fortress europe and npe: compatible? - diva portal

1

Master of Arts Thesis

Euroculture

Uppsala University – First semester Georg-August University of Göttingen - Second semester

August 2020

Fortress Europe and NPE: compatible?

Assessing the impact of the migration crisis on the EU’s legitimacy:

shifts in Turkish discourses at the UN General Assembly debates

Submitted by: Charlotte Culine

Supervised by: Soner Barthoma

Sabine Hess

Lyon, France

2

Abstract

This thesis measures the extent of the impact of the EU’s management of its migration

flow in the aftermath of the ‘Summer of Migration’ on its legitimacy and normative power

towards external actors. Although historically funded and legitimated by its commitment

to Human Rights values, the EU has failed to manage effectively and ethically the

migration crisis indenpently. Building upon Buchanan’s constructivist approach of the

strategies of legitimation used by IOs in IR, this thesis argues that this failure, by shedding

light on the union’s weaknesses and pressuring it into to unethical external deals,

deteriorates its image towards external actors and provides delegitimating tools to

competitors of the EU in a global context of post-US hegemony, feeding power struggles

in a shifting polarized world. By creating a theoretical bridge between EU internal

policies and their external consequences, this thesis investigates interconnexions and

causality effects between the structural flaws of the CEAS, the 2016 EU/Turkey deal and

the loss of legitimacy of the EU.

The arguments defended by this thesis are supported by an empirical research based on

the critical discourse analysis of the evolutions of Turkish leaders’ speeches given at the

UN General Assembly debates between 2009 and 2019. Using methods deriving from

Discourse Historical Analysis (DHA), the analysis of the speeches pinpoints the role of

the EU’s management of the migration crisis in the shift from positive to negative

discourses of Turkish leaders towards the union. Finally, the study considers that the

normative arguments related to the non-commitment of the EU to its upheld HR values

has become a semantic tool of delegitimation for Turkey against the EU, and to promote

itself as a new leader of IR.

Keywords: international migration, CEAS, legitimacy, legitimation strategies,

delegitimation, Human Rights, Turkey, EU, normative power

3

Table of content

List of abbreviations and acronyms ..........................................................................................5

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................6

CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK..................................................................16

2.1 Conceptual framework ..................................................................................................16

2.1.1 A constructivist approach of IR .................................................................................16

2.1.2 The construction of NME theories .............................................................................16

2.1.3 International legitimacy for the EU ...........................................................................18

2.1.4 Perception and depiction, the tip of the iceberg of legitimacy ...................................21

2.1 Initial hypothesis ............................................................................................................22

2.2.1 Creating a theoretical bridge from the EU’s internal to external policy .....................22

2.2.2 From a flawed CEAS to harmed legitimacy as a leader of global governance ..........23

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................28

3.1 Case study: the tumultuous EU/Turkey relationship ..................................................28

3.1.1 Bounded units: Turkey as the control sample of EU legitimacy ................................28

3.1.2 Risks of the case study ..............................................................................................30

3.2 Corpus: time, place, and size of the data set .................................................................30

3.2.1 From 2009 to 2019: a chronological frame to the migration crisis ............................30

3.2.2 The UN General Assembly: a highly regarded IR practice arena ..............................31

3.2.3 Limitation of the corpus of primary sources ..............................................................32

3.2.4 Ten years, three different spokespersons ...................................................................32

3.3 Methods of discourse analysis .......................................................................................33

3.3.1 Fairclough’s discourse analysis methodology ...........................................................34

3.3.2 Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA): concepts, methods ......................................35

3.3.3 DHA applied to Turkey’s UN General Assembly speeches.......................................37

3.3.4 Topoi and lexicon methodology of classification ......................................................39

CHAPTER 4. TURKEY AND THE EU: assessing the context of a discursive shift ...........43

4.1 Turkey’s internal political paradoxes .....................................................................43

4.2 Turkey and the EU: bilateral influences .................................................................45

4.2.1 EU’s normative impact on Turkey, focus on asylum policies .............................45

4.2.2 Inaccession to the EU or the fostering of anti-European ambitions ....................46

CHAPTER 5. ANALYSING TURKISH DISCOURSES AT THE UN GENERAL

ASSEMBLY DEBATES ..........................................................................................................48

5.1 Primary observations of the research ...........................................................................48

5.2. Shifting European images in Turkish discursive practices ........................................50

4

5.2.1 From an application to EU membership… ................................................................50

5.2.2 …To the delegitimization of the EU and the West… ................................................53

5.2.3 …Towards a new world order: “The world is wider than five.” ................................58

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................63

6.1 Reflective part of the thesis ............................................................................................63

6.2 Answer to the original hypothesis .................................................................................63

6.3 Consequences for the EU: losing legitimacy and attractivity ......................................66

6.4 Opening thoughts and recommendations .....................................................................68

BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................70

ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................73

Annex I: Tables of categorization of the topoi and word count ..............................................73

Annex II: Corpus of speeches .................................................................................................74

2009 speech delivered by Prime Minister Erdogan ............................................................74

2010 speech delivered by President Gül .............................................................................78

2011 speech delivered by Prime Minister Erdogan ............................................................82

2012 speech delivered by Minister of Foreign Affairs Davotoglu ......................................86

2013 speech delivered by President Gül .............................................................................90

2014 speech addressed by President Erdogan ................................................................ 93

2015 speech delivered by Prime Minister Davotoglu ..................................................... 96

2016 speech delivered by President Erdogan ............................................................... 100




5

List of abbreviations and acronyms

AKP Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi

CDA Critical Discourse Analysis

CEAS Common European Asylum System

CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy

ECHR European Court of Human Rights

EEC European Economic Community

DHA Discourse Historical Analysis

EU European Union

HR Human Rights

IHL International Humanitarian Law

IO International Organizations

IR International Relations

MS Member State

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NPA Normative Power Approach

TEU Treaty on the European Union

UN United Nations

USA/US United States of America

USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

6

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Deprived of any military or other hard means of asserting its actions abroad, the power

of the European Union (EU) on the global stage has often been evaluated as limited to its

normative dimensions.1 Normative power can become a powerful weapon if it is

successfully developed and maintained throughout the decades and the events which

might come to challenge it. In opposition to the construction of hard power via striking

armed interventions or detention of threatening weapons of mass destruction, the

construction of normative power requires stability and stillness on the long-term. The

construction of normative power builds the legitimacy of its holder, without which the

rest of the actors will not consider the ideologies, policies, and actions vehiculated and

implemented by the one actor upon the others as relevant or even worth listening to.

The normative power of the EU has been mainly considered as built in the past seventy

years upon its commitment to maintaining peace and its respect and willingness to spread

Human Rights values around the world. As asserted by article 2 of the Treaty of the

European Union, setting the constitutional grounds of the union:

“The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom,

democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the

rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the

Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance,

justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.”2

Within the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) firstly drawn

upon the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, the European Guidelines on Human Rights

Defenders encloses that the union will support, promote and protect the work of human

rights defenders through the implementation of regional mechanisms around the world.

Furthermore, as declared in 2012 by …, Human Rights were declared as the red line

followed by the EU in any of its decisions made internally and externally. Be it in

1 Michelle Pace, ‘The Construction of EU Normative Power’, Journal of Common Market Studies 45, no.

5 (December 2007): 1041–64, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00759.x. 2 ‘EUR-Lex - 12016M002 - EN - EUR-Lex’, accessed 13 August 2020, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12016M002.

7

international trades or development aid, HR should be the at the core of decisions made

by the union. This positioning relied on the assumption that the EU, as a key actor of HR

implementation around the world, would assert itself as an effective, coherent, and visible

leader in that matter. In opposition to other major actors in the world which would tend

to put more emphasis on spreading political ideologies such as liberalism or, on the

contrary, communism, the EU found its honour in asserting itself as a defender of moral

values which have no colour, nor political side. The legitimacy of the EU to assert its

normative power over international actors is thus strongly relying on its ethical content,

without which the EU becomes the same self-interest seeker as any other major power,

and loses its sense of moral distinctiveness.3

Although, this analysis omits an important point to understand mechanisms lying behind

the assertion of normative power upon external actors. Beyond the ethical content of

policies led by the EU, its legitimacy can only be entire by the effectivity of its model

itself. Its policies can be as ethical as possible, if they are obviously unfit and not working,

the EU will lose in normative power. Being a model of international cooperation

gathering politically and culturally relatively diverging Member States (MS), working

successfully together towards a world respectful of Human Rights, as utopic of a vision

as it might be, would probably be the best normative weapon the EU could ever use, since

it would meet the ethical content and the proven effectiveness forcing other actors to

respect and compliance. The uniqueness of its structure, its ethical content and its internal

effectivity represent the three pillars of its distinctiveness around the world, and thus the

source of its normative power. All those elements contribute to the construction of a

strong image, from within towards external actors.

HR as a European legitimation strategy

The means to implement a strong normative power on the global stage seem to be highly

related to the image one actor can build of itself in comparison and in the face of the

others. A strong, stable and ethical image can provide an equivalent legitimacy as military

actions do for powers relying on the use of strength, by becoming a model to look up to.

The better the perception international actors have of the EU, the more attractive it

3 P. Eleftheriadis, ‘The Moral Distinctiveness of the European Union’, International Journal of

Constitutional Law 9, no. 3–4 (1 October 2011): 695–713, https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mor046.

8

becomes, to be a part of, to be a partner of and to comply with its foreign policies.

Following Buchanan’s objective approach4, normative power requires the use of

legitimation strategies involving the development of normatively acceptable structure of

rules to be effective. Human rights represent normatively acceptable values, at least

within the frame set by the Western normative system of values, which has been

considered in so far as standards on which international treaties and entities of global

governance such as the UN have been constructed.5

HR and the refugee crisis in the EU

These legitimation strategies are highly relevant for the EU, which has put the emphasis

on the defence of Human Rights values, as much within its MS as for foreign policy.6 In

regard to the weight of ethical considerations in the construction of the legitimation

strategies adopted by the EU, the ideological nature and the scope of a major international

event such as the migration crisis stress the importance of its successful management.

Indeed, the type of migration observed during the Summer of Migration gathered mostly

individuals fleeing war zones from Syria, Afghanistan, and other Western African

countries, seeking for asylum.7 The definition and protection of refugees represent the

foundation to a fundamental text of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) through the

first international treaty ever legally defining ‘refugees’ and ratified by 145 states, the

1951 Geneva Convention. Similarly to the early developments of the European

community, this treaty echoed a post-WWII concern for the sustainment of peace and for

the protection of the persecuted. Albeit the intrinsic humanitarian and universal values

this convention illustrate, it was ratified when most of the refugees seeking for protection

were of European origins.8

4 Allen Buchanan, Institutionalizing the Just War (Oxford University Press, 2018),

https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190878436.001.0001/oso-9780190878436. 5 Lawrence M Friedman, ‘The Internationalization of Human Rights by David P. Forsythe’, BOSTON

COLLEGE THIRD WORLD LAW JOURNAL 13 (n.d.): 11. 6 ‘Human Rights Promotion in the EU Foreign Policy | Časopis pro Politiku a Mezinárodní Vztahy’, accessed 26 August 2020, http://www.globalpolitics.cz/clanky/human-rights-promotion-in-the-eu-foreign-policy. 7 ‘Infographic: Asylum Applications in Number between 2010 and 2016 in the EU’, European Parliament, accessed 14 May 2019, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/external/html/welcomingeurope/default_en.htm. 8 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, ‘The Refugee Convention, 1951: The Travaux Préparatoires Analysed with a Commentary by Dr. Paul Weis’, UNHCR, accessed 26 August 2020,

9

The core principle to the 1951 Geneva Convention is non-refoulement. However, the EU

by stopping migrants at its external borders, can be considered as implementing the

refoulement by impeaching potential asylum seekers to start their procedure on the

European soil.9 These procedures have been especially effective since the start of the

implementation of the EU’s external agreements for migration management such as the

2016 deal with Turkey. The rising emphasis made on bordering policy10 rather than

humanitarian actions by the EU has led the international community to question its

original commitment to HR principles. 11

Consequently, the migration crisis has turned into a passing test of the EU’s abilities to

commit to its original values when put under pressure on its own territory.12 The unbiased

and universal implementation of international treaties relies highly on ethical

considerations. Furthermore, the intentions of the EU to influence normatively other

actors to comply to HR and humanitarian values enhances its need to succeed to respect

them itself in order to preserve its legitimacy abroad. Theoretically, the EU, in its

management of the migration crisis, should prove that it is able to practise what it

preaches in order to be coherent and maintain its legitimacy to do so.

A gap in existing literature

Considering their impact on the IOs’ positioning in the world and most particularly the

EU’s, it is surprising that the methods of implementation of the strategies of legitimation

of the EU have been considerably overlooked by many scholars, or politicians. The

normative power of the EU being its main mean of action abroad, it seems curious that

https://www.unhcr.org/protection/travaux/4ca34be29/refugee-convention-1951-travaux-preparatoires-analysed-commentary-dr-paul.html. 9 Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Méditerranée : des frontières à la dérive | EHESS (Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 2018), https://www.ehess.fr/fr/ouvrage/m%C3%A9diterran%C3%A9e-fronti%C3%A8res-d%C3%A9rive. 10 Sabine Hess and Bernd Kasparek, ‘The Post-2015 European Border Regime. New Approaches in a Shifting Field’, Archivio Antropologico Mediterraneo 21, no. 2 (31 December 2019), https://doi.org/10.4000/aam.1812. 11 Sandra Lavenex, ‘“Failing Forward” Towards Which Europe? Organized Hypocrisy in the Common European Asylum System’, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 56, no. 5 (2018): 1195–1212, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12739. 12 Sandra Lavenex, ‘The Europeanization of Refugee Policies: Normative Challenges and Institutional Legacies’, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 39, no. 5 (December 2001): 851–74, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00334.

10

not many more intellectuals have worked on how to enhance it, or on the opposite hand,

what could possibly harm it in the current state of world politics.

As pinpointed by Jonas Tallberg and Michael Zürn, this existing gap relates to “Hurd’s

criticism of this special issue for neglecting the distributional implications of legitimacy

and legitimation in global governance.”13 For IOs such as the EU, its levels of legitimacy

for external actors will influence on its authority, resources, and ambitions on the global

stage.

While most of the studies conducted about legitimacy and legitimation strategies of IO’s

focus on the internal and social level of legitimacy, i.e the levels of legitimacy granted by

MS’ governments or civil society towards their IO14, this thesis focuses on the

legitimation strategies of IO’s such as the EU to be an actor of global governance,

therefore on the inter-actor level, by looking at its legitimacy for other foreign actors to

comply with its foreign actions on the international stage. Furthermore, this thesis will

come to the conclusion that while legitimation strategies can be implemented by IO’s to

assert their power on the international stage, the arguments and strategies building those

strategies can also turn into tools of delegitimation for challengers to use against their

opponent on the international arena when they are not properly implemented.

Taking into consideration all these theoretical elements and the existing gap in the

literature treating of the EU’s legitimacy, it seemed relevant to assess what is slowing

down and what improves the EU’s legitimacy to act as a leader of global governance. As

explained before, the migration crisis constitutes the perfect contextual framework of

evaluation as it gathers both ethical and political considerations which have contributed

to the EU’s legitimation strategies and development of normative power in so far. This

thesis aims at demonstrating that the levels of successfulness of the CEAS, even as an

intra-union system, have wider stakes and consequences than internal and organizational

dimensions. In fact, following the conclusions of these introductive reflexions on

legitimacy, normative power and authority, the successfulness of the CEAS and the

construction of an ethical and efficient framework, is potentially directly impacting the

13 Jonas Tallberg and Michael Zürn, ‘The Legitimacy and Legitimation of International Organizations:

Introduction and Framework’, The Review of International Organizations 14, no. 4 (December 2019):

581–606, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-018-9330-7. 14 ‘The social legitimacy of international organisations: Interest representation, institutional performance,

and confidence extrapolation in the United Nations - ProQuest’, accessed 19 May 2020,

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1682255761?pq-origsite=summon.

11

EU’s influence on the global stage. Thus, the management of an event such as the

migration crisis should be as ethical as possible, not only for the moral values it entails,

but also because the ethical constituent of an IO such as the EU is essential to the

sustainability of its legitimation strategies and thus the development of its action abroad

and position on the world stage.

The EU, an IR failed experiment

Indeed, the EU has gradually been seen as a “failed experiment”15 on the global stage:

economically and politically. One could argue that the EU, as an economical union before

all, draws out its legitimacy from its strong economy. Although, the reaction of the EU

after the 2008 crisis has shown to the world that forced austerity was not an appropriate

answer in a system which was originally supposed to rely on solidarity amongst its

members. This reaction has also shown the lack of democracy existing within the union.

On the second hand, the political state of the union fails to make up for its economical

flaws. Both the occurrence and the stumbling implementation of the Brexit, the rise of

Euroscepticism from all corners of the continent, the shouting crisis of solidarity amongst

MS, represent symptoms of the political crumbling of the EU. Beyond the internal

struggles it entails, this situation reflects on the power and influence the EU owns abroad.

The ongoing crisis with Iran constitutes an example of the weakened impact of the EU in

international relations.

The loss of legitimacy of the EU has been illustrated by its struggle to mediate effectively

the dispute which occurred between Iran and the US in the context of the anti-nuclear

deal made between the US, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council,

Germany and Iran in 2015. The stability of this deal has been jeopardized by the US’

suspicions towards Iran commitment, the revival of their economic sanctions and Donald

Trump’s decision to opt out of the deal, hence following Benjamin Netanyaou’s stances

in the MENA region. Despite warnings and support from the European Commission and

several visits and statements by the EU’s previous high representative for foreign affairs

15 Meltem Müftüler-Baç and Rahime Süleymanoğlu-Kürüm, ‘Deliberations in the Turkish Parliament:

The External Perceptions of European Foreign Policy’, Journal of Language and Politics 14, no. 2

(2015): 258–84, https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.14.2.04muf.

12

and security policy Frederica Mogherini16, the deal is no longer respected by either of the

involved parties, instigating insecurities in the region which were supposed to be avoided

by the deal. The EU’s attempt to counterweight the US’s economic and trade sanctions

on Iran by setting an international payment platform, INSTEX (Instrument In Support for

Trade Exchange), had low to no effect on the state of the nuclear deal.

This failure to mediate this conflict has highlighted the lack of economic bargaining

power and normative legitimacy of the EU to take on the role of leader in world politics.

Neither the economic power nor the political content of the union is enough to

counterweight major actors’ decisions such as the US’s. The EU’s economic power has

never been its major strength to act globally, although, its normative influence has been

proven to be effective. Actors such as Turkey, have complied to its normative pressure.

The ethical component of the image of the EU could have constituted the last argument

to use to assert its legitimacy to mediate such situation, for the directly involved actors

such as the US and Iran, but also for the rest of the international community. Although, it

seems that the ethical component of the construction of its normative power has become

too weak to make up for it.

The 2019 Turkish attacks in Syria and Erdogan’s opening of the border in March 2020

showed and meant for the power relation going on between Turkey and Europe and

especially in the field of migration studies since Turkey has for the first time explicitly

threatened the EU of opening the borders if the EU did not accept the status quo.

Considering the previous observation of the weak state of the EU’s legitimacy, authority

and power abroad, the aim of this thesis is to evaluate the extent to which a major event

involving economic, political, ethical dimensions such as the so-called ‘Summer of

migration’ has negatively impacted the normative power of the EU by the lack of respect

to HR values in its response to the crisis, thus one of its main legitimation strategy.

Inevitably, if its management of the migration crisis has impacted its legitimacy, it has

also reduced its chances to become a leader in a shifting polarized world. As the US

hegemony has been challenged for the past decade by rising powers such as China,

16 ‘Remarks by HR/VP Mogherini on the Statement by US President Trump Regarding the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA)’, Text, EEAS - European External Action Service - European Commission, accessed 1 August 2019, https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/44238/remarks-hrvp-mogherini-statement-us-president-trump-regarding-iran-nuclear-deal-jcpoa_en.

13

Russia, Turkey and Brazil, the EU could have taken on the opportunity to jump into the

competition, but for multiple reasons it is failing to do so. This thesis argues that the

management of the migration crisis has contributed to this failure by harming the EU’s

legitimacy, carefully built along the years upon its commitment to humanitarian values

around the world.

The previous analysis of normative power and the observation of the current situation

leads us to wonder: can the EU still be considered as a major actor of international

politics? If its normative power is at stakes, how can we measure it? More particularly,

did the lack of ethical commitment of the management of migration flows harm its

legitimacy, itself mainly built upon normative power and the promotion of HR values?

This thesis is aiming to measure the extent of the impact of the migration crisis on the

perception of the EU on the global stage. The image of the EU, especially in relation to

the defence of Human Rights, constituting its main strength to assert its normative power

in Global Governance, this research starts from the hypothesis that the lack of ethical

content of the management of the migration crisis by the EU represents a major threat to

its legitimacy as a leading actor of global security and international development aid. This

loss of legitimacy, as a result of a darkened image, subscribes to the vicious circle

conducting to internal discrepancies and external lack of authority and power.

Overall, this thesis aims at measuring the impact of the migration crisis on the EU’s

normative power abroad. The EU’s normative power constituting its major, if not only,

tool for action in global governance, this thesis argues that the poor management of the

migration crisis is the final hit to the EU’s power and authority on the global stage.

This thesis, in order to assess the levels of EU’s normative power on external actors, will

attempt to measure the impact of the migration crisis on the perception that international

actors have of it. Turkey, as being both a previous subject of the EU’s normative power

and currently one of the most involved foreign actors in Europe’s management of its

migration flows, constitutes an interesting case to assess the impact of the crisis on its

perception. This thesis will thus measure the evolutions of discourse of Turkish leaders

at the UN General Assembly debates, from the year 2009 to the year 2019.

14

After the First Introductory Chapter, the Second Chapter of this thesis will set the

theoretical grounds of key concepts such as legitimacy and legitimation, power and

authority, and finally the notions of perception in International Relations (IR) and

strategies of image branding. It will, furthermore, put this field of study in perspective by

contextualizing it in the emergence of the migration crisis of the past few years,

explaining how the current Common European Asylum System (CEAS), its functioning

and structural flaws have led the EU to externalise a part of its management,

complexifying the already fragile relationship that Turkey and the EU have entertained

for the past decades.

The Third Chapter of this thesis will explore the methodology of the research and expose

the choices which have led to make use of a mix of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

and Discourse Historical Approach (DHA). Both the nature of the corpus of the speeches,

the fact of them being delivered at the UN and that they involve several speakers, and the

nature of the studied topic, more particularly the difficulty to measure fluctuant notions

such as perceptions and legitimacy, have posed challenges to the development of the

thesis. These challenges have been addressed and answered to by the construction of a

relevant, transparent and reliable methodology.

The Fourth Chapter relates thoroughly the historical content and political stakes bounding

Turkey and the EU. In effect, this chapter is essential to assess the role of the migration

crisis in the shaping of Turkey’s positions without undermining the influence of other

factors. The relationship entertained by the two entities is full of paradoxes which need

to be presented before starting the analysis of the speeches. Additionally, this section will

develop on the normative power that the EU has had on Turkish internal policies, as a

starting point to explain the current situation, almost reversed as Turkey has earned

bargaining power over the union by becoming its “gate keeper”. Furthermore, this chapter

will underline the specific role provided to Turkey in the management of the migration

crisis by the EU.

The Fifth Chapter corresponds to the analysis of the results conducted on the speeches.

The analysis relies on the diagram built during the research, which exposes the shifts of

discourses of Turkish leaders towards the EU, relative to the occurrences and use of the

topics mentioned at the UN General Assembly debates, including the migration crisis.

The goal of the analysis is to measure the extent of the role of the migration crisis in the

15

changes of discourses, compared to other topics directly relating to the EU such as the

implementation of Turkey’s foreign policy “Zero-Problem with Neighbours”

programme17, corresponding to the attempt of Turkey to match with the EU’s

requirements for its membership accession. This chapter will detail how Turkish leaders,

rather than having their perception of the EU influenced by the events linked to the

migration crisis, is using the situation as an argumentative tool to delegitimize the union

on the global stage. This strategy supports the anti-Western establishment, pro-neo-

Ottoman empire vision of the world that the Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (AKP) has been

vehiculating internally ever since their accession to power in Turkey in 2002.18

The Sixth Chapter will conclude the thesis by summing up the results of the research and

their consequences for the European Union. The conclusion will reflect on the relevance

of this research, for the IR field of study. Lastly, it will provide ideas for further research

and recommendations for the 2020 renegotiations of the CEAS and the Migration Pack.

17 Ahmet Davutoglu, ‘Turkey’s Zero-Problems Foreign Policy’, Foreign Policy (blog), accessed 1 June 2020, https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/05/20/turkeys-zero-problems-foreign-policy/. 18 ‘The AKP’s Foreign Policy as Populist Governance’, MERIP, 15 December 2018, https://merip.org/2018/12/the-akps-foreign-policy-as-populist-governance/.

16

CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Conceptual framework

2.1.1 A constructivist approach of IR

This thesis lies on the basis that political discourses and power relations in International

Relations (IR) are constructed upon a set of social and contextual factors which influence

the way ideologies are delivered on the global stage. The constructivist approach allows

us to understand the political discourse of the Turkish leaders as the result of events

intervening in the relationship their country entertains with the EU. The events might not

necessarily shape the ideological content of their discourse, but the way they deliver it in

international setting, more specifically at the UN General Assembly Debate. The setting,

which will be discussed in the methodology section of this thesis, is of upmost importance

to understand the shift of positioning of Turkey towards the EU. This thesis argues that

this shift of discursive practices is constructed by international events such as, potentially,

the migration crisis.

Furthermore, this thesis theoretical grounds are based on a constructivist approach of

international relations which considers the EU is an exceptional foreign policy actor. This

exceptionality, sometimes referred to as structural uniqueness or moral distinctiveness,

2.1.2 The construction of NME theories

As argued by Ian Manners, the Normative Power Approach (NPA) is of particular

relevance to assess the EU’s position in a “globalizing, multilateralizing and

multipolarizing era”.19 The diversity of actors involved in global politics, their mean of

legitimation and the ambitions they hold in the world shapes inevitably the nature of

power and actorness.

19 Ian Manners, ‘Assessing the Decennial, Reassessing the Global: Understanding European Union Normative Power in Global Politics’:, Cooperation and Conflict, 4 June 2013, https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836713485389.

17

The European Union, by the singularity of its construction and structure, with no

comparison in the world, has built its means of foreign action around normative tools.

The original structure bounding the Member States amongst each other to form an union,

was the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957, far from political and

ideological dimensions, which arose later with the development. The EU consequently

does not benefit from the protection of a common army, and its political organization lies

on legislative tools but lacks executive power. The EU does not own any mean of hard

power implementation on external actors. Furthermore, amongst all institutions and EU

bodies, only the members of Parliament are directly elected by the citizens. These

peculiarities in themselves question the legitimacy of the union’s institutions on the

internal level, for its own population and Member States.

The normative power of the EU would thus represent its main mean of action abroad, by

both making other actors comply with the norms set out by the union, and by constructing

an identity of the EU, firstly for itself and secondly to build an image against the rest of

the world.20 The construction of an identity and thus, an image, is of upmost importance

for the EU to assert its existence and relevance internally before even building power and

legitimacy abroad. In the past decades, its singularity and uniqueness prevail in the

construction of its identity, pertaining to the image of Europe as a distinctive actor of

international politics.21

More than by its structure of by its means of actions, the distinctiveness of the European

Union was built upon the upholding of strong moral values. Originally created to prevent

another war to break out on the continent by binding their economic growth together, the

EU’s first mission was to maintain peace amongst concurrent neighbouring countries.

