. When you look at the international institutions’ or organizations’ reports, everything is positive, but there are even people claiming that Turkey is not economically growing. Therefore, of course, those in power ask this question. The main purpose of the opposition is to criticize but whilst criticizing it would be better for them if they could rightfully and convincingly criticize. If they can produce ideas, to me, they can become an alternative to the ruling party. But this is not possible with their current structure. Of course, we did not do everything any right. For sure, every person, every government, and every political party has done something wrong. But the important thing is to recover from being wrong. For instance, with all our good will, we promulgated many laws and then we acknowledged that these laws whilst being implemented did not serve what we intended, as we couldn’t foresee the final outcome. We recovered from all that is wrong. This is the main reason why we grew in strength. I am not in a position to count three big mistakes now, but we had shortcomings, maybe we could make reforms more rapidly, maybe we could succeed in completing the judicial reform by now but in the end it continues with commitment now. For me, the biggest three successes of the AK Parti is its health care and social security policies. Today, everyone has social security, everyone has benefits from a first class health care services. Apart from these successes the AK Parti has taken many flourishing steps starting from the educational reform without making concessions from the economic discipline, the fiscal discipline. It has never implement ‘election economy’ and there are of course are details of this. Under a second heading, infrastructure works, which constructed a plethora of new double highways, train lines, etc. All these are great successes. Indeed, we do realize things that are dreams for Turkey. We do things that had not been done in the history of Turkish Republic and in ten years we are doing more than what had been done in the history of the Republic. Without doubt, one of our biggest successes is our active, dynamic and multidirectional foreign policy.
At last, we have a question about the NGOs. You usually emphasize the importance of the NGOs in the development of democracies. You were underlining this in during your presidency at the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. But it is hard to claim that there exists a health debate atmosphere in Turkey. In this context, everybody has been polarized. In this fearful and chaotic context, which role NGOs have to undertake in order to consolidate democracy?
Unfortunately, the platform for debate in Turkey is not moderate and not mature. If one would introduce an idea and search for debate in Turkey, no opposing idea would come up. Rather answers including accusations and invectives come up. As this is how things work now, nonetheless, the platform for debate cannot reach maturity as we wish it to reach and I don’t think there is a fearful atmosphere. Who fears from whom? There is an attempt to spread fear in Turkey. Again what does the opposition say? Sharia Law is coming to Turkey, Turkey is becoming a dictatorship, Turkey is turning its back to the West, Turkey is only concerned with the East, etc. Everybody will cover her head etc. For God’s sake, nobody can come up and say that there was any intervention to his or hers clothing. On the contrary, we do face “neighbourhood pressure”. In this context, is there a role for NGOs to play? Yes, there is. While I am saying this, I also don’t claim that responsibility is not ours. Responsibility is always on the shoulders of the government; moreover if this government is a single-party government. This is why softening steps have been taken. For instance, to me, the collection of three members from all parties irrespective of their sizes and search for a consensus are positive steps. NGOs should be more objective as a large number of NGOs that could succeed is very low in Turkey. NGOs recently started to acknowledge what their roles are. In these cases where there is a tension between the government and the opposition, NGOs should produce more constructive and more sensitive (less-polarizing) policies. They should have peace-making endeavours since in democracies they are as important as political parties. We are doing this in the constitution making process. NGOs are taking very important roles in this process. Turkey is experiencing a transitory process. These transitory processes are not easy in the beginning. People, institutions failed to timely understand their responsibilities. But Turkey is really changing for the better. The fact that we still don’t have a civilian constitution and that some reforms have been left half-finished are some of our shortcomings. But why should we be contented with being the 16th largest economy of the world or 6th largest economy of Europe? Why can’t this country with a population of 75 million produce its own cars and import cars from Romania? I am not downgrading Romania, but this is how it is. That is why, if God permits, Turkey will succeed, and it will succeed.
Thank you very much for this interview.
© 2012 ResearchTurkey. All rights reserved. This publication cannot be printed, reproduced, or copied without referencing the original source.
Please cite this publication as follows:
ResearchTurkey (June, 2012), “Interview with Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu: Turkey’s Foreign Policy and Domestic Politics in a Changing World’”, Vol. I, Issue 4, pp.61-74, Centre for Policy Analysis and Research on Turkey (ResearchTurkey), London, ResearchTurkey. (http://researchturkey.org/?p=1435)
