Ex-ambassador Erdmann: “Turkish foreign policy is disturbing and erratic”

The logic of Turkish foreign policy is no longer understandable, says Martin Erdmann, ex-ambassador to Turkey. Now President Erdogan wants to take the right side in the war against Ukraine before it’s too late.

tagesschau.de: How is Turkey’s lurching course of the past few weeks and days to be assessed? The long blockade of Sweden’s NATO membership, the demand for EU accession talks and then the sudden swerving – which script is Erdogan following?

Martin Erdman: It is indeed difficult to make sense of it. Even for someone like me who has been involved with Turkish domestic and foreign policy for many years. My assessment of what we are witnessing, especially in recent times, is that Turkish foreign policy is confusing.

It is disturbing to allies, and it is erratic in parts, and the best example of this is what we saw on Monday. The Turkish President made a very important announcement in Ankara before his departure for Vilnius, namely the demand for the resumption of EU accession negotiations and ultimately EU accession. And twelve hours later he drops this demand again. That is no longer understandable.

“Where does this Türkiye actually belong?”

tagesschau.de: So is Turkish foreign policy not pursuing a strategy?

earthman: In any case, I can no longer recognize a strategy in recent times. We are witnessing seesaw politics in relation to Russia and NATO and towards Ukraine. It is an ad hoc policy, often based on the state of affairs or situations of the day.

This president takes part in a NATO summit, supports the NATO declarations and at the same time tries to present himself as a dialogue partner for President Putin – despite his criminal war of aggression. That doesn’t add up. And one ultimately asks oneself: Where does this Türkiye actually belong?

“No consistent leitmotif”

tagesschau.de: How do you explain Turkey’s suddenly very pro-Ukrainian positioning in the last week: the return of the Azovstal fighters to Ukraine, for example, and the call for Ukraine to join NATO?

earthman: I can’t identify a consistent leitmotif. If I’m good-natured and don’t just call it confusing, I’d say it’s the Turkish president’s effort to present himself on the international stage as a major player who draws a lot of attention with his erratic movements. And he hopes to be able to score points in front of the home crowd.

But the elections have been over since May. So there is no reason to sacrifice foreign policy on the altar of domestic policy. In the end it all makes no sense.

“International pressure has become too great”

tagesschau.de: But there must be a reason for the sudden turnaround in the negotiations for Sweden’s NATO membership. What has changed in terms of possibly decisive dynamics?

earthman: My assumption is that the international pressure from important alliance partners has become so great that the President could no longer hold his position within the framework of the alliance without massively losing face.

Turkey’s demand to resume EU accession negotiations and ultimately become a member of the EU was unanimously rejected by the American State Department, the German Chancellor and others.

In international politics, a demand to resume EU accession negotiations, which were put on hold in 2018 and have been going on since 2005, is such an important, serious demand – you don’t just throw it in the ring. If you do that, you have to think very carefully about the consequences. And I just don’t think this has been thought through.

Erdogan had to realize that he had to climb down from the branch he had climbed. I think Monday was decisive: Better an end with horror than horror without end. I can’t explain it any other way.

“Put on the right side before it goes down the drain”

tagesschau.de: So far, Erdogan has tried to position himself as a neutral, indispensable peacemaker. Have strategic interests shifted vis-à-vis Russia and Ukraine?

earthman: Turkey’s relationship with Russia and, in the meantime, with the Soviet Union has been very tense for centuries. It’s about the questions: Who is in charge of Western Central Asia and the Caucasus?

In this respect, Erdogan’s relationship with Putin – especially after the start of the Russian war of extermination – is very unusual and basically does not fit into the historically evolved logic of Turkish-Russian relations. Erdogan’s tactics seemed to amount to making himself interesting on the international stage.

But now Erdogan has probably realized that strategically and from a global perspective, Russia is the loser of the war. Even in countries like China, South Africa and Brazil, the supportive rhetoric is slowly fading. Erdogan may want to take the right side at the right time before things go down the drain.

“Massive loss of reputation”

tagesschau.de: How could Erdogan afford to act so offensively against the interests of his own defense alliance? Did that weaken him?

earthman: I think Erdogan has had to endure a massive loss of reputation, but nobody says so publicly because everyone knows that we are dependent on this president. We need Turkey as an anchor of stability in a very volatile region.

In addition, half of the Turkish population is very Western-oriented – and we don’t want to lose them. And thirdly, Turkey has an important role to play with regard to the migration and refugee situation. These are all reasons why European foreign policy and alliance policy is very cautious when it comes to Turkey and its president.

Importance of NATO for Türkiye

tagesschau.de: It seems as if NATO plays a very subordinate role in Erdogan’s security calculations.

earthman: In complete contrast to the past. But that has actually changed a lot under Erdogan. Nevertheless, NATO is of elementary importance for Turkey – but less as a defense alliance than as an international organization in which Turkey has a significant say.

Apart from the United Nations, NATO is the only organization in which Turkey can act on an equal footing with its member partners. As we have seen – in the discussion about Sweden’s accession.

The interview was conducted by Christoph Schwanitz, tagesschau.de