This original goal has, in addition to start an economical alliance, paved the way to the

main values defended by the union: democracy, rule of law, and human rights. According

to Weiler, the EU’s distinctiveness theory22 is based on the two elements which foster its

dominant political culture: political messianism and a formal conception of the rule of

law. As the commitment to HR has been intrinsic to the legal fundamentals of the union,

and the promotion of HR a pillar of its foreign policy and thus shaping a certain form of

political messianism, the disrespect of this values in the implementation of its own

20 Pace, ‘The Construction of EU Normative Power’. 21 Brigid Laffan, ‘The European Union: A Distinctive Model of Internationalisation?’, SSRN Electronic

Journal, 2002, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.302709. 22 Eleftheriadis, ‘The Moral Distinctiveness of the European Union’.

18

policies dismantles the construction of its own distinctiveness. Consequently, if we

consider that this distinctiveness provided the union a certain level of legitimacy on the

global stage, its disappearance will inevitably harm its normative power on the long term.

By not respecting its own moral principles, the EU becomes the same self-interested actor

of international relations as any other would be, with the difference that it does not own

the hard power that other actors have to counterbalance this loss and reassert its

legitimacy.

2.1.3 International legitimacy for the EU

The legitimacy of IOs does not flow out of the nature of their construction, as they are

overarching to pre-existent authority, such as the one of the nations. Nations usually share

a language, a common history, culture, territory, a government, and many other bounding

factors to create and maintain legitimacy towards its citizens and in the face of external

actors. IOs have to make use of branding strategies to build their legitimacy, relevance

and authority on the global stage.

Although the EU does not correspond entirely to any definition when it comes to

pinpointing its nature on the global stage, this thesis will consider that the union faces the

same challenges as the rest of IOs to assert their legitimacy upon their own citizens,

Member States, and amongst other actors of the global stage. This section will thus expose

the strategies implemented by IOs to gain legitimacy without the support of military, nor

from a executive power. First, on the basis of Tallberg and Zurn’s definitions, this thesis

will use the concepts of legitimacy as “beliefs of audiences that an IO’s authority is

appropriately exercised”, and the strategies to gain legitimacy, legitimation, as “a process

of justification and contestation intended to shape such beliefs.”23 Furthermore, this

definition includes that “legitimation strategies are goal-oriented activities employed to

establish and maintain a reliable basis of diffuse support for a political regime by its social

constituencies.”24

Still according to Tallberg and Zürn, the legitimacy of IOs’ can be measured through their

level of institutionalism. Institutionalism would thus represent the main source of

23 Tallberg and Zürn, ‘The Legitimacy and Legitimation of International Organizations’. 24 Tallberg and Zürn.

19

legitimacy for IOs. This thesis assumes that other factors such as at the internal structural

and political state of the IO, the respect for ethical components and the level of unity and

solidarity amongst its members have greater impact on their legitimation. Although the

levels of institutionalism of an IO is essential to the early development of its legitimacy,

this thesis argues, on the bases of Buchanan’s theory, that normative factors are necessary

for the assertion of its legitimacy on the long-term.

Allen Buchanan, in addition to attribute a fundamental role to norms in the

implementation of legitimation strategies of IOs on the international scene towards

external actors, adds that according to the Metacoordination View, an institution is

legitimate in the view of its partaking actors – such as MS in the case of the EU - if it

proves itself worthy of their “moral reason-based support”.25 Concluding on this idea, the

legitimacy entrusted by the MS to the EU is inherently normative, on top of other

considerations such as its effectivity or the ratio benefit/constraint asserted by the

international institution on its delegates.

Hence, in addition to authorship – meaning an original intent to commit to certain values

– and justice – the inclusion of justice as a core principle of EU policies - the legitimacy

of the EU relies on outcomes.26 Following the logic that the legitimation of the EU

depends on its moral distinctiveness, the outcomes of the implementation of the migration

management strategies of the union should necessarily intake HR considerations. If it is

proven that the direct actions of the EU are producing outcomes which do not commit to

their system of values, its legitimacy to promote these values abroad will inevitably be

impacted.

Ultimately, if legitimation strategies exist for IO such as the EU, this thesis argues that

delegitimation strategies are equally used by challengers to their authority on the global

stage. The argumentation of this thesis is thus based on a dual dynamic. Firstly, the

legitimation strategies of the EU on the global stage might be losing effectiveness by

themselves consequently to the normative stakes of the management of migration flows.

Secondly, challengers on the run for leading position on the global stage are developing

delegimation strategies on the grounds of the original strategies of legitimation of the EU.

25 Buchanan, Institutionalizing the Just War. 26 Eleftheriadis, ‘The Moral Distinctiveness of the European Union’.

20

In effect, HR in the EU’s legitimacy abroad has held a peculiar role in the past decades.

Even though HR has been one of the main argument for the EU’s foreign action and

promoted by it internationally,27 this rationale is con to rhetorical arguments rather than

concrete action since the MS comply to realpolitik situations rather than following the

ideal of spreading HR around the world.28 This thesis argues that the migration crisis has

turned this phenomenon from a tendency to an underlying pattern of EU’s foreign affairs,

allowing actors such as Turkey to cease the opportunity to undermine the EU’s legitimacy

by attacking it on one of its core values and sources of legitimacy: defending Human

Rights around the world.

The missing link between building the EU’s legitimacy globally and the management of

its migration flows can be illustrated by Jean-Claude Juncker’s 10 political goals set for

the period from 2014 to 201929. As Goal 8 ambitions to move “Towards a New Policy on

Migration”, Goal 9 in its turn advocates to make the EU a “Stronger Global Actor”.

Interestingly, those two points constitute two separated points, which highlights the gap

of understanding in migration management in EU politics. Even though this separation

can be explained by the importance of both topics and a matter of clarity of the goals, it

also shows that the European Union is not acknowledging the relationship between their

ability to manage effectively and fairly their migration flows through their asylum system

as a mean to assert themselves as a strong global actor. The diplomatic impact of the

migration crisis on the EU’s image abroad is overlooked to leave room to ethical

arguments when questions concerning the reformation of the migration policies come into

place. Although very legitimate arguments can be made upon ethical considerations, it

seems that in so far, they have not been enough to counter the MS national sovereignty

concerns during negotiations of the CEAS reform.

This thesis acknowledges the power of the European migration management system as a

potential tool for the EU to build its legitimacy in international relations and to assert

itself as a strong and leading actor of Global Governance. Assessing the impact and

eventual detrimental effects of its management on the perception and attitudes which

foreign actors have towards the European Union constitutes the best way to highlight the

27 ‘Human Rights Promotion in the EU Foreign Policy | Časopis pro Politiku a Mezinárodní Vztahy’. 28 Ruby Gropas, ‘Is a Human Rights Foreign Policy Possible? The Case of the European Union’, n.d., 28. 29 ‘Jean-Claude Juncker’, n.d., 37.

21

diplomatic repercussions of migration policies. By underlining these consequences on the

EU’s legitimacy abroad this thesis ambitions to constitute solid grounds of argumentation

for the upcoming renegotiations of the CEAS and provide an empirical study for the ones

who would like to advocate for a change in European migration policy.

2.1.4 Perception and depiction, the tip of the iceberg of legitimacy

Perception in international politics is key to the relationship different actors entertain, and

the way they are expressed or depicted on the global stage remains one of the best

indicators to assess one entity’s image for external actors. As seen previously, the EU’s

normative power relies heavily on its moral identity, itself forging its image abroad. If the

image of the EU is harmed, it will thus have an impact on its overall capability of action

or influence abroad, in opposition to armed powers for example, which theoretically do

not need excellent image branding strategies since they detain hard means of actions

independent of their moral values. Thus, in order to measure the legitimacy of the EU

abroad, one needs to analyse the perception other actors might have of it, and if it is

influenced or not by specific events.

The main goal of this thesis is thus to analyse the perception of the EU which Turkey has

developed along the years and how it has been displaying it to the rest of the world. As

the EU’s construction of its own image has been intrinsically relying on Human Rights,

its stability and unity and building up to an exceptional model in the world of International

Relations, it is necessary to analyse the depiction made on the global stage by external

actors to measure the effectivity of the EU’s legitimation methods. Furthermore, and

following National Branding theory to the shaping of legitimacy for the EU, this thesis

stresses the importance of HR in European image branding and highlights the migration

crisis as an argument against the EU by shedding light on the gaps in the implementation

of these ideals as soon as realpolitik gets too challenging.

22

2.1 Initial hypothesis

2.2.1 Creating a theoretical bridge from the EU’s internal to external policy

The hypothesis that led into the development of this research lies into the causality

relationship between the internal dimensions of the migratory policies in the EU and its

legitimacy on the Global Governance system. Taking birth in the structural deficiencies

of the CEAS30 which led the union to make ethically dubious external agreements, this

thesis assumes that the legitimacy of the union on the global stage has been negatively

impacted by its reaction to the migration crisis, for several reasons.

On a first hand, the normative legitimacy that the EU had gained along the years by

asserting itself as the first Defensor of Human Rights around the world may have been

put at stake by the ethical dubitability of the implementation of the packs made with

Turkey in 2016. The strategies of legitimation formerly used by the European Union,

which will be developed further below, were heavily relying on moral values and the

ethical dimensions of their foreign actions. By disregarding it, the EU might be taking the

risk to be losing legitimacy by its own doing, both in the face of countries where foreign

action takes place and in the face of their partners countries. Taking a step further in that

assumption, this thesis will analyse how foreign actors such as Turkey have their

perception and positions towards the EU changed by the current situation, and eventually,

taking advantage from it.

On a second hand, this thesis assumes that the ineffective management of the migration

crisis by the EU has created a power vacuum from which external actors, such as Turkey,

can benefit greatly in their rationale against the Western establishment. More particularly,

this thesis focuses on the normative arguments the situation has provided for actors

willing to harm the legitimacy of major Western actors such as the EU to their own

benefit. Turkey, by its history, its ambiguous position towards the EU and rising

hegemonic position over the Middle Eastern region and current development strategies,

represents thus the best example to measure the extent of the role of the migration crisis

in these mechanisms.

30 Cathryn Costello and Minos Mouzourakis, ‘The Common European Asylum System: Where Did It All Go Wrong?’, n.d., 38.

23

2.2.2 From a flawed CEAS to harmed legitimacy as a leader of global governance

The thesis lies on the assumption that the internal management of the migration flows

implemented by the European Union is impacting its external legitimacy on the global

stage. The cause-to-effect relationship between the CEAS and Turkish leaders’

perception might not be set as a clear path, but this theoretical framework aims at

explaining, in its first part, the internal discrepancies of the current migration system31

and how it might constitute a source of harm for the EU’s external actions.

As analysed by E. Karageourgiou,32 the Dublin Regulation represents one of the main

structural flaws of the CEAS. Relating to the designation of the responsible state for

asylum seekers coming into the Schengen Area, this regulation originally aimed at

distributing asylum seekers fairly amongst MS to absorb their impact on hosting societies.

According to E. Karageourgiou, its implementation has had the opposite effect. Setting

the responsibility on the first country of registration (i.e where the fingerprints of the

asylum seeker are registered in the Eurodac database), the Dublin system strengthens the

pressure on geographically disadvantaged MS in regards to Europe’s external borders,

such as Greece, Spain and Italy. Located on the main migration routes to Europe, the

amount of asylum seekers falling under their responsibility is substantial compared to

other countries with central location. Furthermore, Southern European countries such as

Greece, Spain and Italy are already amongst the most economically vulnerable MS, and

would require the support of other more advantaged MS to manage and reallocate the

migration flows coming in their territories.

In spite of the rapport “Combating illegal immigration in the Mediterranean” presented

by the Quadro Group (Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Malta) at the informal meeting of the

JHA Ministers held in Prague as soon as 15 January 2009, stressing the importance to

implement “a more formalized approach to intra-EU reallocation” and to start “intra-EU

reallocation under existing arrangements as early as possible”33, the renegotiations of the

CEAS which concluded on Dublin III in 2013 did not alter the state of the country of first

31 Eleni Karageorgiou, ‘The Distribution of Asylum Responsibilities in the EU: Dublin, Partnerships with Third Countries and the Question of Solidarity’, Nordic Journal of International Law 88, no. 3 (29 August 2019): 315–58, https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-08803003. 32 Karageorgiou. 33 Council of the European Union, 2009, p. 7

24

entry as responsible for an asylum seeker, nor did it widen the scope of intra-EU

reallocation operations.

Such effects of the Dublin system have highlighted a strong causality link between

questions of burden-sharing and a general lack of solidarity amongst MS. This lack of

solidarity has impacted the relevance of the EU for its MS and their population, deepening

Eurosceptic discourses and weakening the willingness of MS to comply with current

regulations.34 These tensions, by shedding light on the paradoxical relationship national

powers entertain with other MS and with the EU, encourage MS to stretch European

legislations and International Human Rights Law to their limit in their implementation to

protect their own interests instead of being able to rely on one another. The conditions of

reception of asylum seekers have barely matched the criteria set by the CEAS in most of

the Member States, even in those who have been the least reluctant to take in asylum

seekers. As a consequence, the state of France was just condemned in 2020 by the ECHR

for the conditions of living of asylum seekers in the housing facilities set by the

government.35

As the EU cannot rely on its MS to respect its regulations and to manage effectively the

migration flow within its own borders, decisions have been made to settle agreements

with external actors to limit the arrivals and enhance the relocations of asylum seekers

outside of the EU. As stated by MEP Corazza Bildt, the European countries are reluctant

to resettle more asylum seekers from outside of the EU or to relocate them from within

the EU, thus recognizing that without the 2016 deal with Turkey, the EU would be in a

“very dire” situation.36 Turkey is one of the countries with which the EU has made those

agreements, installing President Erdogan’s country in a position of gatekeeper of the

continent. As described by Okyay and Zaragoza-Cristiani37, this situation has provided

leverage and power to Turkey, which resulted in being illustrated by the last attacks led

34 Iris Goldner Lang, ‘Is There Solidarity on Asylum and Migration in the EU’, Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy 9 (2013): 1–14, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.intyb/cybelp0009&i=15. 35 ‘ECHR Condemns France for “Inhuman Living Conditions” of Asylum Seekers’, En24 World, 2 July

2020, https://www.en24news.com/en/2020/07/echr-condemns-france-for-inhuman-living-conditions-of-

asylum-seekers.html. 36 ‘EU-Turkey Relations and the Migration Conundrum: Where Does the EU-Turkey Statement Stand

after Three Years?’, Atlantic Council (blog), 15 May 2019,

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/commentary/event-recap/eu-turkey-relations-and-the-migration-

conundrum-where-does-the-eu-turkey-statement-stand-after-three-years/. 37 Asli Okyay and Jonathan Zaragoza-Cristiani, ‘The Leverage of the Gatekeeper: Power and

Interdependence in the Migration Nexus between the EU and Turkey’, The International Spectator 51,

no. 4 (October 2016): 51–66, https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2016.1235403.

25

by Turkish forces against Kurdish YPG militia in Syria in November 2019, against the

EU’s positions and warnings towards Turkey. These military actions aimed at clearing a

safe zone in the northeast of the country to resettle a part of the asylum seekers staying in

Turkey back into their home country. In spite of the EU’s disproval of the bombings,

President Erdogan explicitly threatened the EU to “open the gates” for asylum seekers if

European countries failed to support the resettlement plans.38 This threat was put into

action from March 2020 on, when Turkey stopped preventing migrants to reach Greece

by land or by sea. Ever since, the situation has been overwhelming for the Greek

authorities to deal with, highlighting, once again, the lack of solidarity amongst European

MS in supporting new arrivals of heavy migration flows. In the light of decisions made

in Malta in September 201939 to redistribute migrants coming into Europe via the Central

Mediterranean Route (i.e through Italy and Malta), these negotiations have left behind

other significantly impacted MS such as Spain, and Greece. The island of Lesvos, where

the largest migrants’ camp of Greece is located, is suffering from overcrowding, leading

to the deterioration of already poor conditions of living for the displaced populations, and

strong anti-migrant reactions from the local population of the island, exhausted by the

longevity of the situation and the pressure it has put on the island’s main activity, tourism.

The cause-to-effect situation strengthens the Eurosceptic rationale gaining power in

Greece, and all around the continent. In short, the situation of Lesvos illustrates a

concentrated image of what is happening on the continental level. 40

The malfunctioning CEAS41, leading to call for support of external but not reliable parties

such as the Turkish government, ends up creating a vicious circle. Bringing out flaws and

highlighting the inability of the EU to deal with its own problems in a united and efficient

way, the relevance of a constraining but not supportive union vanishes in the eyes of local

populations who feel left aside by the Eurogroup. Consequently, Eurosceptic political

parties, using anti-migrant rationales, gain more votes in the most impacted countries as

illustrated by Salvini’s or Orban’s presidency. In its turn, the rise of ultra-nationalists

38 ‘Turkey Threatens to Send Millions of Refugees to Europe Unless It Backs “safe Zone” in Syria’, The

Independent, 26 October 2019, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/erdogan-syria-turkey-

refugees-safe-zone-kurds-trump-europe-borders-a9172311.html. 39 Sergio Carrera and Roberto Cortinovis, ‘The Malta Declaration on SAR and Relocation: A Predictable EU Solidarity Mechanism?’, n.d., 7. 40 Sociales, Méditerranée. 41 Costello and Mouzourakis, ‘The Common European Asylum System: Where Did It All Go Wrong?’

26

political parties adds to the clogging of the negotiations of the CEAS when MS are being

asked to each take their fair share of asylum seekers.

As explained by Okyay and Zaragoza-Cristina, “the EU-Turkey refugee deal and the

broader framework in which it has been embedded might have long-term costs from both

normative and interest-based perspectives: costs which outweigh the short-term benefits.”

This article pinpoints two potential long-term normative costs for the EU such as the legal

questions that this deals raises in accordance to international asylum law and the

definition of Turkey as a safe country of asylum, and Turkey becoming an example which

other countries of the Aegan region might want to follow to gain leverage over the EU as

gatekeepers.42

In 2015, following the publication of Aylan’s picture, this 5 year-old-boy whose body

was discovered lifeless on a beach in Greece which was subject to intense media coverage

and created strong emotional reactions from the public opinion, and in observance of the

inability of the CEAS to manage effectively the migration flows internally to the union,

the EU has started to undergo new alliances with foreign actors to limit the number of

migrants coming into its shared territory, by stopping them, or relocating them in

bordering countries instead of improving the pre-existing internal system. The emphasize

was put on reinforcing its external borders, with a specific focus on areas confronted with

the three main migration points of entrance: Western (through Spain), Central (through

Italy and Malta) and Eastern (through Greece) Mediterranean routes. Ever since the

beginning of this externalized policymaking has begun, several agreements were made

with external parties such as Libya, Morocco, and Turkey. As the focus of this thesis has

been set on the potential impact of the migration crisis on Turkey’s positions towards the

EU, we will only describe the deal made between these two actors.

The 2016 agreements between Turkey and the European states have had several

consequences on the management of the external borders of the EU. By establishing

borders policies, harming a well-functioning system set up by humanitarian groups on

Greek Islands, most particularly Lesvos, Chios and Samos, under the cover of putting an

end to human trafficking and illegal border crossing and offering a better way for migrants

42 Okyay and Zaragoza-Cristiani, ‘The Leverage of the Gatekeeper’.

27

to reach Europe than risking their lives crossing the sea.43 The political incentives and

applications of the deal have been immediately widely criticized by NGOs and political

opponents around the continent.

This thesis will focus on the measurement of the extent of a third long-term normative

impact of the EU/Turkey refugee deal: the discursive arguments it potentially provides to

Turkey to undermine the EU’s legitimacy in the purpose of excluding it from the

competition to become a leader of global governance, which highlight the ethical

intangibility of the Western migration policies, in order to legitimize the rise of a new

world order involving other actors.

43 Sociales, Méditerranée.

28

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Case study: the tumultuous EU/Turkey relationship

In order to catch perceptions which might be more subjective than objective, legal content

redacted for policy making is not relevant, since it makes use of strict redaction

methodologies and does not draw or rely on any subjective feeling or idea. The scope and

timeframe of the study would make a field study, or interviews, either impossible to

pursue or irrelevant for the purpose of the study.

Perceptions can be depicted by elements which cannot be evaluated by any other

methodology than the analysis of a case study. Quantitative elements do not provide any

insight on subjective perceptions, but the behaviour of one actor towards another and the

discourse it employs to describe the other can be used to draw the perception it has of it.

Furthermore, the fact that perceptions are usually more implicit than explicit, especially

in the world of international relations which relies heavily on diplomatic communication

methods, require to qualitatively analyse the content in relation with the historical and

political context.

The analysis of a case study and more particularly of the discourses related to it thus

appears to be the most relevant to measure the perception of actors in international

relations.

3.1.1 Bounded units: Turkey as the control sample of EU legitimacy

To match with the scope of the study, the focus was set on the perception of the EU by

one actor only. Turkey, as an actively involved actor in the migration crisis, previous

candidate to the EU assession, and growing power in the world, has been chosen to

measure the evolutions of its positioning towards the EU through the management of the

migration crisis. The reasons and challenges partaking to this decision will be described

in detail further below. As a primary explanation, this thesis will provide an overview of

the relationship entertained by the two actors, and the context in which this situation is

occurring, and the decision made by the EU to seek for external help to deal with the

29

incoming migration flows. Furthermore, this thesis will in the next chapter draw the

political line followed by Turkey for the past century, and the relationships it has

entertained with the EU and the West along it.

Europe – the Christendom, the Fortress - and Turkey – the Ottoman and Byzantine

empires - share a tumultuous History. Turkey, first, is a key player of international

politics. Firstly, due to its unique geographic position, bridging both literally and

figuratively Europe with the Middle East. This geographic position is particularly relevant

for our case study since it has made its relations with Europe paradoxical: between rivalry

and cooperation. Furthermore, this location constitutes the foundations for the

establishment of the EU/Turkey statement of March 201644 making Turkey the new

“gate-keeper”45 of Europe. Secondly, its History has made Turkey a pillar of the region’s

political landscape, and more recently, of international importance. Lastly, due to the

current state of its politics and role in global governance, Turkey is playing on many

stages: Russia, Africa, international development, and, of course, Syria. Turkey has

grown in the past few years from an unstable bordering country to the EU to one of the

major actors of global governance, alternating between the stable and reliable ally on the

one hand, and a cause for concern on the other.

The relationship between the EU and Turkey is particularly interesting for the focus of

this research since the power relations between the two parties have been intermittently

going one way and the other since the Early Middle Ages until present times. The

perceptions of one another for both parties have thus evolved throughout History,

charging the current perceptions with a deeper understanding of each other’s cultural,

political and historical background. Turkey thus has a very peculiar point of view on the

EU, as it has been both influencing and influenced by it over the course of centuries.

More currently, the last century, relating as much to internal Turkish politics as to the

creation of the EU, has revealed itself to be extremely interesting concerning the

relationship both actors entertain. Europe, by partly becoming the EU, has become an

attractive international organization to be a part of, politically and economically, and

Turkey, a motivated candidate.

44 ‘EU-Turkey Statement, 18 March 2016’, accessed 30 August 2020, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/18/eu-turkey-statement/. 45 Okyay and Zaragoza-Cristiani, ‘The Leverage of the Gatekeeper’.

30

This evolution in the European political landscape and the unsettled political environment

in Turkey have given room for the EU’s normative power to apply onto Turkey’s values

and political endeavours. In the field of Human Rights for example, the EU has used of

Turkey’s quest for the EU membership accession to influence its internal politics.

3.1.2 Risks of the case study

The specificity of the relationship can be both beneficial and detrimental to the overall

aim of the study which is to identify the impact of the migration crisis on the perception

of the EU by Turkish leaders and by extension by other foreign actors. Indeed, on one

hand the fact that the EU has already managed to influence Turkey in a normative way

will add perspective to the eventual observed shifts of discourse over the span of the past

ten years. On the other hand, this relationship and shared History heavily influences

Turkey’s initial perception of Europe and might not be accurately representative of what

other foreign actors might perceive. This risk acknowledged, this thesis will attempt to

draw a line between the perceptions which could be shared with other foreign actors, the

ones which are most likely to be specific to Turkey.

3.2 Corpus: time, place, and size of the data set

3.2.1 From 2009 to 2019: a chronological frame to the migration crisis

As previously explained in the contextualization, this thesis relies on the hypothesis that

the 2015 crisis and the 2016 EU/Turkey pack represent a shifting point in the perception

of the EU on the international stage, and more particularly by Turkey, thus questioning

the relevance of the EU’s distinctiveness theory46 in the current state of international

relations. In order to test this hypothesis, this research will investigate the past ten years

of speeches given by Turkish leaders at the general debate of the UN General Assembly

to investigate if any changes can be noticed in their discourse while referring to Europe

in international settings. If any major discursive shifts are to be identified, this thesis will

46 Laffan, ‘The European Union’.

31

examine if a causality link can be drawn with the main events of the migration crisis, or

if they appear to be simple correlations.

Starting in 2009, the scope of the research thus englobes speeches given two years priorly

to the start of the Syrian armed conflict in 2011, six years before the ‘Summer of

Migration’ experienced by the EU in 2015, and seven years before the migration

management EU/Turkey pack of 2016. This timeframe will thus allow the research to

reflect on several stages of the migratory crisis which could have impacted the discourse

of Turkish leaders.

3.2.2 The UN General Assembly: a highly regarded IR practice arena

This thesis focuses mainly on the speeches given by Turkish leaders at the plenary session

of the General Debates of the UN General Assembly for several reasons. Firstly, the

accessibility and the reliability of the primary sources and its translation. Indeed, being a

non-Turkish speaker, finding fully transcribed speeches of Turkish leaders, even more so

reliably translated, can reveal itself to be a rather difficult task to accomplish. Choosing

primary sources such as the UN General Assembly records provides security, and stability

in time. Indeed, not only the seriousness of the translations and of the transcriptions is not

to be doubted, but it also ensures an even quality of work throughout the timeframe of the

research. All speeches were given the same treatment for the past ten years. These

elements build a solid base for the analysis as the content is exceptionally reliable.

Moreover, the UN General Assembly represents the most important international

gathering and thus embodies the best stage for global governance to perform and

materialize on. Additionally, the General Debates, spread on a few days, involve all the

main actors engaged in the events this research relates to. This ensures the fact that the

Turkish leaders are addressing their ideas about Europe not only to the international

community but also directly to the concerned representatives. Ever since the year 2000,

the General Assembly’s debates’ goals have been updated to make it more efficient, by

shortening the speeches to target specifically the main issues and concerns of the speakers

32

in global politics. 47 This factor strengthens the relevance of these speeches for our

research, as the speakers tend to be more direct in the way they address these issues.

3.2.3 Limitation of the corpus of primary sources

However, choosing speeches which were given in an environment with high levels of

formality and relatively less hospitability towards Turkey’s politics and ideologies could

impact their truthfulness. Indeed, such levels of political speeches are very carefully

written, and usually very polished to match the interests and positions of the audience.

Nevertheless, the fact of these speeches being so formal only strengthens the meaning of

messages conveyed by the spokesperson. These speeches are so carefully written and

delivered that any underlying message is intentional and thus show strong beliefs since

the deliverer of the speech is not hiding anymore their second thoughts, even though they

can be shared in a very diplomatic way. Furthermore, the UN Security Council constitute

the best opportunity for members to address their deepest concerns about global security

and point out each other’s responsibilities. Discourse analysis is thus the best tool to

unpack any underlying, diplomatically disguised messages in order to draw the perception

of the different involved actors in international politics and relations.

In order to measure the differences of speeches when the level of formality of the

environment in which the speeches are given, this research will make the parallel between

these speeches of the UN General Debates and other speeches given by Turkish leaders

in more favourable and less formal settings such as for instance Erdogan’s when he visited

President Orban in Hungary in 2019.

3.2.4 Ten years, three different spokespersons

Although the political line followed by the different Turkish leaders which have been into

power during that period of time can constitute variations in the position they are adopting

towards the EU, the analysis of their discourses takes this factor into consideration to

limit its impact on the reliability of the thesis. If any notable differences in discursive

47 M. J. Peterson and Lars K E Lars, The Un General Assembly (London, UNITED KINGDOM: Taylor &

Francis Group, 2005), p. 138, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uu/detail.action?docID=258990.

33

practises relating to the differing perceptions and positions of the EU between Erdogan,

Gül and Davutoglu are to be identified, they are included and analysed in the conclusive

parts of the research.

The three speakers although very close to each other, are now divided by ideological

views. Abdullah Gül, held the position of President of Turkey from 2007 until his Prime

Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan took over his position in 2014. Erdogan was the leader

of the AKP until he quit his position for constitutional reasons to fulfil his presidential

mandate. Ahmet Davotoglu, former advisor of Erdogan, has never been President but was

first the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from 2009 to 2014 in Gül’s government, then Prime

Minister until 2016 under Erdogan’s mandate. The dissensions between the three men

were always known but they have been made public recently, following the internal

political crisis and the reaction of Erdogan’s government to it. Davotoglu and Gül both

stress the importance to commit to the values of democracy, the rule of law and human

rights, whilst Erdogan has been gradually criticized for adopting an authoritarian style of

governing.

Furthermore, even though the leaders might have different stances towards the EU, the

frequency of the references to the EU made in their speeches, which can be an indicator

of the importance of the EU in their eyes and thus legitimacy as an actor in international

affairs, is not be affected. Indeed, this research relies firstly on how the EU is depicted or

referred to by Turkish political leaders, but also if the EU is referred as an actor at all. A

gradual disappearance of the EU as a mentioned partner in international development, for

example, is an indicator of how Turkey considers the EU in the frame of global

governance no matter the political differences dividing the speakers.

3.3 Methods of discourse analysis

The main aim of this thesis is to draw the image of the EU abroad, through the perception

that external actors, in that case Turkish leaders, have of the EU. As explained in the

theoretical framework part, perception in international politics is key to the relationship

entertained by different international actors. However, perception can be tricky to

evaluate as diplomatic rules prevent international actors to clearly state or express their

thoughts relative to one another. The relevance of discourse analysis thus comes into play

34

to empirically assess in a non-biased and academical manner a fluctuant concept such as

perceptions by analysing the depiction of one actor towards another through the discourse

it uses towards it. Discourse analysis methods allow the researcher to read through the

lines of political speeches in a critical way, in relation to the context they were given in.

3.3.1 Fairclough’s discourse analysis methodology

The first part of our method will attempt to answer the two first research sub-questions of

this thesis:

(1) Did the perception of the EU change over the span of the last 10 years in Turkish

leaders’ UN General Assembly speeches?

(2) Can this shift of discourse be related specifically to the migration crisis?

(3) If so, can this shift of discourse have a negative impact of the EU’s legitimacy?

Considering the limited size of the data set, using coding methods to analyse the primary

sources will not be sufficient for the purpose of this research. Although, it can constitute

a relevant starting point to nail down overall trends of the discourses. Indeed, observing

concordance plots and collocates in the texts will help us identify several qualifying

adjectives most often associated with “Europe” or “European Union” in the speeches

given by the Turkish leaders. These qualifying adjectives can highlight overall trends and

constitute a starting point for the discursive analysis described below.

The analysis of the primary sources to answer the research questions of this thesis will be

based on Fairclough’s discourse analysis methodology. This methodology is constituted

of three steps: textual analysis, discursive practices, and social practises.

Textual analysis focuses exclusively on the text. The attention is given to the choice of

words, the chronology, or any information which could be understood or interpreted from

the text alone, and in our case, from the speeches themselves regardless of contextual

elements.

The analysis of discursive practices focuses on the actors involved in the text, more

precisely its production and consumption, allowing our research to interpret the words of

the spokesperson. This step focuses on the speaker itself or spokesperson, and to whom

35

it was delivered, the audience. For the purpose of this thesis, the attention will be set on

the variety of speakers represented in the data set and the eventual differing political line

they were following at the time of their speeches, since Turkey has had different leaders

in the span of the research’s timeframe.

Lastly, the addition of social practises in the research puts in perspective the two previous

steps by making the parallel between the priorly gathered information to the economic

and political background, and the ideology defended by the spokesperson. This last step

will allow this research to identify and explain the underlying European perception

delivered by Turkish leaders in their discourses in international settings but also and most

importantly, it will finally show any correlations or causality links in time between the

shift of discourse and the priorly identified events such as the “Summer of Migration” of

2015, the EU/Turkey pack of 2016, or the Turkish attacks in Syria in 2019. The

identification of those events will be made in relation to both Turkish and European

political history to ensure that the possible shifts of discourse do not correspond to other

major events.

For this aforementioned reason, the research will adopt a Discourse-Historical Approach

for the analysis of the corpus.

3.3.2 Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA): concepts, methods

The DHA starts from the assumption that discursive practices are socially constructed,

and linked to the context in which they are used in. For the sake of this thesis, we will

focus on the political and historical contexts of the EU and Turkey of the past 10 years,

and any major events occurring on the international politics stage between 2009 and 2019.

In addition to the political situation of the two parties, the research will establish a

timeline of all the events, agreements, or texts explicitly or implicitly referred to by the

Turkish leaders in their speeches to the UN General Assembly. The use of DHA

methodology lies on the definition of three core principles: critique, ideology, and

language. These concepts constitute the bases of the analysis of the corpus of this thesis,

and are defined as follows:

36

Critique

The socio-diagnostic critique aims at pinpointing the persuasive character of discursive

practices. In the analytical part of this thesis, we will create a bridge between the

contextual knowledge and the observed language and defended ideologies. By reflecting

all observations made on the context, this thesis will attempt to understand the underlying

rationale and motivations of the speeches.

Ideology

Ideologies constitute the red line followed by spokespersons in their speeches to a specific

audience. For the purpose of this thesis, ideologies will be considered as a political

perspective, which can correspond to a one-sided view of a given situation thus not

necessarily representative of the reality of a situation, and which reflect the opinions,

convictions and mental representations of the spokesperson. Ideologies constitute the

foundations of rationale used in the aim to establish unbalances in power relations through

discourse, either by asserting hegemonic narratives or by discrediting other actors’ actions

and values. Ideologies are diffused in speeches using semantic and argumentative

strategies via a carefully constructed language.48

Language

As for the analysis of the speeches will highly be focused on the evolution of the language

used by the Turkish leaders as much as the one of ideologies defended by their discourse.

As put by Ruth Wodak and Martin Reisigl, “power is legitimized or de-legitimized in

discourses […] power is discursively exerted not only by grammatical forms, but also by

a person’s control of the social occasion by means of the genre of a text, or by the

regulation of access to certain public spheres.”49 The arguments used in a particular

setting such as the UN denotes of strategies used by the speaker to either legitimate or

delegitimate a subject, in the goal to assert its dominance and hegemony over the audience

and the target of their discourse.

48 ‘(PDF) The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA)’, accessed 7 May 2020,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251636976_The_Discourse-Historical_Approach_DHA. 49 ‘(PDF) The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA)’.

37

The interpretive analysis focuses on the linguistic means and the intent of delivery of the

message. By paying close attention to linguistic tools, such as unfinished thoughts

(primacy, exaggerations, distortions, incompletions)50 or unusual expressions (emphasis,

isolation, repetition, uniqueness)51.

Based on these core concepts of DHA, this thesis will practice the principle of

triangulation: theory, method, and empirical observations. Using a reliable and

transparent method, it will analyse empirical observations made of the speeches, and put

them into perspective with the theories and contextual considerations priorly described.

3.3.3 DHA applied to Turkey’s UN General Assembly speeches

The analysis of the content of the speeches, in order to answer the research question, thus

relies on the development of several tools. Firstly, the contextual analysis relates all

events and political situations relating to the EU and mentioned by Turkish leaders during

their speeches. The EU might be directly cited or only referred to as “our partners”, “our

friends”, “these countries”, depending on the situation. The assessment of whether the

EU is concerned or not relies on the priorly realized Discourse-Historical Approach

analysis of the primary sources. This contextualization takes into account all EU-related

events, not only the ones occurring within the migration crisis, and assesses their potential

impact on Turkish discourses. The inclusion of all events mentioned relating to the EU

and mentioned by Turkey allows the research to assess the extent to which the migration

crisis has influenced the discursive shift or not, by putting them into perspective with

other potentially influencing events such as the Cypriot situation. Additionally, the

inclusion of other major events impacting the relations between the EU and Turkey which

were not mentioned by Turkish leaders adds more context to the analysis of the discourse

analysis, by exploring the reasons lying behind the omission of these events by the

speakers and how they might have impacted his discourse. This inclusion allows the

research to identify events and the importance Turkey’s speakers provide them with by

including the number of words devoted to each reference to the events, speech by speech.

50 Erica Burman and Ian Parker, eds., Discourse Analytic Research: Repertoires and Readings of Texts in Action, n.d. 51 ‘DAOL: Discourse Analysis Means Doing Analysis’:, accessed 30 August 2020, https://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a1/antaki2002002-paper.html.

38

The second tool is the classification of the reference to these events in overarching topoi

employed by Turkish leaders while referring to the EU (Annex I Table II). These topoi

will then be divided into two groups: positive and negative topoi. The identification of

positive and negative topoi in this research is based on the purpose they are used for. On

the one hand, positive topoi include concepts and ideas describing the EU as a strong,

reliable, leading, and ethical entity. Additionally, Positive topoi includes any reference to

Turkey’s effort to be a part of the EU, thus highlighting its attractivity. On the other hand,

negative topoi refer to ideologies depicting the EU in opposition to the aforementioned

image of the EU: a closed, weaker and irresponsible entity. Negative topoi constitute the

ideological grounds for Turkey’s delegitimation strategies of the EU.

The identification of the intent in this system of classification is of upmost importance

since some topoi might be used in either positive or negative way towards the EU. For

example, the Turkish neighbouring policy can in some speeches be used to stress the

efforts made by Turkey to match the Copenhagen criteria and highlight the support of the

EU in that direction, whilst it will become an argument to underline the EU’s indifference

to the matter or discrimination against Turkish Cypriots in other speeches. The fact that

topoi can be classified as either positive or negative depending on the context and the

intent of their complexifies the analytical process since it relies on the judgement of the

researcher, however it adds depth to the concluding analysis. The transparency of the

methodology as described below sheds light on the neutrality of the researcher to avoid

any suspicion of bias in the definition of positive or negative topoi.

These two tools allow the development of a diagram (Table I) confounding the occurrence

of positive and negative topoi with the timeline of events mentioned by Turkish leaders,

speech by speech, year by year. This matrice materializes the evolutions of discourse of

Turkey’s spokespersons, by including the number of words thus devoted to the positive

and negative topoi thus allowing the research to uncover possible shifts within the 10

years, and correlations between the shifts and specific events.

Some topoi, such as the Refugee crisis and the Syrian conflict, might overlap one another,

and choices had to be made to categorize segments of the speeches in each predefined

topoi. For a matter of transparency of the research, Annex II will include all the speeches

with their paragraphs coloured with different tone for each topic. This will allow the

39

reader to identify exactly which words were counted for the constitution of the diagram,

for each topic.

3.3.4 Topoi and lexicon methodology of classification

Not many studies use speeches given during the debates of the UN General Assembly as

their primary source. The scope of the topics usually discussed during this Assembly

might seem too broad, or too formal for most of the research using discourse analysis.

After thorough research of the literature, one article stood out as an example for the

research design of this thesis. The methodology of this thesis is inspired from this article52

exploring the differences of two Iranian president speeches at the UN General Assembly

debates. The evolutions of ideology between the two speakers were evaluated on the basis

of the definition of specific topoi. Similarly, the construction of the diagram lies on the

identification and the selection of different topoi used by the Turkish leaders, referring

directly or indirectly to the EU, and used to strengthen the current anti-western ideology

spread by the AKP.

For the purpose of this thesis, the Israelo-Palestinian conflict was not assessed as one of

the relevant topoi, even though regularly and extensively discussed by the speakers. The

main motive for this exclusion relates to the actors targeted and mostly involved in this

conflict, which concerns more the United States of America than the EU. Although the

transatlantic relations may constitute a subject of discordance between the EU and

Turkey, for a matter of clarity, this thesis focuses on topic which are directly linked to the

exclusive relationship between Turkey and the EU, excluding thus alliances with third

parties. Another widely referred to topic, which this thesis excludes from its research, is

terrorism. Even though Turkey and the EU both have suffered from terrorism, priority

was given to events which are, once again, directly imputable to the EU. Turkey, at some

points of their speeches, underlines the responsibility of the West in the rise of terrorism

as a collateral effect of their foreign actions, but not as a direct effect of their action, or

inaction. The complexity of the mechanisms involved in the rise of terrorism would have

52 Minoo Alemi, Zia Tajeddin, and Amin Rajabi Kondlaji, ‘A Discourse-Historical Analysis of Two

Iranian Presidents’ Speeches at the UN General Assembly’, International Journal of Society, Culture &

Language 6, no. 1 (2018): 1–17,

http://search.proquest.com/docview/2131579884/abstract/B994600C7F2949B7PQ/1.

40

impacted the clarity of the research. This thesis thus excludes it as a possible argument

for Turkey’s shift of discourse.

The six topoi chosen for the purpose of this thesis are: the Refugee crisis, the Syrian

conflict, the cultural and political dichotomy between West and East, the Turkish zero-

problem Neighbouring policy program, the assession of Turkey to Euro-Atlantic entities

and the European colonialist history.

The choices which led to this categorization of the different topoi are explained as follow:

Refugee crisis: As the purpose of this study is to assess the impact of the migration

crisis on the perception which Turkish leaders have and reflect of the EU,

measuring its recurrences and volume in the speeches is thus the first and foremost

topic to be observed. The predominance of the migration crisis over other selected

topoi, or on the contrary, its absence, indicate its weight in the shifts of discourses

observed in Turkish leaders’ speeches.

Syrian conflict: Choice was made to differentiate the migration crisis from the

military dimensions of the Syrian conflict. As the Syrian conflict involves

different actors and dynamics than the migration flows it has produced and their

management, the word-counting process could not include it in the previous topoi.

Doing otherwise would have blow up the statistics of the migration crisis, by

mixing it with completely different revendications made by Turkish leaders

against different target groups. Although the critiques in this topoi might not be

directly and solely addressed to the EU, contrary to the previous one, the anti-

western establishment rationale used by Turkish leaders and the current

geopolitical situation makes it evident that the EU, or at least a part of it, is

included in them. The analytical part of this thesis will explain further this

phenomenon.

Turkish zero-problem with neighbours: The Turkish zero-problem with

neighbours programme was adopted as a consequence of the EU assession process

the Tukey has been looking up to ever since the 1950’s. In order to match with

41

the Copenhagen criteria, the EU asked Turkey to fix their relationships with

conflicting neighbours, including Armenia, Greece especially in Cyprus, and in

the Balkans. The mentions of the evolutions of the programme is thus directly

linked to Turkey’s relationship to the EU in two ways: firstly, its level of

commitment might be the sign of a stronger will to join the EU. Secondly, the EU

has, at times, been a part of the negotiations taking place within the negotiations

such as in Cyprus. The mentions of this programme relates as well to the critique

made of the EU’s external policies and actions when supporting peace processes

and development aid.

The cultural and political dichotomy between the West and the East: This topoi is

essential to measure the impact of the recent development in the Middle East and

Europe’s answers to it in the shift of rationale employed by Turkish leaders. More

specifically, this topic includes all mentions to rise of Islamophobia in Europe, the

forgotten but shared historical heritage between Turkey and the EU, and the

prevalence of the West over the rest of the world in the making of world politics.

Even though, as for the next topic, not only the EU is targeted by the speakers for

this topic, it still represents one of the strongest argument that they use to

delegitimize the establishment, in accordance with the AKP’s current foreign

policy developments.

Turkish accession to Euro-Atlantic entities: The levels of willingness of Turkey

to join Euro-Atlantic entities constitute a marker of the attractivity of these entities

such as the EU for foreign actors by underlying their relevance and legitimacy in

Global Governance. This topic is thus essential to understand the evolutions in the

perception of the West, and within that division, of the EU, by Turkey.

Furthermore, the critiques addressed by Turkish leaders towards these

international organizations highlight the stances taken by the government for or

against the establishment.

European colonialist history: The difference between the topic of cultural and

political dichotomy and the one of European colonialist history was made because

used in a different manner and for a different purpose by the speakers. The first

one being more generalist and criticizing an overall situation, the mentions to

42

European colonialism is one the first hand is directly targeting Europe, or at least

a part of it, and on the second hand used to accuse them of the roots of the current

flows of the global system and misery in the world.

43

CHAPTER 4. TURKEY AND THE EU: assessing the context of a discursive shift

4.1 Turkey’s internal political paradoxes

The Turkish political elites, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War

I from the beginning of the 1920’s, shifted to a Kemalist ideology. In opposition to its

Ottoman heritage, Turkish leaders have gradually adopted European codes of civilization

and started to pursue a potential membership to the Western block. Although, this political

transformation did not pierce all the layers of society which remained largely Anatolian.

After repressed rebellions from Kurdish and Islamists rebellions by the new Kemalist

government and, later, the end of World War II, Turkey finally turned towards the West

by joining NATO in 1946. This shift was followed by the development of a multiparty

democracy, where all ideologies found their place. The balance of power between

differing political groups in the Turkish society remained stable until the fall of the USSR

which triggered once again the underlying identity dissensions between Kemalist and

Kurds, and seculars and Islamists. The decade of the 1990’s witnessed a succession of

conflicts opposing different political groups, which was later called the “lost decade”.53

The Welfare Party, a pro-Islamist political group of which Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the

current President of Turkey was a leader of, started to gradually gain power over the

Kemalists by winning local elections ever since 1994.

In 2002, after a decade of political instability and power struggles between the seculars

and the Islamists groups, the AKP takes on the central role of the political sphere of the

country, by getting elected for the first time at the presidential elections. Ever since, it has

been re-elected twice, a situation which had never occurred before then in Turkey. The

AKP, Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi or the ‘Justice and Development Party’ in its English

translation, is an Islamist, center-right party. Despite the emphasis being made by its

creator and present leader, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, on the conservative democratic aspect

of the party rather than its Islamic roots. Up until its first re-election in 2008, the party

was judged and criticized internally to the country’s elites as pro-Western, yet unable to

conclude the European membership assession.

53 Ömer Taşpınar, ‘Turkey: The New Model?’, Brookings, 30 November 1AD,

https://www.brookings.edu/research/turkey-the-new-model/.

44

Between 2002 and 2006, the AKP conducted several reforms in the country, touching on

the judicial system, the civil-military relations, and human rights. These reforms were

mainly motivated by the perspective of becoming an EU member. The beginning of the

political crisis in 2007 in Turkey put an end to these normative transformations.

The arbitrary nomination of Gül as a candidate by Erdogan, at the time leader of the AKP,

a few days before the presidential elections of 2007 provoked the military to conduct the

first “e-coup” against the government, by threatening to act against it to defend

secularism.54 This event marks the start of a deep political crisis in the country, reviving

the dissensions between Islamist and secularist. The political tensions and threats amongst

parties led to the deterioration of HR development in the country, as stated by the 2009

Human Rights Watch report.55

The evolutions of politics from the AKP party are insidiously intertwined with the

transitions at the head of the government. As described in the methodology section, this

thesis relies on speeches which were given by different Turkish leaders, namely President

Gül, Prime Minister Davotoglu and President Erdogan. The differences of approach

between Gül, Davotoglu and Erdogan were assessed to consider the impact of charismatic

influence on Turkey’s stances towards the EU in our given timeframe, from 2009 to 2019.

The divisions amongst the three men remain a matter of personal aspirations and

strategies of governance, Erdogan being judged as too authoritarian. Although Erdogan

has showed commitment from the early beginnings of the AKP’s mandates to the EU’s

accession, it seems that his aspirations for the country have shifted to the creation of

empire of its own. This shift of positions can be explained by the loss of legitimacy of the

EU, which this thesis attempts to explain as the consequence of the internal European

management of the migration crisis.

54 Taşpınar. 55 ‘World Report 2009: Rights Trends in Turkey’, Human Rights Watch, 14 January 2009, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2009/country-chapters/turkey.

45

4.2 Turkey and the EU: bilateral influences

The history bounding the EU and Turkey provides this case study interesting points of

comparison for the analysis of the current state of relation between the two entities. The

fact that the EU has potentially had a normative impact on Turkey at some point, when

the country was still actively working towards the accession of EU membership, shows

that something was lost in the process. EU had normative power, now, it does not. The

only fact that Turkey’s accession is now commonly understood as unachievable, and that

the country is not seeking for it anymore highlights the loss of attractivity of the European

Union for some foreign actors such as Turkey.

The turning point marked by the 2008 economic crisis, deeply suffered by Western

powers, from which Turkey remained lightly impacted and thus a stronger power facing

the Western establishment. This confidence gained from the economic situation has

encouraged the leaders of the time to assert their power on the Middle Eastern region and

added to the arguments to integrate Turkey in the EU. However, the cultural and political

dimensions of the Turkish question in the union weighted down its candidacy.

4.2.1 EU’s normative impact on Turkey, focus on asylum policies

Turkey displays the perfect example since it was once normatively impacted by the EU,

looking up to its values in the perspective of a possible membership, considering the EU

as a valuable and strong actor and assert itself as a growing power by accessing the closed

group of Western decision makers on the international stage. In addition to having

normatively impacted interior social and economic affairs of Turkey through the

obligation to commit to the Copenhagen criteria of the Union to be an official candidate

to its accession56, the EU’s influence has been considered to have shaped the new asylum

policies set by Turkey as late as 2013.57 Originally limited to a geographical scope, i.e

Turkey would only offer asylum to European nationals, the country made a series of

56 ‘Accession Criteria’, Text, European Neighbourhood Policy And Enlargement Negotiations - European Commission, 6 December 2016, https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/glossary/terms/accession-criteria_en. 57 ‘Turkey’s New Asylum Law: A Case of EU Influence’, ResearchGate, accessed 30 August 2020, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283881582_Turkey's_New_Asylum_Law_a_Case_of_EU_Influence.

46

modification to its asylum system leading to the last one in 2013, which addressed the

EU’s critiques towards the way asylum process were implemented in the country. These

late evolutions have been considered as a proof of the remaining influence of the EU on

the values of Turkey.

Concerning the situation with Cyprus, Turkey has been called upon to implement the

Additional Protocol to the EU-Turkey Association Agreement, and to implement, with

all the member states, including Cyprus, the EU-Turkey Readmission Agreement and the

visa Roadmap. Moreover, Turkey’s lack of compliance in the recognition of Cyprus and

the normalization of its relations with the European side of the Island has heavily affected

the state of negotiations for the Turkish membership candidacy.

4.2.2 Inaccession to the EU or the fostering of anti-European ambitions

The EU accession process, hence of having lasted for more than half a century, fed the

belief that there are double standards for Turkey, the visa obstacles faced by Turkish

citizens and the ongoing political problems such as the Cyprus issue.

Turkey’s candidacy to the accession of EU membership has also highlighted another

dynamic inherent to the functioning and the history of the European Union: a multi-speed

integration system delimitating several zones both within and outside.58 This multi-speed

system, divided in several zones of level of integration. The zones are divided as a “zone

of Deepest Integration”, representing the core group of the EU’s founders states, members

of the Eurozone or the so-called Eurogroup. The second “zone of Intensive Integration”

includes the 27 current member states. The third “zone of Limited Integration and

Cooperation”, represents the current 27 member states plus the states which cooperate

with the CFSP and justice and domestic affairs. The fourth “zone of Extended Power and

Influence”, compromise states which have complied to EU rules and take part in EU

programs without being formal EU members. Lastly, the fifth “zone of Candidate

Countries”, including states having concluded association agreements with the EU, where

Turkey stood in before the 2017 European declarations which put an end to the

58 Petr Dostál, Emel Akçalı, and Marco Antonsich, ‘Turkey’s Bid for European Union Membership:

Between “Thick” and “Thin” Conceptions of Europe’, Eurasian Geography and Economics 52, no. 2

(March 2011): 196–216, https://doi.org/10.2747/1539-7216.52.2.196.

47

potentiality of the Turkish accession.59 This multi-speed integration system highlights

different levels of “integration” inherent to the union itself, thus underlining imbalances

of power from within the union. The observed arguments of othering or cultural

differentiation made by Turkey in their speeches and discussed in detail below can only

find an echo in this multi-speed system.

According to Turkey’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, civil wars and conflicts in the region

surrounding Turkey, Greece, the Aegan sea and the Balkans proved that the country has

a significance for the EU's political and economic stability, and that the EU membership

would be a considerable asset for Turkey's stability and ascension on the global stage.

Turkey aspired to contribute to the EU in its turn as well by asserting its socio-economic

transformation, growing economy and regional power within the union. The original aim

of Turkey was to create a co-dependency between the two entities by joining it. The 2016

agreements might have created a unilateral dependency.

For the past few years and more accurately following Erdogan’s attacks in Syria and

threats towards the EU of 2019 and their implementation in March 2020, Turkey is taking

its independence. The country does not aspire to the membership anymore and is actively

challenging the EU’s authority and strengthening other partnerships such as the one with

Russia (TurkStream, Astana agreements and joint statement at the UN security council)

for instance. In addition to a shift of aspiration in Turkish foreign policies, the 2016

statement settled between the EU and Turkey has provided the country greater power over

the union than it has ever had. In consequence to the position of dependency of the EU

towards Turkey, Erdogan has put into practise the threat of opening the borders to illegal

migrants to enter the Schengen area. This case supposes that the power balance between

the two entities has been reversed by intangible agreements made in consequence of a

flawed internal system of management of migration flaws on the European soil.

59 Dostál, Akçalı, and Antonsich.

48

CHAPTER 5. ANALYSING TURKISH DISCOURSES AT THE UN GENERAL

ASSEMBLY DEBATES

5.1 Primary observations of the research

The diagram built upon the analysis of the speeches delivered by Turkish leaders at the

UN General Assembly debates between 2009 and 2019 (see Table I) shows a clear

deterioration of the perception of the EU. The two first research questions of this research,

questioning the existence of a shift of discourse and its potential relation to the events

related to the migration crisis within and outside of the EU, will thus be answered to

rapidly, to leave room for this thesis to focus on the main point of analysis, which is the

impact of this shift in perceptions, or at least depiction, on the EU’s legitimacy and

normative power.

Firstly, we can safely assume that a shift of discourse has occurred in the three Turkish

leaders’ speeches, regardless of the speaker. The construction of this diagram illustrates

quite self-evidently the dramatic shift in discourse that Turkish leaders have had between

2009 and 2019 towards the EU. Even though the positive mentions of the EU were already

getting less recurrent between 2009 and 2010, the shift between positive and negative

references has taken place gradually, but not consistently, from 2011 on, by almost

exclusively turning into negative references from 2012. As the beginning of the Syrian

conflict seems to be the start of this shift from positive to negative views of the union,

some other major events intervening in the political landscape of the two entities and in

the Middle East could match with the surges of negative comments occurring in 2016 and

2019.

Interestingly, this shift is characterized by two discursive practices: firstly, we observe

the emergence of new topoi such as the migration crisis and the Syrian conflict. Secondly,

we observe a shift of use of the previous topoi from positive to negative. For example,

cultural dichotomy dividing the west and the east was previously depicted as a field of

cooperation between Turkey and the EU, and becomes an argument to highlight the

growing Islamophobia on the continent in the years following the Syrian crisis.

49

The Syrian crisis and the migration crisis following it seem to constitute the trigger effect

on the Turkish leaders’ discourse, unlocking the expression of pre-existent critics against

the EU. This observation brings us to focus on the third research question of this research

now that the primary study of the speeches has asserted the shift of discourse, and its

relation to the events occurring in Syria and the migration flow they have produced. The

third research question aims to assess the extent of the impact of the migration crisis on

the legitimacy of the EU. The way the Turkish leaders are addressing themselves to the

EU from the UN’s rostrum will represent the focus of the next steps of analysis of the

speeches. This analysis will be divided the observation of three times coinciding with the

development of the current Turkish ideology and ambitions to create a new world order,

in spite of the old Western establishment, including institutions such as the EU.

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Turkish leaders' discursive evolutions towards the EU during

the UN General Assembly debates 2009-2019MIGRATION CRISIS SYRIAN CONFLICT

ISLAM NEIGHBORING POLICIES

EUROPEAN COLONIALISM EU AND UN VALUES AND ASSESSION

Positive

Negative

Table 1. Diagram representing the discursive evolutions of Turkish spokespersons from 2009 to 2019 at the UN General

Assembly debates based on the number of words employed for each pre-defined topoi, in a positive or negative intent

towards the EU.

50

5.2. Shifting European images in Turkish discursive practices

5.2.1 From an application to EU membership…

Defending European values: democracy, rule of law and human rights

Within the corpus of this research, the early mentions of human rights and democratic

values, as well as the rule of law appeared in concordance with the mention of Turkey

being a candidate for either the European Union, or the UN Security Council. The

emphasises made by Turkish leaders on these values denoted a willingness to prove their

commitment to them towards the international community, and more specifically towards

the EU as Turkey was summoned to level up to the Copenhagen criteria for its candidacy

to the membership of the union. From 2009 to 2014, the speeches systematically included

a reference to the values of rule of law, democracy and HR. The fact that Turkish leaders

were using this exact formulation indicates their dedication to Europe and their candidacy

rather than these values per se.

From 2014 on, although Turkey continued to emphasis on its commitment to

humanitarian and universal values, it did so by shedding light on its own efficiency in

doing so rather than highlighting their commitment to join the Western forces.

Furthermore, the terms of “democracy” and “rule of law” disappeared from their

speeches, using expressions which were much less related to the Copenhagen criteria and

more general in terms of defending vulnerable populations around the world.

Turkish Zero-Problem with Neighbours policy60

Another criteria set by the EU for Turkey to be considered for membership lied on its

ability to stabilize its relation with its neighbouring countries including the regions of the

Balkans, and to recognize Cyprus as an independent entity. The systematic references of

the Cyprus matter at the General Assembly debates highlights the importance provided

to the matter by Turkish leaders. Hence, the Cyprus situation was a condition sine qua

non to the Turkish membership accession and thus shows the commitment Turkey had to

it in the beginning of the scope of this research. Indeed, as illustrated by Table I, the

references made to the Cypriot situation were positive, since they corresponded to the

60 Davutoglu, ‘Turkey’s Zero-Problems Foreign Policy’.

51

impetus of Turkey to join the EU, and usually underlined the efforts made by the EU in

order to bring the two parties together. However, although no new elements occurred in

this situation, the references made to this subject have shifted to negative comments from

Turkey towards the EU. Indeed, the referendums following the UN proposal for

reunification of the Greek and Turkish parts of the island in 2004 – the Annan Plan – have

further complexified the relations between the two entities.61 Interestingly, it is only from

2012 on that Turkey incriminates the lack of support from the EU in this situation, even

though this event took place twelve years ago. This delayed reaction highlights the fact

that the start of the migration crisis has put Turkey in position to be openly negative

towards the EU on the global stage, no matter what the subject was.

The EU as a leading actor of global governance

Turkish leaders, at the time, seemed to consider Western powers as two folds: observers

of Turkey’s moral values, and future partners in ruling the world. In effect, Turkish

leaders planned on becoming a major actor of the international stage by joining the

western establishment rather than in opposition to it. The core of the Turkish strategy to

join the West in its hegemony was by joining the EU.

Erdogan, at the time Prime Minister of Turkey, concluded his 2009 speech by underlining

the county’s commitment to the development of “peace-keeping operations around the

world under the umbrella of the UN, NATO, the EU and the OSCE”. This quote reflects

two important points of the Turkish representation of the EU on the international stage at

the time. Firstly, the expression “under the umbrella”, informs that Turkey is following

the lead of Western agencies in the field of humanitarian action. This expression

underlines the willingness of the country to become an important player by joining the

pre-existent. Secondly, the fact that the EU is mentioned in this sentence along with the

UN, NATO and the OSCE indicates that it was then considered at the same level of power

and efficiency as these major international organizations. This sentence provides the EU

the legitimacy to promote peace around the world and the authority to lead a country such

as Turkey in doing so.

61 ‘Vote on “Annan Plan” Divides Cyprus – POLITICO’, accessed 30 August 2020, https://www.politico.eu/article/vote-on-annan-plan-divides-cyprus/.

52

The EU as a partner in international development aid

In opposition to the shift in the AKP’s foreign policy ambitions in regard to Turkey’s

position in the Middle East and towards the West which, according to Evran Balta62,

occurred as soon as 2007, the changes of discourse in the speeches given at the UN

General Assembly debates seem to have appeared later. According to the discursive

diagram built for the purpose of this study (Table I), the discursive shift only started in

2011. Before then, the EU and the rest of the West were depicted as partners in

international development, if not, mentors. Referring to the EU and other international

organizations as “friends”, or holding an “umbrella” for countries like Turkey could act

in development aid under. This dyssynchronisation between the AKP’s turn of 2007 and

the rationale exposed at the UN between then and 2011 shows that the observed shift was

only discursive, and highlights a change of strategy and arguments to attain their

hegemonic goal towards the Middle Eastern region and reject of the West, rather than a

shift of policy.

From 2012 on, the mentions of Human Rights values are made to support a different aim:

highlighting Turkey’s commitment and upstanding of these values in opposition to

western powers, which are, failing to do so. Concerning the EU, the 2012 speech is the

first one of our corpus which has no direct mention of the EU, indicating a lowered

recognition of the EU’s relevance on the global stage, and a weakened commitment to

the membership assession. The start of the Syrian conflict, and the migration crisis

starting to hit the European continent become discursive weapons in the hand of Turkish

leaders, and a proof of their ethical superiority over the ones who were considered to be

the main defenders of HR in the world priorly to these events.

The fact that the shift was only discursive, picking up political orientations which have

been decided upon years earlier, means that from 2011, Turkey was given the opportunity

to be more opened about its ambitions instead of complying with the western

establishment, following a quiet ascension in the current system. Using Discourse-

Historical Analysis terminology, these speeches teach us that the ideology establishing

relations of dominance between the West and the East has been defended by Turkey ever

since the AKP accessed to power in 2002, and more intensively from its re-election in

2007. The shift has thus not been in the content of the ideology, but in Turkey’s own

62 ‘The AKP’s Foreign Policy as Populist Governance’.

53

positioning on the global stage, the growing openness on its ambitions and the tools used

to spread this ideology. The events which happened in the course of the past ten years in

relation to the migration crisis and the EU’s management of it reinforced discursive tools

to delegitimize the power of the west through language, directly on the international stage,

rather than in the comfort of the national level or amongst like-minded nations.

5.2.2 …To the delegitimization of the EU and the West…

The anti-Western establishment ideology defended by Turkey has been, in the span of the

decade studied, based on the use of illustrated narratives to depict Europe. These

narratives are not necessarily new nor unknown by the audience and have been widely

used by populist and authoritarian governments in Europe but remained in so far distant

from formal international settings such as the UN.

Fortress Europe

When looking at the collocates of the word “Europe” in all of the eleven speeches

confounded, the first word which appears is “protected”. As observed through the

timeline establishing the evolutions of the use of specific topics by Turkish leaders in

favour or against the EU, mentions of the migration crisis have increased, not

consistently, but significantly, starting as soon as the consequences of the premises of the

Syrian conflict have arisen in bordering countries including Turkey, in 2012.

Over emphasizing on the openness of Turkey’s “doors”63 to Syrian refugees in opposition

to Europe’s “barbed and fired walls”64, the speakers clearly vehiculate an image of Europe

as a fortress which they have been put in charge to protect. Furthermore, these speeches

underline the fact that Europe considers these refugees – individuals seeking for help –

as dangerous for their union.

63 2016 speech, p.2 64 Ibid.

54

The EU as the “imagined land of hope”65

One of the most telling quotes from the Turkish Prime Minister Davotoglu during his

speech at the UN General Assembly Debate. The use of this expression to depict the EU

is particularly interesting and should be divided in two distinct parts to reveal its full

meaning. “Land of hope”, first, then “imagined”, which highlights the inability of the EU

to provide satisfying and human means of receptions of asylum seekers, thus failing to its

commitment to international law and Human Rights principles. This quote could also be

applied to Turkey itself, which has been running after the EU’s membership for decades

and which, in 2015, starts to understand that it is probably never going to happen. The

“imagined” thus idealized Europe, which in fact, is losing attractivity by unveiling its

weaknesses and failing to respect any promises it has made in the past.

Furthermore, the straight forwardness of this expression is worth noting. Replaced in its

context, we must not forget that the UN General Assembly debates are high level

diplomacy exchanges amongst states for them to express their deepest concerns

concerning the state of international politics. Usually, the tone remains rather polished,

consensual and the eventual underlying messages subtle, by making use of mediation and

diplomatic communication strategies. The directness of this accusation denotes several

evolutions in the rationale used in the speeches: Turkish leaders are feeling more

legitimate and at ease in international settings, and powerful enough to shame such an

actor as the EU, without fearing to lose its chance to be a part of it.

The migration crisis, compared to other topics mentioned against or negatively when

referring to the EU such as the Neighbouring policies or the Syrian conflict, has been

turned into a semantic weapon of legitimacy destruction. Turkey has been actively

working to prove to the rest of the world that Europe was not a trustworthy ethical partner.

Its difficulties to act in accordance with its promises showed that it was not able to stick

to its commitment thus not trustworthy.

Growing Islamophobia: Christendom over the Defence of HR

Emerging from the 2001 World Trade Centre attacks on and following up with other

Islamists terrorist attacks experienced by Western European countries for the past two

65 2015 speech, p.2

55

decades, acts of islamophobia have significantly risen throughout the continent. The

migration crisis has deepened this fear of migrants originating from Islamic countries,

supported by the assumption that terrorists might hide in the crowd and attack Europe

from the inside.

According to Turkish leaders, the EU is not as acceptant and open-minded as it pretends

to be, especially if compared with Turkey which has built along the years high levels of

tolerance and diversity towards different cultures and religion, allegedly due to its

geographical position but also to the fact Turkey, according to its leaders, is the new

leader to defend Human Rights in the world. This situation as given Turkey an

opportunity to use arguments depicting Europe as a lesson giver, and a fraud in

international politics. According to their rationale, not only does the EU not commit to its

promises relatives to the financial support of the migration management system and 2015

pack with Turkey, but it also lacks the ethical consistency, fairness and open-mindedness

which it once claimed to have. The crisis has made more apparent mindsets that the EU

had managed to hide under the carpet for several years in order to maintain their position

and image of civilized, universalist and tolerant Human Rights defenders.

Indeed in 2017, Europe counted a peak in the number of Islamophobic acts all over the

continent, in Spain, Poland, France, Sweden and the UK. The rise Islamophobia in Europe

as been tangible and exponential since the last Islamists attacks which stroke onto the

continent. Although not necessarily the cause of EU political decisions, the discovering

of this kind of mentality on the European continent contributes to the loss of credibility

in the field of HR. The union does not benefit from an image of tolerant and welcoming

organization any longer, and Turkish leaders know how to use it against the EU.

The fact that Turkey is now in position pinpoint these flaws openly and shamelessly from

the “rostrum” of the UN General Assembly shows a reversion of the positions: for Turkey,

the EU is losing enough legitimacy to be disrespected in the face of others, while Turkey

is gaining enough legitimacy to assert its superiority over the EU and blame it for its

wrongdoings - or at least confidence if it is not really legitimacy since Turkey is still

considered as quite unstable politically especially since the 2016 attempted coup and the

reaction of the government.

The EU as an implementor of cultural othering

56

Along all the speeches, and regardless of the speaker, the three Turkish leaders emphasise

on the othering suffered by the “rest of the world”, inflicted by the western world. In his

speech in 2012, Davotoglu goes one step further by qualify this attitude as the application

of a “double standard” from the “modern world” towards the lesser developed countries.

Furthermore, by putting the emphasize on Turkey’s openness and welcoming attitude

towards all religion and culture, the speakers accuse the EU of discrimination against non-

Western population. Indeed, it underlines the tendency of the EU to ratify IHL treaties

when European’s rights are at stakes on the one hand, and to practise refoulement at its

gates when the victims are outsiders, from the “rest of the world’ on the other hand.

This rationale, incriminating the West once again, is commonly used by leaders of

authoritarian regimes to devilize an external actor and make it carry the burden of

difficulties faced internally by their country. Along the speeches, this othering is

displayed as one of the sources of terrorism in the Middle East which has been threatening

Turkey in the past decades. By marking a clear separation, Turkey steps from the status

of victim of the establishment, to the status of a strong and confident actor, willing to

takes on its role of bridge between the West and the East. Regardless of Turkey’s

debatable internal policies in terms of respect of HR, Turkey asserts itself as the new

leader of HR and universal values promotion around the world. Insidiously, along the

years, Turkish leaders instigate the idea that the East has to fight for itself against the

giant West, by forming a new block in order to reinstitute a balance of powers in the

world. This style of rationale is majorly found in populism. However, it seems that Turkey

attempts to convince other members of the international community of the EU’s

deficiencies.

Following the double standard theory, the colonial behaviours are depicted as the source

of the world’s insecurities, such as terrorism, and conflicts. In fact, the critique of the

reaction, or lack of reaction, of the EU and the West to the Syrian conflict seems to have

opened the door to all standard critiques addressed against their long-lasting

establishment, especially the European powers’ imperialist behaviour towards “the rest

of the world”. Two conflicts taking place on the African continent are in particular

highlighted by the Turkish speakers in that regard, the Somalian conflict and the Libyan

crisis. As early as 2011, Erdogan accuses the West of defending “parochial interests”

instead of upholding HR values and underlines the importance to

57

Addressing the Eurogroup over the entire union

Constantly pointing the finger at the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council,

shaming the colonial history of the EU (knowledgeably the ones of France and Belgium),

Turkish leaders consistently underline the responsibility of developed countries in

international conflicts (Rwanda, Israel and Palestine, Somalia) or crisis such as the 2008

economic crisis (speech 2010), by mentioning the imbalances created by the nuclear

powers in international politics and peacebuilding

This positioning, in addition to the populist rationale adopted by the speakers, gets Turkey

closer to other EU MS, usually marginalized in the decision making of the EU by the

Eurogroup President Orban, for instance, balances between accusations of the Eurogroup

for being assertive over its country and the qualification of Turkey as a key partner for

migration management in Europe.66 Hungary, despite its Islamophobic and xenophobic

tendencies67, represents one of this MS which is gradually stepping out of the union and

getting closer to Turkey on other political fields. As much as Russia, a new partner for

the future of global governance, Hungary is a part of the new TurkStream68 linking Russia

to Eastern Europe through Turkey. These developments strengthen Turkey’s arguments

to convince external partner to join the new Ottoman Empire in taking the lead of global

governance.

Overall, Turkish leaders’ discourse and semiotic practices underline the establishment of

hegemonic identity narrative aiming to assert Turkey’s dominance in the field of

international development and Human Rights on the global level compared to the EU,

especially towards refugees. By over-emphasizing on bad treatments of asylum seekers

in the EU in opposition to a depicted good reception of asylum seekers by Turkey, the

speakers instigate a position of superiority towards the EU which allows them to

deteriorate its image from the “rostrum” of the UN General Assembly debates. In this

regard, the audience of the speeches represents a key factor to understand Turkey’s

66 ‘Orbán: Turkey “Strategic Partner” Every Hungarian Should Respect - Hungary Today’, accessed 30 August 2020, https://hungarytoday.hu/orban-erdogan-meeting-turkey-strategic-partner-respect/. 67 ‘Countering Islamophobia in Hungary | Request PDF’, ResearchGate, accessed 30 August 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16260-3_5. 68 ‘TurkStream: Geopolitical Impact and Future Prospects - Al Sharq Think Tank’, accessed 30 August 2020, https://research.sharqforum.org/2020/05/28/turkstream-geopolitical-impact-and-future-prospects/.

58

ambitions through their discourse. Regardless of the accuracy of these statements, this is

the point of view and perception that Turkish leaders have chosen to openly defend to the

rest of the international community. Since the discursive shift has occurred at

concomitantly to the emergence of the migration crisis, we can assume that this impunity

felt by the Turkish government to address the EU in this manner has been provided by

the normative and ethical gaps of the EU in dealing with this situation.

Furthermore, along the ten years of debates, the EU is gradually not mentioned at all for

its participation in international development or any kind of participation in global

governance.

This shift of position towards the EU highlights underlying social logics of

domination between EU and Turkey by using ethical critique and ontological

considerations against the union. Until the EU finally put an end to Turkey’s ambitions

to join the EU in 2017, the latter has aimed at EU’s assession to enhance its power in the

world rather than for its values. Once the attractivity of the EU harmed by a political

situation symptomatic of the weaknesses of the Union, Turkey seems to be turning against

it to finalize its delegitimation and thus eliminate a potential challenger in the run for

leading positions in world politics.

5.2.3 …Towards a new world order: “The world is wider than five.”69

Power vacuum for the Neo-Ottoman Empire

Although Davotoglu, in an article written for Foreign Policy in 201070, advocated for a

multidimensional foreign policy, entailing complementarity with other international

actors actions rather than competitivity amongst them, the analysis of the speeches shows

that Turkey’s interests and rationale has shifted from that standpoint along the years.

Turkey, for many reasons and in many ways, is now aspiring to revive the old Ottoman

Empire as a direct challenger to the Western establishment in the field of global

governance. The ideology now defended, mostly by Erdogan, indicates a shifting point

in the rationale behind the promotion of Turkey’s foreign action. The country has move

69 Recurring quote in the 2017, 2018 and 2019 speeches. 70 Davutoglu, ‘Turkey’s Zero-Problems Foreign Policy’.

59

from trying to find itself a place in the existing world order by advocating for their

candidacy to EU membership and to the UN security council seat to instigating the launch

of a new world order.

Furthermore, Turkey has appropriated itself some of the EU’s core ideologies such as

Human Rights, democracy and the rule of law. However, the promotion of these values

represents now used a different setting. In the perspective of matching with the

Copenhagen criteria, Turkey used to uphold these values to prove their commitment to

them. Aiming at EU accession, Turkey used to emphasize on these ideals to assert the

concordance of its actions abroad and general values with those of the EU and thus be a

valid candidate for its membership. Instead of resulting from a normative or

transformative power of the EU over Turkey in the perspective of its integration, the

Turkish promotion of humanitarian and universal values is built in opposition to the EU’s

action. From the beginning of the Syrian crisis on, they have been used to assert Turkey’s

dominance in the field of international development aid over the West. The superiority of

Turkey over western powers in that regards is of upmost importance for the country’s

legitimation process, and delegitmation strategies against Europe since these values were

founded and initially promoted by an occidental system of norms. In this way, Turkey is

showing the world that it has become better at promoting HR around the world than the

creators of this style of foreign policy and international action.

The rationale has shifted from the beginning of the Syrian and refugee crisis. Turkish

leaders continue to claim their commitment to these ideals with a different intent:

Turkey’s assession to the EU, as it was declared by EU representatives as impossible, is

not a goal for its leaders anymore. Accordingly, being a part of the EU does not represent

the main motive of Turkish leaders in their way of addressing themselves at the UN. By

clearly refusing Turkey into the union, the EU has left enough room for Turkey to

promote itself as an independent, strong and ethical leader of international development

which does not require to be a part of a weakened union any longer. In fact, Turkey acts

and presents itself as a model in the field of international and humanitarian action, on

which the western world, including the EU, should take example.

Leading to a loss of power for the EU: J. Galtung’s typology of power

60

The three types described by J. Galtung and used by many scholars to explain power

relations, including I. Manners71, follow the metaphor of the stick, the carrot, and the idea.

The stick corresponds to the coercive power, or the use of direct means such as force or

economic sanctions to assert power over the other. This type of power does not relate to

the topic of this thesis as the EU is rarely making use of it. The other two, on the other

hand, constitute the grounds of the EU’s foreign action as they are the main methods used

by soft powers: the carrot as the remunerative power, and the idea, the normative one.

The carrot has been, for the past few years and especially in the relationship with Turkey,

its membership accession. The EU, as a legitimate, normatively respectable, and powerful

actor of international governance, gained its remunerative power from the very fact that

its neighbours wanted to be a part of it. The loss of attractiveness of the EU is impacting

deeply its power over the actors of the region. Furthermore, the second mean of power of

the EU, the idea, or the normative power, has been affected by the migration crisis as

well. The way the EU dealt with the situation both internally and externally has

questioned its ethical grounds. For an entity priding itself of being Human Rights

defenders across the world, seemingly not respecting them within its own borders

represents a strong hit for the credibility and therefore, a loss of normative power over

other countries.

Further than disregard to the relevance of the EU’s accession, Turkey, in parallel of these

speeches, has been increasingly challenging the EU’s authority in the Middle Eastern

region, by engaging in bombings of Syria despite the EU’s positioning and warnings.

Turkey’s leaders’ main goal, as mentioned multiple times in several of their UN speeches

over the course of the last years, has been to create a “safe zone” in between the conflicted

areas of Syria, and Turkey. This safe zone was supposed to be made for two purposes: on

the first hand, it would have constituted a shield for Turkey to protect them from the

Syrian government and the rebels. On the second hand, it would have allowed the

relocation of Syrian refugees currently staying on the Turkish soil.

Turkey has also, at the same occasion, used the leverage of its gatekeeper position72 as a

threat to answer the EU’s warnings. President Erdogan has explicitly mentioned the

71 Manners, ‘Assessing the Decennial, Reassessing the Global’. 72 Okyay and Zaragoza-Cristiani, ‘The Leverage of the Gatekeeper’.

61

possibility for Turkey to ‘open the gates’ if the EU attempted to stand in the way of

Turkey’s military actions in Syria. For the first time ever since the EU/Turkey agreements

were made, its bargaining potential has been fully exploited by Turkey, providing the

country with a hard power tool to use against the EU, in addition to the soft power it

originally entailed through the threat it represented.

Turkey depicts itself as the new face of HR in international politics and leading actor of

global security making by over emphasising on the implication and commitment of

Turkey to Human Rights. If in the beginning it seemed to be aiming at matching with the

Copenhagen criteria in the perspective of becoming a EU member state, it gradually

became an argument to assert Turkey’s superiority in terms of deployed means in

international aid, but also ethical content of their foreign action over the West, to

concerned by their own interests to act for the sake of justice and humanity.

This overemphasis of the ethical commitment of Turkey in international relations can also

be understood a smoke screen to cover for the real interests leading the country to be so

present around the world. Beyond the geopolitical stakes which Turkey faces in the

Middle Eastern region, and the protection of its own borders and internal politics , Turkey

seem to have more to gain from this than any other country: it is the best way for the

country to become a leader of global governance and reverse the balance of power. Be it

Erdogan, Davotoglu or Gül, none of them ever mention the interests they have in all the

countries they intervene in.

In the same logic, it is safe to assume that if Turkey were a nuclear power, its leaders

would never advocate against weapons of mass destruction with the same vigour that they

are currently deploying. Moreover, Iran being a potential holder of nuclear weapons in

the region makes Turkey’s position weaker in the region, even more so since Iran is an

opponent to the revival of the old Ottoman Empire which includes Saudi Arabia, of which

Turkey’s commitment is nowhere to be doubted.

Although challenging the new partnerships undergone by Turkey seem to be full of

promises for the international ascension of the country. Turkish leaders The multiple

mentions to the Astana agreements bounding Turkey with Russia and Iran in regard to

their action in Syria shows the commitment of the country to create new alliances to take

the lead on the situation.

63

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION

6.1 Reflective part of the thesis

This thesis aimed at providing tools for further understanding of several mechanisms

ongoing in the world of international relations. Firstly, the analysis made of the impact

on one given event of the discourse of external actors highlighted the power of perception

and image branding in international relations, especially for international organizations

such as the EU, which draw a lot of their legitimacy through their normative power. The

way international organization choose to deal with challenges will foster their image in

the face of others. If their reaction does not reflect the ideologies they have been

defending and building their legitimacy upon, it will ultimately harm their normative

power on the global scene. For international organizations, it is essential to understand

the impact of their internal discrepancies on their external potential of action.

Furthermore, this mechanism, once again creates a vicious circle, as the lack of legitimacy

on the global stage might in turn weaken the legitimacy of its own citizens and MS. If

citizens do not feel represented or empowered by the EU, Euroscepticism will gain

another argument to discredit the relevance of the existence of such organization.

Building a theoretical bridge between internal and external affairs to an IO remains

necessary to highlight the causality effects occurring between the two. In opposition to

states which own an executive power, a delimitated territory and several levels of

elections, the legitimation strategies of IOs, even more accurately of the EU, will always

remain heavily on their ability to prove the relevance of its existence to others, and to

their citizens, via strong image branding strategies.

6.2 Answer to the original hypothesis

The initial hypothesis of this thesis, assuming that the migration crisis has been the main

factor of changing perceptions of the EU by Turkish leaders, has both been infirmed. The

migration crisis and the way the EU has been managing it ever since the outbreak of the

Syrian crisis has shed light on many structural challenges and ethical loopholes in the

64

EU’s internal system and foreign action. The structural challenges underscored by the

Dublin system, show that the multi-speed integration system of the EU, discriminates its

MS based on the zone they are standing in73, and harms its solidarity and unity. As a

disunited union loses all sense of purpose, it also loses any kind of attractivity for

candidates to its accession and credibility for partners in international settings.

Being the only seemingly functioning international organization in the world, the

distinctiveness of the EU lied in its uniqueness. However, the migration crisis has exposed

the EU’s internal dissensions to the rest of the world and dismantled the façade which has

been hiding all its defects for the past decades. The migration crisis has shown that

nothing, not even the EU, subdues realpolitik and rationale considerations in the decision-

making process of states in international cooperation.

The perception of Europe by Turkey, and by extension in recent history of the EU, has

always been dual: the line between role model and threatening imperialistic force has

always been fine.74 It seems that now, the role model the EU once represented has fallen,

giving room for new perceptions: a weakened and fragile union, unable to act as one when

facing external challenges.

The migration crisis does not constitute the only cause of the shift of perception or

discourse, but has provided Turkey the excuse to expose it on the global stage. Most of

the arguments made by Turkish leaders in the past few years are not new and were already

a part of their speeches before the start of the Syrian crisis in 2011. However, this research

can most certainly confirm the fact that the migration crisis has deepened and highlighted

the crisis suffered by the union, and thus strengthened the credibility and consequently

the impact of Turkey’s argumentation aiming at delegitimatizing the EU as a global actor

and reassert its position in the world order in the face of the international community.

The migration crisis is not the most often used topic by Turkish leaders in their speeches

to the UN General Assembly debates towards the EU, or more generally towards the

western world. As shown by the diagram, the military management of the Syrian conflict

or the cultural differences and differentiation have been given more room during those

73 Dostál, Akçalı, and Antonsich, ‘Turkey’s Bid for European Union Membership’. 74 Juliette Tolay, ‘Turkey’s “Critical Europeanization”: Evidence from Turkey’s Immigration Policies’,

Seçil Paçacı Elitok and Thomas Straubhaar, Turkey, Migration and the EU: Potentials, Challenges and

Opportunities, n.d., 39.

65

speeches, according to their volume (i.e number of words). However, the critique made

within the scope of the migration crisis has directly and openly targeted the EU.

Furthermore, we can observe that the shift of discourse related to the migration crisis lies

in the methods of delivery of this rationale. Priorly appearing as an implicit, underlying

message emerging from long-lasting wounds linked to the history shared by the Turkey

and the EU, the rationale is now delivered by the speakers in a much more direct and

explicit manner than it used to be. This phenomenon highlights the increasing confidence

of Turkey on the world stage, at the cost of the one of the EU.

The uncovering of the disillusioning commonality of the EU in that manner has deeply

impacted its perception by Turkish leaders and induced a shift of pursued goal in Turkey’s

foreign policymaking. From a promised land, a safe haven, a land of hope, the European

dream, to a weaken actor whose membership is not as attractive as it once was. Turkish

leaders, by expressing themselves openly and ruthlessly towards the EU in such an

international setting as the UN General Assembly debates, show that the EU’s approval

is not worth using diplomacy any longer. The power balance between the two parties

seems to have shifted, with a gradually more confident Turkey, and a stumbling European

Union. This situation has provided the best weapons to Turkey to assert itself in

opposition to the continental giant, as the new generation of world leaders against the

traditional Westphalian hegemony.

The migration crisis is thus not a cause per se of the loss of legitimacy of the EU on the

global stage, but a symptom which has led to the diagnosis of a long-lasting sleeping

disease leading to this loss.

The migration crisis is tackling one of the main assets of the EU’s normative power

abroad, the defence of Human Rights. The current management of the migration flows

and the pack with Turkey, moreover not fully respected, harms the main argument of

legitimacy of the EU abroad, and became a weapon in the hands of nations willing to

weaken the EU’s position on the global stage. Instead of being the main factor of shift in

perceptions by the Turkish government, it became the major semantic tool for Turkey to

attack the EU on the international scene. The image built by the EU along the years is

66

deteriorated by inhumane conditions of reception in the MS and the gatekeeping insured,

up until 2020, by Turkey. To go further than this study, it would be interesting to

investigate on the fields of action of the EU to measure the impact of this darkened

portrait. Indeed, the EU might lose legitimacy in the face of its partners of Global

Governance, but the loss of ethical content might also harm the implementation of

development aid missions. Turkey’s discourse is most likely to convince countries from

the “rest of the world”, than from the founder-nations of the Western establishment, thus

countries where the EU is most likely to intervene priorly as the leading Human Right

defender.

6.3 Consequences for the EU: losing legitimacy and attractivity

Turkish leader’s discursive practice have become active shapers of the EU’s

delegitimation process using the migration management of the EU as a tool for its

implementation. Indeed, as rightfully underlined by Turkish leaders and despite the

dubitability of the moral grounds of some of Turkey’s internal and external actions, the

country has become an unavoidable key actor of the Middle Eastern geopolitical

landscape and more generally a major player in international politics by deploying

substantial means all over the world towards aid and development.

Turkish leader’s perception of the EU has changed over time from a normative model,

notably in the field of Human Rights, to a weak challenger on the run to becoming a

leader of Global Governance. On the basis of arguments provided by the poor European

management of migration flows, Turkey is now actively disqualifying the EU’s

participation in global governance by underlighting all the pitfalls of its foreign policies.

Their discourse towards the EU now strongly relates to power relations and is used to

disqualify the Western countries, and to present Turkey as a moral example for the

international community to follow.

Whilst Turkey has gradually worked on its own legitimacy, at first looking towards the

EU’s accession as a main goal, it has gained leverage to bring the EU down in order to

promote itself and its new partners (Russia, Iran) to build a new Ottoman Empire, and a

new world order. Consequently, the Turkish reforms of the asylum procedure priorly

considered as the continuing normative power of the EU over the country in spite its loss

67

of legitimacy for Turkey, could indeed be considered as a way for Turkey to assert its

moral superiority over the union rather than a way to comply with its norms.

Even though the migration crisis is not the only event which has led to this perception of

the EU by Turkish leaders, it can be considered as the cherry on top of the cake. This

crisis has highlighted so accurately all the difficulties faced by the EU, and its chronic

attitude towards “the rest of the world” especially underdeveloped countries and the Arab

world, that it gave Turkey enough arguments and leverage to stand on this “rostrum” not

only change its mind but exert discursive tools against it by providing it with objective

and specific examples of inaction (such as the lack of financial support sent to Turkey or

the fact that they were closing their borders to asylum seekers instead of taking care of

them). Furthermore, the migration crisis has shed light on the inability of its MS to settle

on how to deal properly with it, together, fairly and efficiently, as a functioning Union

would. It has thus provided Turkey with ideological arguments (HR, colonialism,

othering), but also factual (number of refugees, budget allowed to Turkey), which gives

a lot more relevance and weight to Turkey’s leaders’ discourse against the EU, thus

impacting its legitimacy on the world stage.

Although this study shows that the migration has impacted the perception and thus

attitude of Turkey towards the EU, the extent of its research does not allow to measure

its impact on the perception of other international actors, neither if the rationale supported

by Turkey against the EU is more effective to convince other parties since the migration

crisis. Indeed, Turkey has been more openly criticizing the EU ever since the start of the

migration crisis, but its delicate internal and external positions might counterbalance the

weight of its arguments in the face of the international scene. Claiming to be a defender

of human rights is not enough to cover repression of their own people against a coup

attempt. The levels of Turkey’s own legitimacy might not allow it to harm the EU’s

legitimacy as much as another, more respectable actor would have. We can assume that

the migration crisis have thus provided tools and semantic weapons to nations or entities

which were already in a anti-European, or anti-Western dynamic.

68

6.4 Opening thoughts and recommendations

The renegotiations of the CEAS, which were supposed to come to a conclusion in 2020,

should reset the focus towards ethics and unity. Making sure that EU is finding a system

which would be fair to all MS all while being ethical towards asylum seekers in order to

regain the image of HR defenders it has lost and enhance its attractivity as a working

union again, instead of it being a burden and a trap for the partaking MS. The migration

crisis has highlighted the internal dissensions of the EU and has led to a chain of

phenomenon which have deepened its credibility abroad and created a vicious circle. The

Brexit is, the most extreme example of the reaction the poor management of management

flows within the union has caused, and sent a message to external actors: the EU has

become a trap where national sovereignties are taken over in favour of flawed policies,

and from which it is difficult to get out off no matter how hard we try.

One solution which has been source of discussion in order to counter this phenomenon in

regards to the asylum system in Europe would be to provide financial compensation to

the Member States in accordance with the number of asylum seekers they are willing to

take the responsibility for. This solution would have a double positive impact on these

phenomena. Firstly, it would compensate and support the countries which are inevitably

the most impacted based on their geographical exposition to EU external borders, and not

only the main EU powers, thus restabilising an idea of fairness amongst MS. Secondly,

it would advocate for a positive motivation for MS to accept asylum seekers into their

territory instead of it being asserted on them as a burden, and give the freedom to MS to

make their own decision.

This solution, mentioned by the former Director of Asylum in France, Raphaël Sodini,

during an interview he gave me during the explorative stage of this thesis, would be to

financially compensate the states which accept to take asylum seekers in. Using the carrot

instead of the stick could be the grounds to a new CEAS. Since all MS, mentioning

different reasons but mostly relying on the cultural differences between hosting and

migrating populations, are not willing to commit to sharing the burden of the migration

flows equally relative to their population size amongst themselves, granting the ones who

would could be an option. Additionally, this solution would cut the grass under the feet

69

of Eurosceptical discourses which generally accuse the technocratic Brussels of

favouritism by sanctioning recurring MS whilst other go free from certain restrictions.

This option would thus potentially have the benefit of soothing the internal discrepancies

while encouraging MS, even the most reluctant, to host more migrants and to install

decent conditions of reception and fair treatment of asylum procedures as set by the

different directives and regulations of the current CEAS.

70

BIBLIOGRAPHY

admin. ‘ECHR Condemns France for “Inhuman Living Conditions” of Asylum

Seekers’. En24 World (blog), 2 July 2020.

https://www.en24news.com/en/2020/07/echr-condemns-france-for-inhuman-

living-conditions-of-asylum-seekers.html.

Alemi, Minoo, Zia Tajeddin, and Amin Rajabi Kondlaji. ‘A Discourse-Historical

Analysis of Two Iranian Presidents’ Speeches at the UN General Assembly’.

International Journal of Society, Culture & Language 6, no. 1 (2018): 1–17.

http://search.proquest.com/docview/2131579884/abstract/B994600C7F2949B7P

Q/1.

Anonymous. ‘Accession Criteria’. Text. European Neighbourhood Policy And

Enlargement Negotiations - European Commission, 6 December 2016.

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-

enlargement/policy/glossary/terms/accession-criteria_en.

Buchanan, Allen. Institutionalizing the Just War. Oxford University Press, 2018.

https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190878436.001.000

1/oso-9780190878436.

Burman, Erica, and Ian Parker, eds. Discourse Analytic Research: Repertoires and

Readings of Texts in Action, n.d.

Carrera, Sergio, and Roberto Cortinovis. ‘The Malta Declaration on SAR and

Relocation: A Predictable EU Solidarity Mechanism?’, n.d., 7.

Costello, Cathryn, and Minos Mouzourakis. ‘The Common European Asylum System:

Where Did It All Go Wrong?’, n.d., 38.

ResearchGate. ‘Countering Islamophobia in Hungary | Request PDF’. Accessed 30

August 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16260-3_5.

‘DAOL: Discourse Analysis Means Doing Analysis’: Accessed 30 August 2020.

https://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a1/antaki2002002-paper.html.

Davutoglu, Ahmet. ‘Turkey’s Zero-Problems Foreign Policy’. Foreign Policy (blog).

Accessed 1 June 2020. https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/05/20/turkeys-zero-

problems-foreign-policy/.

Dostál, Petr, Emel Akçalı, and Marco Antonsich. ‘Turkey’s Bid for European Union

Membership: Between “Thick” and “Thin” Conceptions of Europe’. Eurasian

Geography and Economics 52, no. 2 (March 2011): 196–216.

https://doi.org/10.2747/1539-7216.52.2.196.

Eleftheriadis, P. ‘The Moral Distinctiveness of the European Union’. International

Journal of Constitutional Law 9, no. 3–4 (1 October 2011): 695–713.

https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mor046.

Elitok, Seçil Paçacı, and Thomas Straubhaar. ‘Turkey, Migration and the EU:

Potentials, Challenges and Opportunities’, n.d., 284.

‘EUR-Lex - 12016M002 - EN - EUR-Lex’. Accessed 13 August 2020. https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12016M002.

Atlantic Council. ‘EU-Turkey Relations and the Migration Conundrum: Where Does

the EU-Turkey Statement Stand after Three Years?’, 15 May 2019.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/commentary/event-recap/eu-turkey-relations-

and-the-migration-conundrum-where-does-the-eu-turkey-statement-stand-after-

three-years/.

71

‘EU-Turkey Statement, 18 March 2016’. Accessed 30 August 2020.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/18/eu-turkey-

statement/.

Friedman, Lawrence M. ‘The Internationalization of Human Rights by David P.

Forsythe’. BOSTON COLLEGE THIRD WORLD LAW JOURNAL 13 (n.d.): 11.

Gropas, Ruby. ‘Is a Human Rights Foreign Policy Possible? The Case of the European

Union’, n.d., 28.

Hess, Sabine, and Bernd Kasparek. ‘The Post-2015 European Border Regime. New

Approaches in a Shifting Field’. Archivio Antropologico Mediterraneo 21, no. 2

(31 December 2019). https://doi.org/10.4000/aam.1812.

‘Human Rights Promotion in the EU Foreign Policy | Časopis pro Politiku a

Mezinárodní Vztahy’. Accessed 26 August 2020.

http://www.globalpolitics.cz/clanky/human-rights-promotion-in-the-eu-foreign-

policy.

European Parliament. ‘Infographic: Asylum Applications in Number between 2010 and

2016 in the EU’. Accessed 14 May 2019.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/external/html/welcomingeurope/default_en.htm.

‘Jean-Claude Juncker’, n.d., 37.

Karageorgiou, Eleni. ‘The Distribution of Asylum Responsibilities in the EU: Dublin,

Partnerships with Third Countries and the Question of Solidarity’. Nordic

Journal of International Law 88, no. 3 (29 August 2019): 315–58.

https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-08803003.

Laffan, Brigid. ‘The European Union: A Distinctive Model of Internationalisation?’

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2002. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.302709.

Lang, Iris Goldner. ‘Is There Solidarity on Asylum and Migration in the EU’. Croatian

Yearbook of European Law and Policy 9 (2013): 1–14.

https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.intyb/cybelp0009&i=15.

Lavenex, Sandra. ‘“Failing Forward” Towards Which Europe? Organized Hypocrisy in

the Common European Asylum System’. JCMS: Journal of Common Market

Studies 56, no. 5 (2018): 1195–1212. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12739.

———. ‘The Europeanization of Refugee Policies: Normative Challenges and

Institutional Legacies’. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 39, no. 5

(December 2001): 851–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00334.

Manners, Ian. ‘Assessing the Decennial, Reassessing the Global: Understanding

European Union Normative Power in Global Politics’: Cooperation and

Conflict, 4 June 2013. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836713485389.

Müftüler-Baç, Meltem, and Rahime Süleymanoğlu-Kürüm. ‘Deliberations in the

Turkish Parliament: The External Perceptions of European Foreign Policy’.

Journal of Language and Politics 14, no. 2 (2015): 258–84.

https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.14.2.04muf.

Okyay, Asli, and Jonathan Zaragoza-Cristiani. ‘The Leverage of the Gatekeeper: Power

and Interdependence in the Migration Nexus between the EU and Turkey’. The

International Spectator 51, no. 4 (October 2016): 51–66.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2016.1235403.

‘Orbán: Turkey “Strategic Partner” Every Hungarian Should Respect - Hungary Today’.

Accessed 30 August 2020. https://hungarytoday.hu/orban-erdogan-meeting-

turkey-strategic-partner-respect/.

Pace, Michelle. ‘The Construction of EU Normative Power’. Journal of Common

Market Studies 45, no. 5 (December 2007): 1041–64.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00759.x.

72

‘(PDF) The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA)’. Accessed 7 May 2020.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251636976_The_Discourse-

Historical_Approach_DHA.

ResearchGate. ‘(PDF) Turkey’s New Asylum Law: A Case of EU Influence’. Accessed

30 August 2020.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283881582_Turkey's_New_Asylum_L

aw_a_Case_of_EU_Influence.

Peterson, M. J., and Lars K E Lars Lars K E K E Lars Lars Peterson. The Un General

Assembly. London, UNITED KINGDOM: Taylor & Francis Group, 2005.

http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uu/detail.action?docID=258990.

Refugees, United Nations High Commissioner for. ‘The Refugee Convention, 1951:

The Travaux Préparatoires Analysed with a Commentary by Dr. Paul Weis’.

UNHCR. Accessed 26 August 2020.

https://www.unhcr.org/protection/travaux/4ca34be29/refugee-convention-1951-

travaux-preparatoires-analysed-commentary-dr-paul.html.

EEAS - European External Action Service - European Commission. ‘Remarks by

HR/VP Mogherini on the Statement by US President Trump Regarding the Iran

Nuclear Deal (JCPOA)’. Text. Accessed 1 August 2019.

https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/44238/remarks-

hrvp-mogherini-statement-us-president-trump-regarding-iran-nuclear-deal-

jcpoa_en.

Sociales, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences. Méditerranée : des frontières à la dérive

| EHESS. Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 2018.

https://www.ehess.fr/fr/ouvrage/m%C3%A9diterran%C3%A9e-

fronti%C3%A8res-d%C3%A9rive.

Tallberg, Jonas, and Michael Zürn. ‘The Legitimacy and Legitimation of International

Organizations: Introduction and Framework’. The Review of International

Organizations 14, no. 4 (December 2019): 581–606.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-018-9330-7.

Taşpınar, Ömer. ‘Turkey: The New Model?’ Brookings (blog), 30 November 1AD.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/turkey-the-new-model/.

MERIP. ‘The AKP’s Foreign Policy as Populist Governance’, 15 December 2018.

https://merip.org/2018/12/the-akps-foreign-policy-as-populist-governance/.

‘The social legitimacy of international organisations: Interest representation,

institutional performance, and confidence extrapolation in the United Nations -

ProQuest’. Accessed 19 May 2020.

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1682255761?pq-origsite=summon.

The Independent. ‘Turkey Threatens to Send Millions of Refugees to Europe Unless It

Backs “safe Zone” in Syria’, 26 October 2019.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/erdogan-syria-turkey-

refugees-safe-zone-kurds-trump-europe-borders-a9172311.html.

‘TurkStream: Geopolitical Impact and Future Prospects - Al Sharq Think Tank’.

Accessed 30 August 2020.

https://research.sharqforum.org/2020/05/28/turkstream-geopolitical-impact-and-

future-prospects/.

‘Vote on “Annan Plan” Divides Cyprus – POLITICO’. Accessed 30 August 2020.

https://www.politico.eu/article/vote-on-annan-plan-divides-cyprus/.

Human Rights Watch. ‘World Report 2009: Rights Trends in Turkey’, 14 January 2009.

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2009/country-chapters/turkey.

73

ANNEXES

Annex I: Tables of categorization of the topoi and word count

Table II. Categorization of the topoi and related colour used for the analysis of the speeches

Table III. Number of words employed for each topoi and by year of the speech.

DATE

MIGRATION

CRISIS

SYRIAN

CONFLICT ISLAM

NEIGHBORING

POLICIES

EUROPEAN

COLONIALISM

EU AND

UN

VALUES

AND

ASSESSION

2009 0 0 196 535 0 131

2010 0 0 67 406 0 74

2011 0 -163 27 403 -410 113

2012 -89 0 -200 -316 0 0

2013 0 -789 -53 -114 0 78

2014 -242 -56 -249 12 -120 37

2015 -502 -339 -222 75 0 48

2016 -864 -576 -113 0 0 71

2017 -231 -507 -53 -169 0 0

2018 -275 -309 -430 -40 0 39

2019 -410 -836 -368 -249 -68 116

Topoi related to the EU and mentioned by the Turkish leaders in their

speeches to the UN General Assembly, sorted by thematic:

Turkey EU’s membership accession

Turkey’s UN Security Council accession

Conflicting EU neighbourhood: Cyprus, Greece, Balkans, and

Caucasus situations

EU’s colonial history: Somalia, Libya, Africa

Cultural dichotomy: Islamophobia, Christianity, civilizations

Syria

Refugee crisis

Other related events mentioned by Turkish leaders

74

Annex II: Corpus of speeches

2009 speech delivered by Prime Minister Erdogan

Mr. President,

Mr. Secretary General,

Excellencies,

Distinguished Delegates,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great pleasure for me to address you once again on the occasion of the General Debate of the 64th

session of the General Assembly. At the outset, I would like to congratulate Mr. Abdusselam Treki on his

election as President of the 64th General Assembly. I wish to express my appreciation and thanks to Mr.

Brockman as well, for his able and prudent conduct of the Presidency of the 63rd session of the General

Assembly. Taking this opportunity, I also thank all the member states for the high degree of trust and

approval placed in my country, which was elected as a non-permanent member of the Security Council by

a wide margin of support last year.

Mr. President,

The global problems of our age necessitate global scale solutions. From wars to economic crises, from

hunger and poverty to terrorism, from energy security to climate change, the problems our world faces

today are extremely challenging. However, none of them is insurmountable. For the resolution of these

problems, we need a fair and inclusive global order which is based on trust and which regards diversity as

a source of richness. It is possible to make the transition from a conception of the world based on risk and

threat perceptions to one based on trust and solidarity. This has become a necessity for all of us. But to be

able to do that we need a new kind of leadership. We can indeed make the 21st century an era which is

ruled by peace instead of wars; trust instead of fear; justice instead of injustice; tranquillity instead of terror

and violence; and prosperity instead of hunger and poverty. It is our common responsibility and historic

duty to participate in the construction of such a world, regardless of our language, religion, and nationality

differences. Threats like terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons have become sources of concern

on a global scale. Problems such as hunger and poverty, the increase in the frequency of pandemics, worries

about food and energy security, and growing xenophobia and radicalism remain grave challenges. Global

warming and the financial crisis are fundamental questions that require substantial solutions. Against such

a backdrop, the relevance and indispensability of the United Nations have become even more evident. In

order to establish a fair and participatory global order, we must work together to enhance the efficiency of

the United Nations. We certainly do not despair. We maintain our hope that the achievement of global

peace and stability is within our grasp. We therefore wish to see the United Nations serve as the voice and

spokesman of the global public conscience. We believe that a more representative, democratic, transparent,

just and effective United Nations will be able to make a greater contribution to global peace and stability.

The United Nations must become a much more effective institution on matters such as climate change,

sustainable development, the struggle against poverty, gender equality and the protection of human rights

and dignity. We fully support the reform efforts in this direction. However, it is without a doubt that the

reform of the UN system will be incomplete if not accompanied by the Security Council reform. I would

like to underscore once again that Turkey is in favor of the enlargement of the Security Council in the non-

permanent category. Another important aspect of the UN reforms that I wish to underline is the need to

improve the UN peace keeping system. In this context, we want the views and expectations of particularly

the UN troop contributing countries on issues like early and effective coordination, capacity building and

enhanced cooperation with regional organizations to be taken into full account.

Mr. President,

Turkey continues to be a force for peace and stability in the volatile region in which it is located. Especially

in the course of the past 7 years, we have exerted every effort to settle all our differences with our neighbors.

Thanks to this approach which we call "zero problem with neighbors" Turkey has made significant progress

in resolving outstanding issues with its neighbors and greatly improved its bilateral relations. The problems

in our region have global implications. Therefore, our constructive and peaceful regional policies serve not

75

only our own neighborhood but also global peace. However, even that we don’t consider sufficient. We

aim to move from a relationship of passive good-neighbourliness to one of active friendship and

cooperation. The positive impact of this approach on regional and world peace is well appreciated by all

our friends. A concrete example of this situation is-our ongoing dialogue with Greece. Another case in point

is our quest to normalize our relations with Armenia, which has gained fresh momentum lately, and begun

to bear fruit.

It is high time that lasting solutions based on the territorial integrity of regional countries are found to the

other disputes in the Caucasus as well. In this regard, we hope that our regional partners will share

Turkey's vision for region-wide peace, security and stability. We believe that the Caucasus Stability and

Cooperation Platform, which we launched in the aftermath of the crisis in August 2008, can make a

substantial contribution to the efforts in that direction. Another issue of close interest to us and the world

is Iraq's territorial integrity, political unity and internal peace. We attach great importance to the

continuation of the political dialogue process encompassing all the groups in Iraq and the establishment

of national unity. A clear manifestation of this is the Neighbouring Countries Process regarding Iraq

which was initiated by Turkey. In this connection, I also wish to emphasize the significance of the

Strategic Dialogue Mechanism set up between Turkey and Iraq, which is important both in terms of the

fight against terrorism, as well as all other aspects of bilateral relations. We are fully committed to

maintaining and further developing this process.The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is another regional issue

to which Turkey is sensitive. In our view, the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict based on the

vision of two states that will exist side by side in peace and security is an indispensable element of regional

and global peace.The achievement of Palestinian national unity will expedite the establishment of the

independent Palestinian state. Turkey has always stood by the Palestinian people and will continue to do

so. I wish to draw your attention to the following facts: The aggression against the Gaza carried out at the

end of 2008 quickly turned into a human tragedy and resulted in the deaths of nearly 1400 people, most

of whom are women and children. Over 5.000 people were injured. The infrastructure of Gaza was

completely destroyed. Even the UN buildings in Gaza have not escaped this destruction. Secretary-

General Mr. Ban Ki-moon has personally witnessed the devastation and voiced his reaction.

The 575-page UN report on Gaza which was released on 15 September 2009 clearly confirms this fact.

It has been eight months since the declaration of the ceasefires that ended the hostilities in Gaza and the

adoption of the Security Council resolution 1860. Similarly, six months have elapsed since the Sharm al

Sheikh Conference where the international community pledged billions of dollars for the reconstruction

of Gaza. However, I regret that the human tragedy in Gaza still goes on.

The wounds of the people of Gaza have not been sealed. The promises made for Gaza have not been kept.

As was the case at the time of the aggression,Gaza has been once again left to its own devices in the

aftermath of the heavy destruction it suffered.

Currently, even the importation of construction materials to Gaza is not permitted, and the suffering of the

Gaza people continues. We demand that these obstacles are immediately lifted and normalcy restored to

Gaza for the sake of peace and security of both Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinian question cannot

be resolved solely by satisfying the demands of one party. The security of the Palestiniansis as important

as the security of Israel. The Palestinian people's quest for freedom and peace is as legitimate as Israel's

quest for stability. The settlement of the Palestinian question which is one of the greatest obstacles to

regional and global peace will only be possible when everyone is treated fairly and equitably. Turkey has

on every possible occasion stressed that it is not possible to turn a blind eye to the appalling conditions in

Gaza, and we will continue to do so. It is our common humanitarian and moral responsibility to ensure

that the tragedy unfolding in Gaza is brought to an end, and an atmosphere of lasting peace is created in

the region. It is extremely important that the international community remain engaged in this matter and

inject a new vigor to efforts to resolve the problem. We call on all parties concerned not to remain

indifferent to this question and not to condone further sufferings. We believe that resumption of the Israeli-

Palestinian talks that have been disrupted by the Gaza conflict is of utmost importance and hope that the

Peace Process will be revitalized as quickly as possible. So far, we have made every possible effort to

contribute to the Peace Process. The indirect negotiations between Syria and Israel, which we hosted in

Turkey in 2008, are a case in point. Depending on the mutual desire of both parties, we are ready to resume

our active role in this process.

We have always said that Syria is a very important country in our region and in a position to play a key

role in the search for regional peace, security and stability. Similarly, Lebanon too is of critical importance

for regional stability. Turkey expended intensive efforts to ensure that a comprehensive political

compromise prevails in Lebanon. We will continue to support strongly Lebanon's stability. We believe that

76

the dispute over our neighbor Iran's nuclear program, which has long preoccupied the international

community, should be resolved through dialogue. Turkey defends the right of all countries to benefit from

peaceful use of nuclear energy. On the other hand, we also call upon all countries to act responsibly, bearing

in mind the serious consequences of the proliferation of nuclear weapons for the whole world. We

supported the Security Council resolution 1874 on North Korea's nuclear test last May, in this spirit.

We also follow closely the situation in Afghanistan and the developments in Pakistan. We support the

struggle which the peoples of Afghanistanand Pakistan, with whom we enjoy historical and brotherly ties,

have been waging against extremism. We sustain our infrastructure investments in order to help the two

countries achieve the prosperity they deserve.

The Friends of Democratic Pakistan's Ministerial Meeting which we convened in Istanbul at the end of

August is an indication of the importance we attach to Pakistan's stability and prosperity.At this point, I

would like to declare that in addition to becoming the Lead Country on Afghanistan in the Security Council

in 2010, we shall assume the Chairmanship of the Committee on Counter-Terrorism.Our strong support

for efforts on achieving security and stability in Afghanistan and combating terrorism shall continue

unabated during the course of our performance of these duties on the Council.

Another region which we follow closely is the Balkans. We believe the integration of the regional

countries with Euro-Atlantic institutions is important and that this perspective should be maintained.

Mr. President,

Turkey and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus support the efforts for finding a comprehensive

solution on the Island. The basis upon which such a solution should be built is right here, under the roof

of the United Nations. If all the parties to the present negotiations were to act constructively, it would be

possible to reach a comprehensive solution by the end of 2009. As was the case in 2004, we believe that

the UN Secretary-General should play a role in bridging the differences which the parties themselves

cannot resolve. It should be our common objective to submit the solution to be reached to a referendum

in the spring of 2010 at the latest. However, at this juncture, I would like to stress the following point as

well: If a solution cannot be found due to Greek Cypriot intransigence, as was the case in 2004, the

normalization of the status of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus will become a necessity which

can no longer be delayed. It is therefore essential to realize that the negotiations cannot be sustained ad

infinitum, that the present window of opportunity cannot remain open forever and that efforts must be

deployed for the success of the process. I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize once again that

a comprehensive solution to be achieved on the basis of established UN parameters, which will secure the

founding of a new Partnership in Cyprus, will enjoy the open support of Turkey as a guarantor power. A

fair and lasting solution in Cyprus will make a major contribution to the transformation of the Eastern

Mediterranean into a zone of peace, stability and cooperation. I call upon everyone to do their utmost to

help achieve this goal.

In the meantime, the Turkish Cypriot side is still subjected to unfair measures of isolation, despite the fact

that in 2004 it accepted all the sacrifices that the Annan Plan entailed. It is not fair to expect the Turkish

side to pay the price for a lack of solution. The lifting of such restrictions on Turkish Cypriots will not only

remove an unjust practice but also accelerate the process of resolution.

Mr. President,

Turkey continues to actively participate in peace-keeping operations around the world under the umbrella

of the UN, NATO, EU and the OSCE.

We also lend strong support to the least developed and developing countries in their struggle to resolve

developmental problems. On the other hand, as a party to the Kyoto Protocol, Turkey is ready to live up

to its responsibilities with respect to this vital issue which concerns the future of our world. We support

the determined efforts being made by the Secretary-General in the process of devising a new climate

change regime. Before concluding, I wish to draw your attention to another very important issue which

poses a threat to our world.

We should not forget that each culture and civilization flourishes through the inspiration provided by the

successes of other cultures and civilizations. As a matter of fact, our common values today as well as our

science, law and art have been influenced not only by old Greek and Roman civilizations but also ancient

Eastern civilizations. From Al Harezmi, the father of algebra, to Farabi who laid the foundations of music,

from Ibn Sina who ushered in a new era in medicine to Sinan the architect who produced the finest

77

engineering examples of his time, many Turkish and Islamic scholars, men of learning and artists made

significant contributions to the progress of mankind. It is therefore essential to regard and understand

diverse cultures not as the "other" but as individual elements of mankind's cultural inheritance and to

cultivate this spirit in new generations. This is the philosophy which underlies the Alliance of Civilizations

which has become a United Nations initiative and strengthened its institutional structure under the co-

sponsorship of Turkey and Spain.

I have no doubt that the Alliance will make significant contributions to shaping a global civilization based

on universal values through activities in the spheres of democracy, rule of law, good governance, human

rights, gender equality, youth and media.

As I conclude my remarks, I would like to express my hope that the 64th General Assembly will serve

the best interests of all humanity.

Thank you.

78

2010 speech delivered by President Gül

Mr. President,

Mr. Secretary General,

Excellencies,

Distinguished Delegates,

I would like to start by congratulating you, Mr. Joseph Deiss, on your assumption of the Presidency of the

65th 5ession of the UN General Assembly. I would also like to pay tribute to your predecessor, His

Excellency Mr. Abdusselam Treki for his able Presidency.

Mr. President,

The mission of the United Nations is to protect the dignity, security and well-being of all human beings.

Therefore, peace, security, stability and welfare constitute the tenets of Turkey's work and action in the

United Nations. Since this esteemed body gave us an overwhelming mandate for Turkey's non-permanent

seat at the Security Council, we have worked hard, sincerely, objectively and effectively to contribute to

peace, security and welfare of the international community. In these two years, we tried to offer our added

value, in a fair and principled manner, for addressing various global and regional issues. We sought to

advance the discussions within the Council on an issue that we have always accorded high priority:

peacekeeping and peace-building. Indeed, this afternoon we will be holding a Security Council summit

session to exchange views and ideas on this matter at the highest political level. Furthermore, next Monday,

we will hold a thematic debate of the Security Council on counter-terrorism. Terrorism indeed is a leading

and most pressing challenge for the international community on the global scale. It cannot be countered

without sincere, effective, cohesive, and concrete international cooperation. I would like to remind you that

our struggle against terrorism is bound to fail, unless we fight all terrorist organizations irrespective of their

so-called political, ideological, ethnic religious aims.

One successful example of collective response to the one of the serious challenges of today is the UN

Alliance of Civilizations. Established by the initiative of Spain and Turkey, the Alliance, with its 122

members today, has become the second largest international platform after the UN itself. This is a clear

indication for us that the international community prefers harmony, dialogue and cooperation to bigotry

and confrontation.

Mr. President,

Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is one of the risks of our contemporary world. We cannot

overcome this menace unless our member states, including nuclear ones, adopt a just and principled

approach in their respective policies. Establishing a credible global non-proliferation regime would not be

achievable, while ignoring de facto existence of nuclear weapons of certain countries at the heart of most

delicate regions. In this context, I would like to call upon all member states to intensify their efforts in

creating а "Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone in the Middle East" as was envisaged by the UN

Security Council Resolution 687 of 1991 and as also repeatedly called for by the General Assembly. We

also support the calls at the New York NPT Review Conference of May 2010 for convening a conference

on WMD Free Zone in the Middle East in 2012. I believe this initial step would be a sine qua non for all

non-proliferation initiatives in the rest of the world. In responding to those security challenges, we should

keep in mind that global problems cannot be solved unilaterally, bilaterally or in small circles of like-

minded nations. Therefore, it is important today, more than ever, that we adopt a multilateral approach to

global problems. One such problem is the current global economic crisis. Though we are in a slow recovery,

the impact of the crisis is still being felt today. We must draw the proper lessons from this global crisis in

order to avoid the recurrence of similar shocks in the future.

This crisis was caused by the irresponsible acts of some financial institutions in the most developed

markets. Ordinary people have paid the highest price for the mistakes of a few in the developed nations.

The current economic crisis unveiled, once again, the weaknesses and deficiencies of the existing global

and national financial and economic architectures which lack efficient governance and regulation over

those reckless financial institutions. The Turkish economy, however, has managed to stay on course in

spite of the world economic crisis, thanks to the comprehensive economic and financial measures taken

before. Within the G-20, we strongly support the efforts in international fora aiming at restoring global

79

growth and streamlining financial practices.We believe that the G-20 should continue to play a central role

in putting together the right policies and measures to that effect.

Mr. President,

The situation of the least developed countries (LDCs) has further worsened 'п the aftermath of the global

crisis. Therefore, every effort should be made to integrate these countries into the Global economy. In that

endeavour, we should act with the principles of free and fair trade, and avoid protectionist tendencies. It is

with these thoughts that we are looking forward to the "4th UN Conference on the LDCs" to be organized

next year in Istanbul.

Mr. President,

During the last decade, Turkey’s economic indicators improved. So did its development assistance. Our

relatively increasing means enabled us to contribute more to the development of others. Now, Turkey has

evolved into an emerging donor. With the contribution of Turkey-based NGOs, our overall development

assistance exceeds one and a half billion dollars annually. Through the Turkish International Cooperation

and Development Agency (TIKA), we allocate this amount to a diversity of projects in capacity building

such as in the fields of health, education, agriculture as well as infrastructure.

Mr. President,

Developing nations are also more exposed than others to the gravest risks of four interconnected problems:

global warming, climate change, epidemics and food security. In recent years, tragedy struck many nations

because of the adverse impacts of climate change around the world. We experience severe droughts in

some parts of the world while some other parts of our planet are swept by devastating floods. The current

plights of Pakistan and Haiti are a reminder that this has become a pressing issue calling for urgent remedial

action. We must acknowledge that sustainable environment is an "indivisible global public good" for the

humankind. Therefore, we must assume collective responsibility for preserving it. Not only the billions of

lives today, but also the lives of the future generations will be depending on the actions we take today. The

global food crisis is another urgent concern. It poses a dismal challenge to incoming generations. Those

compelling economic, demographic, ecological and biological challenges oblige us to redefine the notion

of security. These issues no longer fall into the category of soft risks, but rather pose a clear and present

threat to the humankind. In the face of these overwhelming threats, it is time to take global action under

the framework of the UN. To that end, I call upon the member states to explore the possibility of

establishing a "Global Rapid Reaction Capability" to effectively tackle natural and ecological disasters,

food shortages and epidemics. This would also help maintain international peace and security by mitigating

the threats stemming from weak governance, collapse of public order and domestic or inter-state conflicts

over diminishing natural resources. If we allocate a small fraction of our defence expenditures to the

financing and establishment of this new capability, we would have more cost efficient results in

maintaining peace and stability in the world. Moreover, if we could pool some of our defence equipment

that lost its effective utilization in military terms but are still relevant for disaster relief operations, we

would swiftly build the said rapid reaction capability. Of course, the existing regional capacities might be

very instrumental in this global endeavour. AII these resources should be channelled directly to those in

need and not eroded by excessive administrative costs.

Mr. President,

On the political side of our agenda, there is no shortage of enduring regional issues. Because of time

constraints, I wish to briefly touch upon some of them here. Permanent peace in the Middle East holds the

key to a peaceful and stable future in the world. Unfortunately, the absence of peace there has had serious

and adverse strategic consequences for the rest of the world. Therefore, Turkey always supported all efforts

to reach a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. With this understanding, we appreciate President

Obama's efforts and welcome the direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. We hope that this

new engagement can take us closer to a viable and fair settlement.

On the other hand, it would be very difficult to make progress towards permanent peace unless we put an

end to the humanitarian tragedy in Gaza. In this context, the attack of the Israeli armed forces on the

international humanitarian aid convoy in high seas last May resulted in grave civilian casualties and was an

unacceptable act in clear violation of the international law. In the light of international law, Turkey's

expectation is а formal apology and compensation for the aggrieved families of the victims and the injured

people. Therefore, we attach particular importance to the work of the Panel of Inquiry and the Fact-Finding

Mission. We are pleased to have yesterday's report of the Fact-Finding Mission of UN Human Rights

80

Council. The report offers a solid legal framework for establishing the facts about this incident. We also

look forward to successful completion of the work of the Panel. As for Iraq, the elections of March 7 marked

a new period for the people of this country. Nevertheless, the post-election political stalemate aggravates

the security situation and hinders the launch of a comprehensive reconstruction program. We sincerely

desire that the new government in Iraq will reflect the balance that emerged at the elections. The new

government must be inclusive, effective and democratic.

In the aftermath of the withdrawal of foreign combat troops, we also urge all neighbours of Iraq to act

responsibly and support the territorial integrity, political unity and sovereignty of Iraq. We must all help

the Iraqi people in their quest for a better future. Our contributions to international efforts in the search for

an urgent and peaceful settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue will also continue. Resolving this controversy

can only be achieved in conformity with the IEAE norms and NPT obligations, respecting the right to

peaceful use of nuclear energy. In this vein, the Tehran Declaration and the July gathering in Istanbul

provide a window of opportunity to be seized. We believe there is no alternative to diplomacy.

As a Balkan country, Turkey attaches cardinal priority to the peace, stability and economic development

of the Balkans. In recent years, we have actively engaged in result-oriented initiatives in the Balkans by

intensifying our high-level bilateral visits to Belgrade and Sarajevo. Moreover, the launching of trilateral

cooperation mechanisms with Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia on one hand, and with Bosnia-Herzegovina

and Croatia, on the other, was of historic significance. Through these mechanisms, we try to create a new

atmosphere of mutual understanding and cooperation among those nations. In Kosovo, on the other hand,

we must join our efforts for a constructive dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina. Therefore, we

welcomed the adoption of the General Assembly resolution co-sponsored by Serbia and the EU. I believe

that the integration of the Western Balkan countries with the European and Euro-Atlantic structures would

be a decisive final step for the resolution of conflicts in the region. Our commitment to the Balkans will

continue unabated in the future. International community's firm engagement in the region will also be

crucial. The year 2010 has been a remarkable one in Turkish-Greek relations. We believe the "High Level

Cooperation Council" mechanism, initiated with Greece this year, paved the ground for a structured and

institutionalized phase in our relations, thus leading to a promising future.

Furthermore, we are determined to resolve our differences with Greece on all outstanding issues in the

Aegean Sea by observing the mutual rights and legitimate interests of both countries in accordance with

international law. The Aegean Sea should be a sea of friendship and cooperation between Turkey and

Greece. On the Cyprus issue, our long-standing commitment and full support to а just and lasting

settlement remains unchanged. We share the vision of the Secretary-General that a settlement would be

within reach before the end of this year. But this process should not be open-ended. Any positive outcome

emerging from these negotiations would rapidly transform the Eastern Mediterranean into а pillar of peace,

stability, cooperation and welfare within the European Union. The Turkish Cypriot side has proven that

they are in favour of а settlement, as clearly manifested in the 2004 referendum, but they continue to suffer

unjustly from the absence of а settlement. I would like to repeat they can be made by the UN Secretary-

General to the international community to take the necessary steps to eliminate the isolation of the Turkish

Cypriots and to enable their integration with the world. As for the Caucasus, we remain committed to

pursuing our efforts in search of а comprehensive and sustainable peace in the region while respecting the

principle of territorial integrity.

In recent years, we all witnessed how frozen conflicts could easily turn into active clashes in the region.

In this context, we attach particular importance to the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh

conflict. Central Asia is а strategic region of Eurasia. Turkey is committed to contributing to the stability,

peace and development in Central Asia. The recent events in Kyrgyzstan have been of special concern.

We are implementing an action plan in order to strengthen the efforts for stability and reconciliation in

Kyrgyzstan. We believe it is our common responsibility to assist Kyrgyzstan during this transitional stage

toward the establishment of а sound democratic system. Building trust and а sense of solidarity is essential

to successfully dealing with complex regional issues. In our view, the Conference on Interaction and

Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) can be an effective tool to that end. Our two-year term

chairmanship of CICA, which started last June, will be guided by this conviction.

Мг. President,

Our failure in Afghanistan with certainly have unpredictable consequences for the international

community. Therefore, Afghanistan deserves our close attention and sincere commitment. Afghanistan is

going through а historic process of transformation. As military operations continue, there must be а

simultaneous and growing emphasis on civilian efforts.Turkey's commitment to Afghanistan is open-

81

ended. We will continue our assistance as long as the Afghans require it. We firmly believe that an essential

pillar of ensuring the irreversibility of the processes under way in Afghanistan is directly linked to ensuring

better, result-oriented cooperation at the regional level, particularly between Afghanistan and its

neighbours. Supporting Pakistan's democracy is also of singular importance not only in itself but also for

the stability of the region as а whole. In the wake of the terrible disaster caused by the floods, it is critically

important to support the people and the democratic government of Pakistan to heal their wounds.

Мг. President,

In view of the growing economic and political significance of the Asia-Pacific region, Turkey has adopted

а new approach in its relations with the countries of the region. Accordingly, we launched an action plan

called "opening up to the South Asian, Far Eastern and the Pacific countries". Turkey has recently taken а

significant step towards deepening its cooperation with the regional countries. In the 43rd ASEAN

Ministerial Meeting, Turkey became а party to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia.

This is the first institutional tie between Turkey and ASEAN. This development paves the way for Turkey

to improve its relations with both ASEAN and Member States. Turkey also attaches importance to the

security and stability of the Korean Peninsula. We are aware that instability in the Peninsula has

ramifications beyond the region itself. Therefore, we call on all the relevant parties to settle the existing

problems through peaceful means and refrain from actions or attitudes which might threaten the security

of the region. Turkey also is developing its ties with Pacific Islands Forum and the Pacific Islands. We are

one of the Pacific Islands Countries-Development Partners. This enhanced relationship will pave the way

for Turkey to efficiently reach the Pacific countries, and promote the socio-economic well-being of the

peoples of the Pacific region. To advance this goal, we maintain several aid programs through Turkish

International Cooperation Agency (TIKA). Africa is another region that requires international community's

collective responsibility and action. The burden of resolving the overwhelming problems of this continent

cannot be placed on the shoulders of the Africans alone. Turkey, within its means, is determined to

contribute to international efforts to bring continent-wide peace and stability to Africa and will continue its

support for economic and human development with concrete proposals and initiatives.

In this spirit, Turkey hosted the Istanbul Somalia Conference organized within the UN framework on 21-

23 May 2010. The Conference provided an important support for the Djibouti Peace Process and the

Transitional Federal Government. The Istanbul Declaration adopted during the Conference constitutes а

road map for the settlement of the Somali issue. Turkey places great value on deepening and expanding its

relations with the Latin American and Caribbean region. The policy that Turkey has been pursuing for а

number of years to open up to this region is gaining greater momentum with each passing year. Turkey

also aspires to strengthen its ties with the regional cooperation schemes in this area. Within that context,

Turkey enjoys permanent observer status in the Organization of American States and the Association of

Caribbean States, and seeks to develop formal ties with the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) and

the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).

Мг. President,

In conclusion, I wish to reiterate our view that the United Nations can and should play an even larger role

in charting а better future for the humankind. It is up to us, Member States, to provide the United Nations

with the necessary political support and the concrete tools so that it can fulfil that role. I can assure you that

for its part, Turkey will continue to lend its full support and cooperation to this august body in our quest to

leave а much safer, more prosperous, cleaner and healthier world to our children.

Thank you

82

2011 speech delivered by Prime Minister Erdogan

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General,

Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates,

I warmly and respectfully greet you all and hope that the 66th Session of the UN General Assembly

will yield fruitful results. I would like to congratulate H.E. Mr. Abdulaziz Al-Nasser on his assumption

of the Presidency and also wish to extend my sincere appreciation to H.E. Mr. Joseph Deiss for his

time as the President of the General Assembly. We are passing through a period, when both the

international community and the United Nations are tested in an unprecedented manner. However, I

feel obliged to state very frankly that today the United Nations does not demonstrate the leadership

necessary to help mankind prevail over its fears for the future. Therefore, the UN has to reform itself

and renew its vision with a view to protecting the universal rights of humanity as a whole, rather than

acting upon the interests and remaining under the guardianship of certain countries.

Last month in Somalia, for instance, I witnessed in person how the UN and the international community

remained helpless against the pressing problems of today. It is impossible for me to put into words the

poverty and suffering I have seen in Somalia. The tragedy of Somalia, where tens of thousands of

children died due to the lack of even a piece of bread and a drop of water, is a shame for the international

community. The civil war which has continued on for the last 20 years has wiped out all the resources

and livelihood of Somalia... The Somali people are gradually being dragged to death before the eyes

of the world… Today, the international community is watching the suffering in Somalia like a movie.

However, we should urgently face this situation which is a test to our humanity. While doing so, we

should not only look into the picture of today, but also the shameful history that has led Somalia into

the arms of this great tragedy. Indeed, beneath the tip of this huge iceberg lie great crimes against

humanity. In that respect, the situation in Somalia has also revealed the deep wounds inflicted by the

colonialist mentality which kept Africa under its hegemony for centuries. As this old colonial

understanding ignores places where it has no interest, it is now watching millions of children die in

need of a morsel of bread. I will be frank. No one can speak of peace, justice and civilization in the

world if the outcry rising from Somalia is left unheard. No word is sufficient to describe the agony

going on there.

Turkey’s approach towards Somalia or any international issue is grounded firmly on humanitarian

principles. This is why we have launched a comprehensive aid campaign for Somalia with the strong

support of our nation. We have collected a donation of about 300 million USD within the last two

months. Furthermore, the amount of our humanitarian assistance surpassed the level of 30 million USD

until now. We also organized an emergency meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in

Istanbul and the amount of pledges made on this occasion exceeded 350 million USD. Along with

emergency humanitarian aid, Turkey is also determined to help build the infrastructure facilities that

will enable this country to stand on its feet. In this context, Turkey has undertaken a wide spectrum of

projects ranging from transportation to health and education, from agriculture to fishery and

construction, including the construction of roads, hospitals, schools and water wells. By re-opening of

our Embassy in Mogadishu, we have also showed the world that claims of security challenges cannot

be an excuse for delaying assistance. In parallel to these, it is also necessary to urgently bring to an end

the civil war and provide the country with a democratic and unified governance in order to succeed in

the fight against piracy and terrorism originating from Somalia.

In this regard, we would like everyone to ask themselves why the international community deprives

Somalia of the interest that it has shown to conflict areas elsewhere in the world. The entire

international community should act with a sense of utmost urgency to support the efforts to build peace

and stability in Somalia. The civil war smothering our Somali brothers for 20 years should come to an

end without any further delay. In this context, the progress achieved recently by Somali leaders towards

building national consensus gives us hope for the future. As Somalia takes its well-deserved place

within the international community, the world will become a safer and more stable place It is precisely

this understanding that lies at the heart of Turkey’s rigorous efforts towards Somalia. We are making

every effort to carry out infrastructure investments that will enable Somalia to stand on its feet. We are

also working unrelentingly to help provide an environment of political stability and peace conducive

to sustainable development. We are not doing this with any other intention but for our humanitarian

responsibilities. It is our greatest wish that the leadership demonstrated by Turkey in this direction will

set an example for the entire international community.

83

Mr. President,

For us the United Nations symbolizes an ideal which must uphold international law and justice over

sheer force and oppression; peace over conflict; and the conscience of humanity over parochial

interests.The biggest obstacle preventing the realization of this ideal is the Arab-Israel conflict which

has continued more than half a century. The failure to resolve this conflict and in its stead, sacrificing

law and justice at every occasion for the sake of political sensitivities deal a great blow to the sense of

international justice. Israel has not complied with 89 binding resolutions adopted by the UN Security

Council on this issue up to date. In addition to that, there are hundreds of General Assembly resolutions

which have been totally disregarded by Israel. Even worse, the UN is not able to take any step to stop

the human tragedy suffered by the Palestinian people.This situation causes great dismay on the part of

the international community. At present, it is obvious that this conflict can no longer remain unresolved

and that the international community must act urgently to heal this bleeding wound. In this regard, it

is obvious that the problem stems from the Government of Israel. This country’s leaders are building

new barriers to peace each day, instead of taking the necessary steps towards peace. In this context,

illegal settlements, which are still under way in the occupied territories of Palestine despite the calls

by the international community, and the blockade on Gaza stand out in particular. As we have stated

before, the leaders of Israel must make a choice. The loopholes of the UN system and certain lobby

groups in some countries help Israel to evade international law and justice for its illegitimate actions.

However, this will not yield the security that Israel needs most today. The leaders of Israel must

understand that real security can be possible only through building genuine peace. I would like to call

upon Israel once again from this rostrum: “Nothing can be a substitute for peace. What we are faced

with today is not a simple “peace for security” equation. You must better analyze the new political and

social landscape emerging in the Middle East and realize that it is not possible to sustain the state of

perpetual conflict and confrontation.” As the international community, if we believe in the ideal of

building international peace and security, the founding principle of the UN, then it is necessary to

compel Israel to peace despite its own leaders and demonstrate clearly that this country is not above

the law.

The most important step that needs to be taken in this direction is to meet the legitimate demands of

the Palestinian people for being recognized as a state and to allow the representatives of the State of

Palestine to take their well-deserved place in this august Assembly, as a member of the UN. Turkey’s

support to the recognition of the State of Palestine is unconditional. Turkey is ready and willing to

exert every effort to help build peace in the Middle East. In this regard, we will continue to work

actively for the resolution of the Arab- Israeli conflict, for the recognition of the State of Palestine, for

the attainment of inter-Palestinian unity and for of the lifting of the illegal blockade enforced against

the people of Gaza. This commitment is not only a natural extension of our vision for regional peace

and stability or our commitment to international law and justice, but it also emanates from our sense

of responsibility against humanity. Likewise, the reaction we have shown towards Israel, which killed

nine innocent civilians during its attack against a humanitarian aid convoy in international waters, is

yet another manifestation of this stance. Turkey has never pursued hostile and confrontational policies

against any other country. On the contrary, we have always followed a foreign policy based on

cooperation and friendship. Israel is no exception to this. However, Israel has made a grave mistake

against a country and its people, which have shown only friendship to it throughout history, and insisted

on not realizing its mistake. Our demands from Israel are known. Our position will not change unless

Israel takes the necessary steps to redress its mistake and meet our demands. I wish to stress in

particular that we have no problem with the Israeli people. The problem emanates from the aggressive

policies of the Israeli government. In fact, with the previous Israeli governments, we have worked

constructively and made progress on many issues. Whereas now, the source of the tension is merely

and solely the current Israeli government. Turkey is a responsible and trustworthy country, whose

friendship and cooperation is sought in the international arena. We will never make any concessions

from this principled and determined policy.

Mr. President,

We are witnessing a historic process of transformation and change in the Middle East. From the very

first days of the outbreak of events, we made a clear call to the regimes in the region. “Lend and ear to

the calls of your people for democracy. Because, the ultimate source of legitimacy for every

government is, above all, the people and its will. What needs to be done is to ensure the materialization

of the people’s will in a free and open manner. “We have also said that sovereignty belongs to the

nation. Sovereignty which does not rest on the nation’s will is not legitimate. “Sovereignty does not

allow any leader or any regime to repress its own people or kill innocent civilians. A regime pointing

84

guns to its own people can have no sovereignty or legitimacy. “Today, everyone must understand that

times have changed. At present there can be no place for governments which do not meet the legitimate

needs and expectations of its people, point guns to its citizens, and choose oppression instead of justice

and law.” We are happy to see that our calls have been heeded in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, opening

up the way to a democratic transformation process in line with the legitimate demands of the people.

This is giving us hope for the future. However, we observe with regret that there are still countries,

which stay behind the events and act with wrong reflexes due to their outdated state of mind.

It is in this context that we follow closely the developments unfolding in our neighbor Syria. We have

warned the Syrian leadership on several occasions upon witnessing the regrettable acts of the Syrian

regime against its own people, which are of great concern for all of us. Only friends can speak the bitter

truth. Indeed, we acted in line with this principle and told our Syrian friends that they have to lend an

attentive ear to the call of the Syrian people for democracy, that no regime pointing guns to its own

people can survive, and that oppression does not yield prosperity. However, the Syrian leadership has

resisted heeding our warnings. Now, every drop of blood spilt is tearing apart the Syrian leadership

from its people. Turkey will continue to support the democratic demands of the peoples, both in Syria

and other countries, and encourage regimes to take steps in this direction. We expect and urge the

international community to do the same. In this regard, our close cooperation with Tunisia and Egypt

to this end continues unabated. Likewise, having already provided all kinds of support to the National

Transition Council in Libya, Turkey today feels proud to be the first country to appoint its Ambassador

to the new Libya. We will continue to be the staunch supporter of this new Libya, which takes her well-

deserved place in the UN as a democratic, united and independent state. During my visit to Libya last

week, I went to Tripoli, Tajura, Misurata and Benghazi. I have seen in person that the Libyan people

were rightly proud of their revolution. I have also witnessed the destruction in Misurata. I now want to

call upon the entire international community to be very sensitive on the following points: Libya belongs

to the Libyans. So does Libya’s rich resources. At a time democracy is being established in Libya, the

country’s frozen assets abroad should be released immediately so that Libya can stand on its own feet

and that they do not suffer from poverty while they have all the necessary resources. Libyan people are

strong enough to determine their own future. Their choices must be respected.

Mr. President,

In Cyprus, a fair, comprehensive and lasting solution must be found to this long overdue problem,

which has lasted more than half a century. The UN plan put forward in 2004 has demonstrated that the

parameters of a solution are there but that the Greek Cypriot side lacks the necessary will to make it a

reality. On the other hand, the Turkish Cypriot side has still not been freed from the isolation imposed

upon her, even though she has always expressed her full determination towards a solution. Despite this,

the Turkish Cypriot side has remained committed to a peaceful solution and participated with good

will in the negotiations resumed under the auspices of the UN. The objective is to finalize the

negotiations until the end of this year, have the settlement plan endorsed in simultaneous referenda at

the beginning of next year, and thus enable a united new Cyprus to take her place in the EU without

further delay. Turkey will continue to provide every support to reach a solution as soon as possible, in

line with this timetable. However, I would like to emphasize that, if the intransigent attitude of the

Greek Cypriot side does not permit this to happen, we will not let the future of the Turkish Cypriots to

remain uncertain forever. At this critical juncture we can also not accept any attempt by the Greek

Cypriot side to act as if they are the sole representative of the Island or have the authority to make

decisions on behalf of the Turkish Cypriots. In this regard, the attempts by the Greek Cypriot side to

unilaterally determine maritime jurisdiction areas and to engage in oil and natural gas exploration

activities in these fields are extremely irresponsible both in terms of timing and possible outcomes. In

the face of these unilateral activities of the Greek Cypriot side, which appear to aim at provoking a

crisis, Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot side will act with common sense but will also protect resolutely

their rights emanating from international law. At this point, we expect all the concerned parties to work

actively to ensure that the Greek Cypriot Administration halts these activities which can lead to tension

not only on the Island, but also in the entire region. Otherwise, we will do whatever is necessary.

Mr. President,

The illegitimate invasion of Azerbaijani territories, which has been going on for years now, has to end.

It is unacceptable to let the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remain unresolved as such. Finding solutions

to international problems before they become acute is a political and moral responsibility for all of us.

In this respect, more effective efforts have to be exerted to resolve the Kashmir conflict and many other

85

frozen disputes which I don’t have time to name here. On the other hand, the road to peace and stability

in the Balkans goes through the recognition of Kosovo’s independence.

Mr. President,

Turkey has always been a staunch supporter of the principles and goals enshrined in the Charter of the

United Nations. I believe that we showed our commitment in this respect during our non-permanent

membership in the Security Council in 2009-2010. I also believe that our effective performance during

that period serves as a testament for what we intend to do if elected to Security Council for the years

2015-2016. In this regard, I would like to use this opportunity to underline once again that we count

on the support of all the members of the General Assembly for Turkey’s candidacy to a non-permanent

seat in the Security Council for the period of 2015-2016. As yet another manifestation of our support

to UN goals, we are also determined to pursue the Istanbul Action Plan adopted at the Fourth United

Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, which we hosted in Turkey early this year. We

are also continuing our efforts to put into practice, as soon as possible, the package of economic and

technical cooperation that we declared for the Least Developed Countries. As part of this package,

which include many areas of cooperation ranging from trade to education, agriculture to energy, we

are aiming to provide these countries with an annual assistance of 200 million USD. We also envisage

increasing our direct investments in these countries to 5 and 12 billion USD in 2015 and 2020

respectively. In our mind, security, development and respect for human rights are integral parts of the

same whole and thus constitute the most fundamental guarantee for lasting peace. Turkey will continue

to work towards the attainment of these fundamental objectives of the UN and exert every effort to

leave a safer and more prosperous world to future generations.

Thank you.

86

2012 speech delivered by Minister of Foreign Affairs Davotoglu

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General,

Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates,

At the outset, I wish to congratulate my dear friend His Excellency Vuk Jeremic for his election as the

President of the 67th General Assembly. I believe with his able leadership he will contribute greatly to work

of the General Assembly.

Mr. President, Distinguished Delegates,

I want to be frank and speak the language of the peoples we all represent. Every year, we all gather here at

the United Nations, the embodiment of the human quest for peace, security and international order. We

exchange views on the daunting challenges that we all face and express our strong commitment to resolve

them. On many manners, we speak as one, yet we often fail to act in unity. We express our commitment to

the settlement of the frozen conflicts. We have time and again declared our support for a two-state solution

to the Palestine, and excepted numerous resolutions to this end. However, we still hope, one day, Palestine

will be represented as an equal member in this Assembly. For instance, we underline the need for a solution

to Nagorno-Karabakh in accordance with the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, yet there has been no single

step towards resolution of this problem for the last two decades. Yet again, the Cyprus problem has

remained unresolved for almost half a century. Nearly a decade has passed since the UN Settlement Plan

of 2004, which was endorsed by the entire international community. However, the Turkish Cypriots

continue to face isolation, unlawful and unjust embargo as if it was a token of appreciation for their support

for UN-led settlement. My point speaks for itself: while we cannot resolve current problems, each year we

find ourselves besieged by ever mounting new ones. Terrorists continue to strike and take lives of innocent

people. Yet, we still have effective international response and adequate solidarity against the scourge of

terrorism. Today, some states employ methods of state violence and brutal oppression with impunity that

cost lives of the innocent citizens that they are obliged to protect. We firmly believe that human life is

sacred. And life is the foremost blessing for any human being whoever and wherever they are. However,

millions of people live in poverty and under oppression. They are deprived of their fundamental rights and

freedoms, suffering extreme conditions that no human being should ever live through. To soothe our

collective conscience, we constantly reiterate pledges to help alleviate the misery of these people. However

we fall short of matching our words with deeds. We live in perpetual hope. After all, as human beings, we

are the children of hope. For us, every dawn, every sunrise, and every spring signifies a beginning of hope.

We yearn for peace, and idealize peace. It is the essence of our nature. Humanity expects from us, the

leaders of nations, to move mankind toward real peace. However, we lag far behind in meeting the

expectations of our nations.

If it is not for us to provide relief and give hope to a child living in a refugee camp or in open prisons in

certain parts of the world, then what is the prospect that we will cultivate real peace? When a child opens

his eyes to a world of extreme poverty and oppression in a refugee camp or in the streets of her

neighbourhood; when a parent leaves behind a destroyed house, orphans and widows, how can we prevent

them not to succumb to despair and pessimism? If we cannot regard the rights of a person in Syria, Palestine,

Somalia, Afghanistan and Rakhine region and other places, as equal as of our own, how can we talk about

freedom and justice? If fundamental human rights are being forfeited for the sake of power politics, and

become negotiable and even alienable in talks among a few nations in the UN Security Council, how are

we to achieve universal human rights and security? If we remain incapable to take actions to preserve the

universal principles that the forefathers of the United Nations set out when forming this body, how can we

demonstrate to the people that the flag of the UN represents hope and a safeguard for their destiny? If the

use of force is accepted as an unlimited means. If indiscriminate attacks and collective punishment becomes

weapons in the hands of cruel regimes against their own citizens, as we are witnessing everyday - day and

night - in Syria: If we fail to hear and rise up to the cry of innocent masses wherever they are, and if we

cannot force these brutal regimes to submit to justice and the rule of law, how are we to maintain

international peace and security? The peaceful world, as the founders of the United Nations envisioned,

cannot be established if we remain ineffective in our work against these challenges.

Let us not forget: Our inability to act becomes the tool in the hands of despots and destructive regimes to

demolish their cities, towns and villages, massacre their own citizens, and make a mockery of the civilized

world and the United Nations. Our failure to address a humanitarian crisis shakes our collective conscience.

87

Worse, however, our inaction eventually emboldens oppressors and aggressive regimes, creates evil

alliances to perpetuate and commit crimes against humanity. And let us make no mistake:

Mercy shown to an oppressor is the most merciless act toward people under oppression. And if not now,

when are we supposed to act in unity? And if not the United Nations, who is to lead? If it is not us, who

will shoulder the responsibility to protect the innocent civilians? And let us now imagine that we are in the

shoes of those people, how can we even dream about a real future?

Distinguished delegates,

We need a strong, efficient and credible UN. To this end, we must first tackle the long outstanding issue of

the UN reform to make it fit for purpose. The working methods and structures of the UN are not

commensurate with the current realities of the world. The UN Security Council, with its primary

responsibility to maintain international peace and security, should become more representative and

functional. It has to respond to the real needs of the world. That is the only way that it will remain relevant

in the enormous challenges that we all face. I can freely appeal to your conscience, as Turkey has solid

record, be it Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Bosnia or cooperation with the LDC’s, the

Alliance of Civilizations initiative and the Mediation for Peace among many.


Allow me now to briefly touch upon some specific issues, which contribute to pose formidable challenges

for the international community. Let me start and underline that the recent attack against the Prophet

Mohammad – peace be upon him – and Islam are outright provocations. They aim to pit nations and peoples

against each other. We deplore in the strongest terms the malicious attempts to denigrate the most sacred

values of Islam and any faith. We condemn all sorts of incitement to hatred and religious discrimination

against Moslems and people of other faiths. Unfortunately, Islamophobia has also become a new form of

racism like anti-Semitism. It can no longer be tolerated under the guise of freedom of expression. Freedom

does not mean anarchy. It means responsibility. The purpose of the Islamophobia is clear and simple: It

aims to create an abstract, and an imaginary enemy from the millions of peace loving Moslems all over the

world. Regretfully, accepting generalities, stereotypes and prejudice as truth, many people unknowingly

become Islamophobic. However, no agenda, no provocation, no attack, no incitement of hatred can darken

the bright face of Islam. At the same time, we condemn all sorts of provocations and violence that led to

the loss of lives in many countries, including the US Ambassador in Libya. I express our sincere

condolences for all who have lost their lives. Violence against innocent people cannot be justified under

any pretext. Any such activity, no matter by whom it is carried our or for what purpose, is a betrayal against

the soul, spirit and letter of Islam. However, the recent events are testament to a more serious problem that

should concern not just Moslems, but the adherents of all faiths and religions. The alarming increase in the

number of acts that defame religions and thereby people who adhere to such religions, have now serious

implications for international peace and security. Therefore, time has come to establish denigration of all

religions and their followers as a hate crime. We have to take swift measures. We cannot and we shall not

leave our future vulnerable to the reckless provocations of all sorts of extremists. We need to craft a

universal policy and legal instrument that while protecting free expression, should also ensure respect for

religion and prevent the intentional insults against everyone’s faith. The solution should not be arbitrary. It

has to focus on those who defame a faith with the intention of inciting discrimination, hostility or violence.

We have to find a balance between protecting the rights of an individual or group to free expression and

protecting the right of another individual or group to not to become the target of hatred, emotional, incited

or psychological violence. So from this stage, I would like to make a strong appeal to the members of the

international community to step up all necessary instruments in combating all acts of hate crime, including

the denigration of religions and defamation of their followers. The United Nations, in particular, must lead

this effort and should provide the international legal framework to this end. We are resolved to actively

pursue this objective and work diligently with the like-minded nations and international organizations to

ensure that we take a united and effective stance against Islamophobia and all forms of hate crimes.

On the other hand, we are well aware of the need to ensure the safety, security and protection of the

diplomats. In the last four decades, Turkish nation lost its 33 diplomats because of the ASALA terrorism.

We encourage the UN to focus on a new understanding for protection of the diplomats.


As a mockery of the values we all share, the people of Syria continue to suffer under the brutality and the

tyranny of the regime in Damascus for the last 18 months. The numbers speak in volume. More than 30

thousand people were killed so far, around 300 hundred thousand Syrian fled to neighbouring countries,

88

and about 1 million people are internally displaced. Unfortunately, this humanitarian tragedy has become

just a statistic for many. And what has the international community done to stop this carnage? Literally

nothing… We are yet to see a single effective action to save innocent lives. It is such a disgrace to witness

that today, after 20 years, the ghosts of Serebrenica and Halapcha still continue to haunt us, this time in the

cities of Syria. One can argue about the reasons for the failure of the Security Council to stop violence of

the Syrian regime. However, there can be no legitimate explanation for the failure of the Security Council

to reflect the collective conscience of the international community. It has to uphold its primary

responsibility to maintain international peace and security. It is the inability of the Security Council to act

that still encourages the Syrian regime to kill ever more people. If the Security Council does not follow the

conscience of the international community that was reflected by the resolutions adopted with more than

two thirds of vote in this General Assembly, who will respond to the cries of the Syrian people? For how

long we, the international community, will allow this humanitarian tragedy to continue? The responsibility

to protect the people of Syria is our fundamental duty. No political differences, no balance of power politics,

no geopolitical considerations should prevail over our conscience and our concern for the destiny of the

Syrian people. More importantly, the situation in Syria has evolved into a real threat to regional peace and

security. The Syrian regime deploys every instrument tot turn the legitimate struggle of the Syrian people

into a sectarian war, which will engulf the entire region into flames. And unfortunately, the longer this

regime is allowed to wage its campaign of violence, the harder it will be to prevent such a dreadful

eventuality. It is high time that the UN Security Council must take action as this Assembly called for. There

has to be a solution to ensure the immediate safety and security of the Syrian people. There has to be a

solution for a sound transition process that will pave the way for the creation of a new and democratic Syria.

The regime in power has to step down and allow an interim Government to lead the country to free and fair

elections. The Syrian people need our united support and solidarity in their struggle for their future and for

having the right to a legitimate and representative government. The Turkish nation stood by their brethren,

the Syrian people, in their legitimate struggle. We now care for 90 thousand displaced Syrians. And let me

underline once again: Since the beginning of the conflict we never have and we will never hesitate to be

with our Syrians brothers and sisters at their most difficult hour.


Another tragedy that has long been taking place before our eyes in the Middle East is Palestine. This is the

fourth General Assembly where we keep on stressing the unacceptability and unsustainability of the

situation in Gaza. However, to date, there has been no progress. As a result, in the fourth year of the

unlawful blockade by Israel, the people and particularly the children in Gaza continue to live in despair,

desolation and fear. There have been many decisions and resolutions adopted in the UN calling for the

lifting of this blockade. But as for today Israel persists in its illegal policy and thus causes misery and

anguish in Gaza. In fact, we see the same attitude by Israel over the entire occupied Palestinian territories.

Despite insistent calls by the international community, it carries on with its illegal settlements on Palestinian

land and this deliberately undermines the prospects of a peaceful two-state solution. Indeed, when President

Mahmoud Abbas spoke at this Assembly last year and declared the right of Palestine to be recognised as

an independent state, I remember seeing the whole Assembly in standing ovation. But today, we are yet to

see the State of Palestine as an equal member of this Assembly. How can we convince the Palestinian

people that the international community is serious about a two-state solution while no UN resolution helped

their just cause for an independent state of Palestine. Turkey will certainly support the Palestinian people

in their quest for statehood, dignity and peace.

Mr. President, Distinguished Guests,

While the whole world’s attention is rightly focused on the Middle East, we should not forget that there are

serious human tragedies elsewhere too. And we do not have the luxury to turn a blind eye to any human

suffering. As I have personally witnessed during my visit in June, the people of Rakhine region and

especially the Rohingya Moslems are in desperate need of humanitarian assistance. The democratization

process underway in Myanmar provides us with a window of opportunity as the government repeatedly

stressed its readiness to cooperate with the international community for easing the suffering of these people.


Before concluding my remarks, I wish to touch upon yet another long-standing conflict, which also requires

immediate practical steps towards a fair and lasting solution. I am referring to the Cyprus problem.

Unfortunately, the new round of talks started in 2008, are stuck with no end in sight, dut to Greek Cypriots’

intransigence and lack of political will. And today, despite half a century’s experience and body of UN

work, there is still not a clear perspective for solution. The Turkish Cypriots have so far proven their firm

89

commitment to a negotiated solution, but yet remain subject to inhumane and unlawful embargo. This is

simply unfair. They should not be forced to play this game for an indefinite period without a clear

perspective and timeline for a solution. The international community must not remain indifferent to what

is happening in Cyprus either. After all, the continuation of the problem creates additional risks for the

stability of the region. Moreover, the unilateral exploration of oil and natural gas by the Greek Cypriots

around the island further intensifies the risks. Under theses circumstances, the UN must do more than what

it currently does. The Security Council in particular has to facilitate a solution rather than merely sustaining

the status quo. A change of mentality is essential. There should be a distinction between those that seek and

aspire for a solution and those who reject it. It is no longer enough to play lip service to a bi-zonal, bi-

communal federation. It is time to act before it is too late.


In concluding, I wish to go back to what I said at the beginning of my remarks. We are at the end of the

opening session of yet another UN General Assembly. We all expressed our desire and commitment for a

more peaceful and prosperous world. However, ensuring positive change can only be realized if our actions

match our words and promises. Every attempt to achieve our objective for real peace, Every moment we

spend to uphold the right and justice, Every effort we make for freedoms and human rights, however small,

will provide the biggest comfort for those who struggle to have a say on their destiny. A while ago, I asked

if not now, when…This year let us make a difference and let us hope that we will not repeat the same

question next September.

Thank you.

90

2013 speech delivered by President Gül

I wish to start by extending our sincere congratulations to Mr. John Ashe on his assumption of the

presidency of the General Assembly at its sixty-eighth session.

At the dawn of the twenty-first century, we had every reason to be optimistic about the future.

With the end of the Cold War, the moral balance of the world shifted towards the pursuit of peace.

A lasting peace is far more than the mere absence of war. We, the international community,

understood the imperative of working together for a stable world order. We maintain our strong

commitment to the universal principles of the United Nations system and, in a spirit of solidarity

and cooperation, we develop effective international responses to the scourge of terrorism. Yet

the most profound crises of our times have been emerging from internal conflicts. Such conflicts

have been increasing in both frequency and magnitude. They are largely driven by the problem of

political legitimacy, which leads the governed to withhold their consent and limits the prospects for

domestic order. Leaders without political legitimacy share a common delusion. Instead of reading

the future and leading transformation, they believe that they can buy time with irresponsible actions

against their own people. Eventually, those domestic conflicts escalate into civil wars, such as the

tragedy we are witnessing in Syria. The actions of those leaders have implications for peace and

security beyond their own borders. If some leaders insist on defining their security in a way that

inflicts insecurity upon other nations there can be no collective security.Today regional and

international peace and security depend upon the maintenance of domestic order in each individual

nation. True domestic peace is the key to regional and international peace and stability That is a

challenge that we will continue to face in the years ahead. We all know that no one holds a

monopoly on righteousness, yet I would like to touch upon the function of the whole United

Nations system. We all need a strong, efficient and credible United Nations. We need a United

Nations fit for its purpose in confronting current global realities. The United Nations of which I

speak should be a body capable of taking action to maintain international peace and security. It

should be able to safeguard security, justice and the people’s fundamental rights and freedoms.

It should never forfeit its prime responsibility for the sake of power politics. We must realize that

inaction by the Security Council only emboldens aggressive regimes. We need a United Nations

capable of forcing the perpetrators of brutal actions to submit to justice and the rule of law. Only

through such a United Nations can we achieve the truly peaceful world envisioned by the

Organization’s founders. Yet as much as that remains a noble goal, it is also an urgent necessity.

Decisive action is the only way that the United Nations system will remain relevant and credible.

To face that new reality, we need a Security Council that is truly democratic, representative,

effective and accountable.

No issue facing us is more pressing than the situation in Syria. Let me be clear. Turkey welcomes

and firmly supports the United States-Russian agreement to eliminate Syria’s arsenal of chemical

weapons. That agreement has to be translated into a tangible Security Council resolution. When Syria

comes clean about its arsenal, once and for all, it will be a relief for the Syrian people and the region.

As Syria’s neighbour, Turkey will appreciate more than most the complete and verifiable destruction

of those weapons. Nevertheless, we cannot forget that chemical weapons were used against Syrian

civilians only a month ago. The perpetrators of that crime against humanity must be held accountable

and be brought to justice. I also see the agreement on Syrian chemical weapons as an opportunity. I

hope it will be a first step in the formation of a security architecture to ensure the elimination of all

weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Yet the recent approach to the situation in Syria also

raises difficult questions. Were it not for the use of chemical weapons, would the international

community have continued to turn a blind eye to the deaths of more than 100,000 people? For how

long can we afford to evade our moral responsibility to the people being killed even as we speak

here? The conflict neither began with the use of chemical weapons nor will it end with an

agreement to eliminate them. We therefore bluntly reject any position that is not troubled by the

killing of innocent people in itself, but only by the means of such killing. Such an approach is

immoral and totally unacceptable. The agreement to destroy Syria’s chemical arsenal must not

allow the regime to avoid responsibility for its other crimes. Syria, a great country and a great

nation, is consuming itself. It is a disgrace that the Security Council has failed to uphold its

primary responsibility in that case. It is deeply regrettable that political differences, balance-of-

power politics and geopolitical considerations have prevailed over the imperative to end the

tragedy. Staying on this course cannot be an option. When the tragedy began, we spoke of the

killing of hundreds of people, then thousands, then tens of thousands, and now we speak of over

91

a hundred thousand deaths. If we cannot stop the conflict now, rest assured that we will be talking

about twice that number next year. I cannot emphasize this enough. Agreement on chemical

weapons must not be allowed to substitute for a comprehensive political strategy to address the

situation in Syria. The conflict has evolved into a real threat to regional peace and security. Any

recurrence of the proxy wars of the Cold War era will plunge Syria into further chaos.

The continuation of the refugee crisis will pose vital social, political and economic risks for the host

nations, as we have learned bitterly on many occasions. We know that civil wars are among the most

brutal. We also know how they foster radicalism and extremism. Once extremist groups take root in

a State, they form autonomous structures and become a real threat to security, not only at home but

also abroad. In the end, dissolving such organizations presents the greatest challenge to restoring

security in a country.

We must be aware of the threat and realize that with each day we lose in indecision, the more remote

the prospects for a peaceful Syria become. After the Syrian people took to the streets against the

regime, many international statements were made to support their cause, strong in their wording and

promises. Those apparent commitments raised the hopes of the Syrian people. Yet many nations

remained at a comfortable distance, disturbed only by the horrible images from Syria. Meanwhile,

the Syrian people’s cries for help went unheeded. What could match the Syrian people’s

disappointment as they suffered the worst massacre of the twenty-first century as the international

community simply looked on. That brings me to the question of what needs to be done. There has

to be a sound strategy with well- defined and well-calculated objectives for a peaceful solution.

It has to aim to end Syria’s civil war, ensuring the immediate safety and security of the Syrian

people and the country’s stable transition. The enforcement of such a strategy requires a fully

determined, committed and robust international engagement — exactly what has been missing

since the beginning of the conflict. In short, we cannot and shall not leave the Syrian people to

their fate. The burden of ending Syria’s plight now rests on the shoulders of the international

community. Strong words of support must now be matched by real deeds. We must be relentless

in our search for a new, stable, intact and secure Syria, at peace with its people and its neighbours.

To that end, we must devise and enforce a political strategy led by the Permanent Five and the

neighbouring countries. For the last three years, the Middle East has been experiencing a

remarkable era of social and political change. The process of transformation begun in 2010 marks

the end of the century-old, region-wide status quo. Of course, there have been and will be waves

of reaction against the changes. Nevertheless, the advances in the region, including in Tunisia,

Libya and Egypt, are irreversible. Arab peoples are equally capable of building pluralistic societies.

Yet we should not expect the newly emerging political systems to transform into mature democracies

overnight. It is only through slow but steady democratic processes that societies will come to

understand the value of conciliation. The noble cause of the Arab peoples deserves our full and

unhesitating support. The continuation of the Palestinian question for more than half a century

has inflicted colossal damage on the very concept of justice. The denial of the right of the

Palestinians to have a State of their own has no justification on any moral, political or legal

ground. Despite insistent calls of the international community, the continued expansion of the

illegal settlements on Palestinian land undermines the prospects for a two- State solution.

The case for peace is self-evident. We therefore welcome and strongly support the talks initiated

between the parties under the auspices of the United States. The success of future efforts mainly

depends on the Israeli Government’s acceptance of the establishment of a viable, contiguous

Palestinian State. There is also a need for the presence of a reconciled and unified Palestinian

front. That brings us to another issue upon which our credibility rests — the question of Cyprus.

Repeated attempts towards a peaceful settlement have ended in failure, including the rejection of the

Annan plan in 2004. Turkey, as a guarantor, is fully and sincerely committed to finding a just and

negotiated settlement. We therefore expect the international community to urge the Greek Cypriots

to reciprocate by engaging in result-oriented, time-framed negotiations in good faith. Those who

must solve this question are the Turks and Greeks of Cyprus. They must start negotiating as soon as

next month, with no ifs or buts. The settlement of the Cyprus question is essential to a stable and

peaceful eastern Mediterranean. Frozen conflicts hinder effective regional cooperation. We

strongly urge peaceful resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict and achieving sustainable

peace in the Caucasus, based on territorial integrity. We have proposed a comprehensive strategy

for regional economic cooperation and development, combined with gradual withdrawal from

the occupied territories. We believe that can serve as a solid basis for regional peace. Another area

where regional cooperation is in high demand is the Balkans. In the last few years, Turkey has

bolstered its efforts to build strong ties with all Balkan nations. Our objective is to create an

92

atmosphere of dialogue, trust, mutual understanding and conciliation. We also have a dependable

interest in a secure, prosperous and peaceful Afghanistan. Here, too, regional cooperation and

ownership is a must. For that reason, I have personally initiated and led the efforts to establish

the Trilateral Summit process among Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkey. Since 2007, it has proven

a real success, and I am confident that more success will follow.Another important issue that

affects us all is terrorism. It is real, extremely dangerous, and a crime against humanity, and it must

be defeated. We can defeat it only when we get rid of “my terrorist/your terrorist” distinctions.

Effective international partnership against terrorism remains a key priority for Turkey. There is yet

another issue that needs our attention. Unfortunately, Islamophobia has become a new form of

racism. It aims to create an abstract, imaginary enemy from the millions of peace-loving Muslims

all over the world. It is essential to strike a balance between protecting freedom of expression

and preserving respect for faiths. The current challenges of development are matters of global

concern. Turkey is now runing a comprehensive assistance and direct investment package for

the world’s least developed countries. Humanitarian diplomacy is a key objective of Turkish

foreign policy. In fact, Turkey became the fourth- largest donor last year. Including the

contributions of Turkish non-governmental organizations in the fields of health, education, and

capacity-building, Turkey’s humanitarian assistance totals $2 billion per year. Our engagement

in Somalia is an exemplary case. We have allocated $300 million so far. Our approach to Africa

is one of equal partnership and is best captured in the African proverb which states, “If you want to

go fast, go alone. But if you want to go far, go together.” For Turkey, relations with Africa remain a

key priority.

Turkey is a candidate for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council for the term 2015-2016. If

elected, Turkey will bring an independent voice to the Security Council, one that listens to all and

tries to find comprehensive and lasting solutions through dialogue. We expect the support of all

Members for our candidacy. I believe that the new millennium is one in which democracy, rule of

law, respect for human rights and global welfare will continue to expand. I believe that an international

peace shaped by freedom, justice, dignity, social progress and economic welfare is within our reach.

We must join our strength to build an enduring international order that is worthy of the principles of

the Charter of the United Nations. A stable, secure, and prosperous world is the best way to secure

and advance all of our interests. Achieving such a world remains our fundamental responsibility to

our nations.

93

2014 speech addressed by President Erdogan

I greet the Assembly respectfully, and I hope that its sixty- ninth session will provide favourable

results for all countries, peoples and humankind. I would like to congratulate you, Sir, on your election

as the President of the Assembly at its sixty-ninth session and to thank Mr. John William Ashe for

his work as President at the sixty-eighth session. The sixty-ninth session of the General Assembly

is being held on the hundredth anniversary of the First World War, which broke out in 1914. We

sadly see that lands affected by the First World War are still deprived of stability, peace and

prosperity even after a century. A wide area — ranging from Iraq to Syria, from Palestine to

Yemen, from Libya to Afghanistan and to Ukraine — is witnessing scenes that leave deep scars

on the conscience of humankind. People still die from hunger and communicable diseases in the

twenty-first century. Children and women are brutally murdered in wars. The poor countries

struggle with hunger, malnutrition, communicable diseases and lack of education, while the rich

countries of the world enjoy prosperity. Climate change poses a major threat to the future of our

world and that of our children. That situation, which is a stain on human dignity, directly concerns

all of humankind and therefore, of course, the United Nations. Let me again, at this sixty-ninth

session, stress that no one is innocent in a world in which children are killed, no one is safe, and

no one can enjoy peace and prosperity. In the past year alone, 6.3 million children under five years

of age lost their lives worldwide. As a result of the war in Syria, 17,000 children have died,

375,000 have been injured, and 19,000 have lost at least one body part. This year 490 children were

killed and 3,000 were injured as direct targets of the most modern and murderous weapons

used against the Gaza Strip in Palestine. As they played on a beach, ran around in a park, took

refuge in a mosque or school, or were comforted in their mothers’ laps, they were mercilessly killed

in front of cameras and before the eyes of the world. We also see that those attempting to draw the

world’s attention to the deaths of women, children and the disabled in Palestine are being variously

labelled by others. Those objecting to the murders in Iraq and Syria and the murder of democracy

in Egypt are again being subjected to certain unfair and groundless accusations and almost

immediately accused of supporting terrorism. The global conscience is aware that those who are

ruthlessly criticizing some countries for lack of freedom of the press are ignoring the 16

journalists killed in Palestine and the pressure put on members of the media. I will speak very

clearly. Those who stand by and remain unresponsive to the killing of children, the vicious murder

of women and the overthrow with weapons and tanks of Governments that have come to power

through the will of the people are openly participating in those crimes against humanity.

Even more significant, the modern world’s double standard leads to substantial and serious

distrust among many people. That feeling of distrust affects the United Nations — where we are

today — and other international organizations and threatens the sense of justice, while filling

millions of people with despair. That distrust plays a principal role in fuelling the growth of

international terrorism today. The double standard with regard to the oppressed and the

indifference to the killing of children help to foment terrorism around the world. Those who lose

hope in the United Nations and other international organizations are desperate and are helpless to

resist the clutches of terrorists. The problems in Iraq have wrought havoc among the Iraqi people.

More recently, the difficulties have spread beyond Iraq’s borders. Unfortunately, Iraq has now

become a haven for terrorist organizations. The current crisis in Iraq directly affects the countries

in the region, particularly Turkey. Given the newly established Government in Iraq, it is our hope

that Iraq will make a fresh start. Turkey will stand by the Iraqi people in their search for peace and

stability. Likewise, the Syrian crisis is spilling over the borders of that country. The unresolved

issue of half a century — Palestine — is already a root cause of many problems in the region.

Implementing a two-State solution, lifting the blockade against Gaza and establishing an

independent, viable State of Palestine alongside Israel is a political, human and moral necessity.

Many have spoken about a two-State solution from this rostrum. However, speaking about it is

not sufficient. It is high time to act. It is no longer appropriate simply to talk about the issue — we

must advance beyond that. Thousands of people are dying while we talk instead of acting. I think,

at this point, it is a sad indication of the limits of our sense of responsibility here at the United

Nations. We must therefore move forward. We must address these problems at the United Nations

without any further delay in order to prevent more deaths of innocent people and arrive at a solution.

Let me also say that the world is larger than the five permanent members of the Security Council. The

fact that they have rendered the United Nations ineffective, despite the situation in the world, must

not be accepted by the global conscience. Otherwise, decisions taken at the United Nations will

94

depend on a single country. That is, if one country disagrees, then a decision will not be taken or

implemented. The United Nations failed to find a solution as more than 2,000 innocent people were

killed within only two months in Palestine.

In Syria, the United Nations failed to find effective solutions as more than 200,000 people were

killed and more than 9 million people were displaced in the past four years. I find it strange that

we focus on issues selectively. If 2,000 people are killed by chemical weapons, then we focus on

chemical weapons, and we consider the killing of 2,000 people by chemical weapons to be a crime.

But what about the killing of 200,000 people by conventional weapons — is that not a crime? I cannot

understand such an approach or such a mentality. Let us clarify our thinking. Let it be understood that

the use of any kind of weapon leading to the deaths of people is a crime, whether by chemical or

conventional means. The elected President in Egypt was overthrown by a coup. Thousands of

people wanted to defend their electoral choice and were killed. Yet, the United Nations and

democratic countries have done nothing but stand by while those events unfolded and the person

who conducted the coup was legitimized. If we wish to speak meaningfully of democracy, then

we should respect the choice of the people at the ballot box. If, on the other hand, we intend to

defend people who come to power via a coup, then I must call into question the whole existence

of the United Nations. The United Nations is also unable to take an effective stance in the face of

uncontrolled events, such as terrorism and migration in Iraq. This silence, desperation and

unresponsiveness can no longer continue. We need more efficient and speedy decision-making

mechanisms if we are to be able to address global and regional problems. Furthermore, the United

Nations should act more courageously in standing up for the right side of the issues. Let me point

out another problem. We do not approve of any kind of terrorism that is supposedly carried out in the

name of religion, and we believe that such acts are hugely disrespectful to all religions. We strongly

condemn tying Islam, which means peace, to terrorism. It is highly offensive that Islam and terror are

spoken of together. Similarly, those who call their inhuman acts Islamic are offending the religion of

Islam, every other religion, and humankind generally. Turkey has been trying very hard to build peace

and prosperity in the region. We do not interfere in the internal affairs of any country; we respect and

support the territorial integrity of every country in the region. Regarding the question of Palestine and

Israel, we have been working to try to achieve a two-State solution based on peace and mutual respect.

Our sensitivity to this issue is based on the principle that the right to live of every human being is

sacred. We have approached the problems in our region on humanitarian and moral grounds

alone, heedless of race, religion, sect or interests. Our country is sheltering 1.5 million people

who have had to leave Syria, and mostly from our own resources. Let me repeat, 1.5 million

refugees are in my country. As the host country, we are providing them with food, medicine and

education. As for support from the rest of the world, there has not been much, unfortunately. So far

we have spent more than $3.5 billion on the Syrian refugees in our country. Of the roughly 4

million Syrian refugees in the world, 1.5 million are in Turkey, with the rest in Jordan, Lebanon,

Iraq, Egypt and other countries. By contrast, I would like to ask what the strong and rich countries

of Europe are doing. So far they have sheltered only 130,000 Syrian refugees — 130,00 in all of

Europe, while in Turkey alone we have 1.5 million, plus the 2.5 million in the other countries I

just mentioned. The crisis in Syria has become a regional and global issue, so much so that it is

impossible to remain indifferent to it, whether for political or humanitarian reasons. On top of

this, we have treated 102 injured civilians from Gaza in our hospitals. Turkey has also taken in

30,000 Yazidis fleeing Iraq, and, just before I came to New York, we opened our borders to Kurds

fleeing Syria. It was Turkey who gave them humanitarian aid. In the past five days alone, the number

of Syrian refugees entering our country exceeded 150,000.

Five hundred years ago, we opened our doors to Jews who had been expelled from Europe. We

have always protected the rights of Christians in Europe, and today we are still opening our arms

to those in need, regardless of their religion, race or sect. I am proud to say that Turkey allocates

2.1 per cent of its national income to humanitarian aid, and as such has become one of the most

generous countries in the world. In addition, thanks to the experience we have gained throughout

history, we have always maintained our objectivity regarding terrorism, sectarian conflicts and other

crises, and we have always based our approach on the defence and protection of people’s rights. I

would like to point out here that Turkey is not a country that supports or condones terrorism.

We have fought terrorism, because we suffered from it for 30 years, and are still suffering from it.

Turkey is also strongly against every kind of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and racism. I have said

myself that anti-Semitism is a crime against humanity, and I may be one of the few political leaders

who has so clearly expressed this to the world. Similarly, the whole world should accept that

Islamophobia is also a crime against humanity.

95

Turkey would like to see a solution to the problem in Cyprus. We would like to see an end to the

occupation of territories in Azerbaijan. We have always voiced our strong support for the territorial

integrity of Ukraine. We stand ready to support regional and global peace at all costs, and we will

continue to be a unique friend to our friends. We will always stand firm against terrorists,

oppressors and killers, especially the killers of children. We will fight for democracy and

prosperity with all our heart and soul. We are always ready to join forces with other countries

within the framework of those ideals and on this common path, and that, of course, is the kind of

cooperation that humankind is seeking today.

In that context, I should also say that we look to the General Assembly to support Turkey in its

candidacy for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council, and we thank the countries that are

backing us. To that end, I hope that the sixty-ninth session of the Assembly will begin the work of

wiping away the tears, blood, poverty and injustice staining the face of the Earth. I wish the Assembly

and its President, Mr. Kutesa, every success, and I would like to convey my country’s sincerest

greetings to all the nations represented here.

96

2015 speech delivered by Prime Minister Davotoglu

I bring warm greetings and hope that the seventieth session of the General Assembly will prove most

fruitful. I would like to congratulate Mr. Mogen Lykketoft on his assumption of the presidency. I

would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to Mr. Sam Kutesa for his time and efforts as

President of the General Assembly at the sixty-ninth session. Seventy years ago, our

Organization was created — in the words of former Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld —

“not to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell”. Looking back, the United Nations

has been instrumental in averting another and even deadlier world war. But it has failed to prevent

people from suffering the pains of hell in many regional conflicts, including those of Bosnia,

Rwanda and, over the past four years, Syria. The tragic story of 3-year-old Aylan should serve as

a reminder of what the United Nations should stand for. Just earlier this month, Aylan’s tiny,

lifeless body washed ashore after the boat he was on capsized in the Aegean. His family was trying

to escape the indiscriminate barrel bombs in his town somewhere in Syria, to an imagined land of

hope anywhere in Europe. The Turkish policeman who found Aylan said that he felt not like an officer

on duty, but like the little boy’s father, helplessly holding his beloved son. Indeed, Aylan was our

baby; he belonged to each and every one of us and to all humankind. From the moment that we found

him, washed ashore and lifeless, we were each plunged into the misery of our own conscience.

We human beings are not merely blank pages in the book of history. We are all capable of both

the best and the worst. This is a simple but powerful fact of our existence that can make us bring

our best to the fore. We must join our efforts, no later than today, to effectively deal with the

increasingly complex and tragic facts facing humanity. For its part, Turkey has assumed more

than its fair share of the burden. Providing protection to more than 2 million Syrians and 200,000

Iraqis, Turkey now shelters the largest number of refugees in the world. Our doors will remain

open. We embrace those fleeing war and persecution. So far, we have invested almost $8 billion,

of which international contributions account for a mere $417 million. To date, 66,000 Syrian

babies have been born in Turkey. Some 9 million medical consultations and 280,000 surgical

operations have been provided to our Syrian refugee population. Currently, 230,000 school-age

Syrian children are receiving a formal education and 460,000 more will be integrated into our

education system by the end of the year. The number of would-be illegal migrants who have

drowned in the Mediterranean Sea has reached a staggering 6,000.Meanwhile, 55,000 seaborne

migrants have been rescued by the Turkish Coast Guard, while 235,000 illegal entrants have been

intercepted by Turkish law enforcement agencies since 2011. More than 4 million Syrians have fled

chemical weapons, missiles and indiscriminate aerial bombardment by the Assad regime and

ground assaults by the terrorist organization Daesh. And more than 12 million internally

displaced persons, almost half of them children, are in desperate need of help. This tragedy will

not end before the people of Syria have a legitimate Government that truly represents their will and

enjoys their full consent. Until then, the international community must act swiftly to protect them in

their homeland, including by creating a safe zone beyond the reach of aerial bombardment by the

regime and ground assault by Daesh and other terrorist organizations. Anyone hoping to solve

the Syrian crisis must think of a Syria without Assad, a vicious tyrant who indiscriminately kills

his own people with chemical weapons and barrel bombs. Every minute he remains in power

adds to the shame of those who support him. As the world must realize, a diplomatic solution to

the crisis should be based on a transition that will lead to political change. Turkey will continue

to work towards that end.

People may no longer hear the voices of the 300,000 who have lost their lives so far. But last week I

met with representatives of the thousands who dared to walk hundreds of miles to Edirne, Turkey, the

last stop on their journey to their imagined land of hope in Europe. I promised to bring their voice to

the world community. I have fulfilled my promise, yet our responsibility remains. Indeed, it was with

that sense of responsibility that we proposed the inclusion of item 130, “Global awareness of the

tragedies of irregular migrants in the Mediterranean basin with specific emphasis on Syrian

asylum-seekers”, in the agenda of the seventieth session. Our proposal was accepted by the

General Assembly on 18 September. We will therefore have the chance to look at viable responses

to the migrant tragedy in the form of partnerships between countries of origin, destination and

transit. That is now a priority matter for all humankind.

97

The people of Syria are not the only ones to suffer. The Palestinian tragedy continues unabated.

In my address to this body on 29 November 2012 (see A/67/PV.44), I called on the international

community to stand in solidarity with the Palestinians in their bid for their own independent

State, for which they have been calling for more than 60 years. Today, we finally witness and

salute the Palestinian flag flying at full mast at the United Nations alongside those of all other

States. That constitutes another significant step towards enabling the parties to come together on

an equal footing at the negotiating table in a process aimed at achieving an equitable and

sustainable peace. The State of Palestine will be independent today or tomorrow, and East

Jerusalem, Al-Quds Al-Sharif, will be its capital, As President Mahmoud Abbas just said, the

Palestinian flag will be raised in Al-Quds Al-Sharif soon, and we will be there to celebrate that

event together. All Muslims and Christians and all nations will freely gather there. The city of

Al-Quds matters for the whole of humankind. It is a city that is sacred to Islam, Judaism and

Christianity, and should be treated accordingly. The expansion of illegal settlements and the

violations targeting the holy sites, Al-Haram Al-Sharif and the Al-Aqsa Mosque in particular,

must immediately and unconditionally stop, if we are to talk about a peace process. The holiness

of Al-Haram Al-Sharif must be respected. We strongly reject and condemn attempts to establish

a temporal and spatial division of Al-Haram Al-Sharif, which is in clear violation of international

law. Members have just heard the statement of His Excellency President Abbas. For us too,

Palestine is an indivisible whole, consisting of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. The

right of Palestinians to live together as one must be recognized. As an integral part of the State of

Palestine, Gaza should be freed from the illegal and inhumane blockade of the past eight years.

Turkey’s commitment to providing the necessary political and economic support for the

Palestinians to lead a dignified life will continue. The current vacuum created on our southern

borders as a result of the crisis in Syria has played into the hands of terrorists, who also target Turkey.

This is a threat that has the potential to spread to the whole region and beyond. Terrorism has no

justification. It should be condemned unconditionally. Any attempt to affiliate terrorism with any

religion or ethnic group is patently misguided and serves only to strengthen the terrorist threat. Today,

as in the past, Turkey is combating terrorism of all kinds, Daesh and the Kurdish Workers Party

included. Our counter-terrorism efforts and our contribution to international cooperation to that end

are well known to our partners. Daesh is a product of the vacuum created by the crisis in Syria.

Fighting Daesh therefore means removing the conditions that created it. Hence, we will never succeed

until Al-Assad goes. We dream of a new democratic multicultural Syria, both without Al-Assad and

without Daesh. We expect our allies, partners and friends to continue to clearly and publicly display

their support for and solidarity with Turkey in its fight against all types of terrorism. The issue of

foreign terrorist fighters is of utmost concern. According to United Nations figures, 25,000 foreign

terrorist fighters are believed to be coming from over 100 countries. This threat needs to be addressed

at its source. Enhancing international cooperation in terms of information exchange is crucial, but

deficiencies in this regard unfortunately continue. For our part, we have included more than 20,000

individuals in our no-entry list since 2011 and have deported more than 2,000 who are intending to

reach conflict regions beyond our borders or are returning from them. From Libya and Yemen to

Ukraine, from South to North and from East to West, the global security environment is fragile.

At a time of such volatility, particularly in our region, Turkey resolutely assumes responsibility in

global issues, to the best of its abilities and within its means. Turkey has become a leading actor

and a trustworthy partner with $3.5 billion dollars of official development assistance. We see a

clear link between sustainable economic development and global stability. One way to ensure this

is through inclusive economic growth where no one in our societies, including women and the

vulnerable, is left behind. Today, half of the world’s population lives on a daily income of under

$2.50, and close to 20,000 children die every day of hunger and poverty. Turkey, as the current

President of the Group of 20 (G-20) since December 2014, has highlighted the importance of

international cooperation, coordination and solidarity in addressing global uncertainties and

risks. We have placed inclusiveness and overcoming inequality at the top of the G-20 agenda. Our

generation has witnessed the highest number of refugees and internally displaced persons since

the Second World War. The great majority of today’s humanitarian crises are conflict-related.

The global humanitarian system is running out of funds and affected people are running out of

time. While Turkey hosts currently the largest number of refugees in the world, it also holds the

Chair of the Global Forum on Migration and Development. Our overarching theme is:

“Strengthening Partnerships: Human Mobility for Sustainable Development”. Our key priorities

include promoting the positive linkages between migration and development. It is high time that

98

we addressed the complex humanitarian agenda in a holistic manner, with a special emphasis on

the humanitarian-development nexus. We therefore look forward to hosting the first ever World

Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul from 23 to 24 May next year. Cultural divides will rob us of

our future if we allow them to. The current conflicts around the world demonstrate the spread of

hatred, discrimination and extremism. These crises result in the segregation of people with specific

ethnic or religious backgrounds, and they also hinder tolerance, coexistence and harmony among

civilizations. We must avoid alienation, exclusion and the vilification of certain communities and

religions if we want to bring down the walls that divide us. We must act together against all

forms of racism and xenophobia, including Islamophobia, without exception. Only then can we

collectively fight against extremism, radicalization and terrorism in an effective manner. We must

encourage inclusiveness and democratic legitimacy, and must respect the people’s will and

consent. We cannot condone the prioritization of oppressive security vis-à-vis universal rights and

freedoms that we have collectively undersigned at the United Nations. Our differences may remain,

yet our collective abilities to overcome the divides must be strengthened. The United Nations Alliance

of Civilizations, a project initiated nearly 10 years ago jointly by Turkey and Spain, aims to provide

lasting solutions in that respect. There are many ways to respond to unfounded fear, mistrust and

hatred in societies and among nations. Conflict is one. But there is a peaceful means of preventing

and resolving conflicts: mediation. Turkey, together with Finland, launched the Mediation for Peace

initiative at the United Nations five years ago. It has attracted considerable interest and yielded

tangible results in heightening awareness of the importance of the peaceful resolution of conflicts. We

wish to see a political solution to the crisis in Ukraine based on Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the

principles of the Minsk agreements. Any solution to this conflict should also ensure the rights and

security of the Crimean Tatars. In terms of peace, security and prosperity in our entire

neighbourhood, the South Caucasus has a prominent place. That region, regrettably, continues

to be destabilized and weakened by three major unresolved conflicts in the greater area of the

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. We are determined to continue our efforts

to facilitate a peaceful resolution to these conflicts on the basis of respect for the sovereignty and

territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the inviolability of its internationally

recognized borders. The same applies to Georgia, where we support unity, territorial integrity and

sovereignty. We welcome the recent steps towards normalization and permanent stability in the

Balkans. We therefore appreciate the progress made so far in the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue.

Turkey is a part of Europe, historically and currently. On the basis of shared universal values, it

continues to work towards its strategic objective of becoming a member of the European Union.

We believe that today Europe needs Turkey more than ever to strengthen its security and

prosperity. Expanding relations and cooperation with Africa has become an important pillar of

Turkey’s multifaceted foreign policy, which puts special emphasis on humanitarian diplomacy. We

will continue to share our experience and knowledge with our African partners and friends on

the basis of mutual benefit and in accordance with the principle of African solutions to African

challenges. In Asia, Turkey has been an integral part of the international efforts aimed at achieving a

lasting peace and stability in Afghanistan. We firmly believe that the international community must

continue its support to Afghanistan.

As I near the end of my remarks, I wish to draw the Assembly’s attention to our continuing

commitment to a just, comprehensive and lasting solution in Cyprus. It must be based on the

political equality of the two peoples and their equal ownership of the island. We expect a lasting

settlement to be reached as soon as possible. And we support the efficient and constructive efforts

of the Turkish Cypriot side to that end. As the world population grows and is expected to reach 10

billion, the international community stands at the threshold of a critical period. Despite our many

achievements, our need for a free, peaceful, stable, prosperous and just world continues. The road

ahead for peace security and human rights will be paved with our good intentions. But most likely,

our best intentions will not be sufficient to respond to the mounting challenges before us. We need

a paradigm shift. The United Nations, as the ultimate global institution representing the vision of

peace, must remain relevant and effective in coping with all the major challenges. Some of those

challenges have already brought new tragedies upon us. Over the past 70 years, both the world and

the United Nations have changed and evolved. However the change in the United Nations is not yet

comprehensive enough to make it fully fit for purpose. Despite the major steps taken so far to

adapt the Organization to the new global realities, any reform will remain incomplete unless it

includes the Security Council. Seventy years ago, the founders of the Organization entrusted it with

the task of protecting the dignity, security and prosperity of all humankind. That task today requires

99

the ability to take firm and decisive action against atrocities committed everywhere by aggressors and

oppressors. The inability to do so not only will jeopardize the lives of millions affected by ongoing

crises, it will threaten all future generations by calling into question the credibility of the United

Nations system. The responsibility to reach the broadest possible consensus on comprehensive reform

to render the Security Council more democratic, representative, inclusive, transparent, effective and

accountable falls upon us all. We owe it not only to future generations but to the visionary founders

of the Organization. So, to add to Secretary-General Hammarskjöld’s vision of the United Nations

as saving humankind, what now befalls this institution is the task of salvaging our shared future.

100

2016 speech delivered by President Erdogan

I greet the General Assembly on behalf of myself, my country and my nation with the utmost respect.

I hope the seventy- first session of the General Assembly will succeed in its purposes and will lead to

favourable results for all countries and nations. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate His

Excellency Mr. Peter Thomson on assuming the presidency of the General Assembly at its seventy-first

session, and I thank His Excellency Mr. Mogens Lykketoft for his work during his presidency during the

previous session, while wishing him luck in his future endeavours. I would also like to thank His

Excellency Mr. Ban Ki-moon for his valuable contributions as he ends his 10- year tenure as Secretary-

General, during which he served in a time of global challenges. Within the first quarter of the twenty-first

century, humankind has reached a peak in achievements in science, technology, economic development

and health. However, such brilliance has also a very dark and disgraceful side. In Syria, in Iraq and in many

countries suffering in the grip of terrorism and war, hundreds of thousands of women and children, the

young and the elderly, are being killed.

Refugees fleeing death, tyranny and oppression are, unfortunately, also facing degrading treatment in many

European cities. Terrorist organizations, such as Da’esh and the Al-Nusra Front and the Democratic Union

Party and Kurdish People’s Protection Units, continue their attacks and actions in the region. There is also

great potential for the disputes in the Caucasus region to unfold into a full-fledged conflict. Many problems,

from Yemen to Ukraine, are of particular urgency, while peoples in countries throughout the world struggle

with hunger, epidemics, poverty and illiteracy. That is the disgraceful side of our world, damaging human

dignity and disturbing the human conscience. What is even more distressing is that many of those crises

and problems could easily be resolved. Peace, prosperity and security for future generations greatly depend

on the steps and measures that we take today. Now is the moment to show leadership with a sense of

responsibility in addressing the problems before us decisively. Today, terrorist organizations are able

to employ a variety of methods. On the night of 15 July, we in Turkey suffered a malicious coup

attempt initiated by the Fethullah terrorist organization, also know as Fethull. That terrorist

organization murdered 241 citizens and injured 2,194 people. Our Parliament building, the

presidential complex and many security organizations and law-enforcement units were bombed

by the terrorist organization, using F-16 fighter jets. Tanks rolled through the streets and over

people. Helicopters and military vehicles opened fire on civilians. The coup attempt was

successfully repelled by our nation, which heroically preserved its democracy, Government,

freedoms and future and the constitutional order. I therefore take pride in my nation’s people,

which defeated that heinous coup attempt at the risk of their lives. For a period of 29 days the

people never abandoned the city squares of Turkey, remaining on call to protect our democracy.

They threw their bodies in the way of tanks so as to repel the coup attempt. They took a very noble

stand. If I am standing here before the Assembly today, it is because of our nation’s brave and

noble reaction. It should never be forgotten that the coup attempt in Turkey was aimed at

democracy throughout the world as well. Our nation taught a historical lesson to those intending

to carry out coup attempts and became a source of inspiration for all nations committed to

protecting democracy. The new generation of terrorist organizations poses a security threat, not

only for Turkey but also for all 170 countries around the world in which such organizations exist. In

other words, today the majority of the countries represented here in the General Assembly are

currently under the threat of such clandestine structures. The terrorist organizations work on the

premise of a deep-rooted psychological heresy aimed at subduing the whole world far beyond the

borders of Turkey. The members are deviant in their actions. The basic strategy of the terrorist

organizations is to infiltrate State institutions, influencing society and dominating economic resources

under the disguise of education, dialogue, tolerance, non-governmental organizations and the best of

intentions. From this rostrum, I would like to call on all our friends to take the necessary measures

against the Fethullahist terrorist organization in their own countries in order to protect the future of

their own people and their well-being. Based on our experience, it is evident that, if you do not fight

against the Fethullahist terrorist organization now, tomorrow may be too late. I would also like to take

this opportunity to say that attributions such as “Turkish” or “Turkey” and all other similar labels used

by that terrorist organization and the persons associated with it have no relation with Turkey.

The humanitarian crisis in Syria has reached its sixth year. To date, 600,000 people have

reportedly lost their lives, and, because of the war, 12 million people have had to leave their

country, 5 million of whom have taken refuge in other countries. There are now 2.7 million such

people in our country. They were forced to leave their homes behind and have been welcomed in

101

Turkey. We have never asked why they ended up in Turkey. Our doors are wide open. We have not

shut our doors in their faces, because they were fleeing barrel bombs and fighter jets. For those

people, we have had to assume our responsibilities and do what was expected of us. While the

West and the rest of the world might not do so, we will continue to welcome them, because we are

human beings. In the face of such an atrocity, we are obliged to keep our doors open to all those

fleeing tyranny and oppression. We have opened our doors and kept them open. And we will

continue to open our doors in the future. The international community has, unfortunately,

remained indifferent to the suffering of people in conflict zones. The numbers that we have

mentioned correspond to human beings. The Syrian people are in a state of exhaustion in the

grip of proxy wars that have been shaped by a cruel Administration, merciless terrorist

organizations and global and regional competition. In that process, unfortunately, the

international community has failed to live up to its humanitarian values and its collective

conscience. To date, Turkey has spent approximately $25 billion on the refugees,

including money directed to non-governmental organizations and municipalities. Members might

ask: what has Turkey received from the rest of the world? From the United Nations, we have

received only $525 million in aid and nothing else. Have we received anything from the European

Union (EU)? The EU made certain promises, which have, unfortunately, not been kept. It has

allocated $178 million to UNICEF. That is all. Turkey itself has not directly received any aid

whatsoever in financial terms. Since the beginning of the conflict, we have claimed that the problem

was a common question for the rest of the world. We have been establishing close contacts in

solidarity with influential international figures. The Syrians are our neighbours and brothers and

sisters. We could not remain silent in the face of such tragedy and carnage. We have never

remained silent and never will. Currently, 2.7 million refugees are being housed in our country,

along with 300,000 Iraqis. A total number of 3 million refugees have never been subjected to any

ethnic or religious discrimination in Turkey. We have opened our arms wide. In addition to the

tent and container cities in which we accommodate the refugees in Turkey, we will continue to

provide all forms of support commensurate with our capabilities. We expect the EU and all other

organizations that have pledged financial support to rise to the occasion. We expect them to

keep their promises. Similarly, we expect the United Nations to keep its promises. I hope and pray

that the General Assembly at its seventy-first session will loudly convey that message to the rest

of the world, because the contributions of the international community should not be limited $512

million s. What is one to think? From this rostrum, I call upon the rest of the world, including my

European friends who believe that the Syrian refugees represent a threat and clear danger to them.

Barbed wire and high walls will never provide them with the safety, security or peace of mind that

they are seeking. That effort is in vain. The problems of the Syrian refugees should be immediately

solved once and for all. Otherwise, we will never be able to prevent the irregular migration, social

issues and security risks embedded within that problem. We must not lose any more time in ending

the conflict, the terrorism and the environment of persecution, which are the sources of the problem

in Syria. We must urgently implement a political settlement process.

We attach great importance to protecting Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We have no

claims whatsoever on Syrian territory. Syria belongs to the Syrian people. No one should ever have

any plans whatsoever with regard to the territory of Syria. Starting with our support for the Syrian

opposition, what is known as Operation Euphrates Shield was launched, which is critical to re-

establishing stability, peace and prosperity in a region of despair. It became clear that, with the

launching of that operation, the priority of the terrorist organization Kurdish Workers Party, or of the

Kurdish Democratic Party, is in not fighting against Da’esh. The operation — or offensive, as some

prefer to call it — has also boosted the self-confidence of the moderate Syrian opposition forces.

Furthermore, that development has provided encouragement to the local forces in Iraq that are eager

to cleanse Mosul of the terror sowed by Da’esh. As those who are present here are probably aware,

for a long time I have appealed for the establishment of a safe zone along our border with Syria, which

at more than 900 kilometres is the longest border with Syria. Along that border, Turkey has been

continuously under threat. We have been extremely patient. However, on 24 August, in the city of

Gaziantep, next to the Syrian border, a wedding party was attacked by a 14-year-old suicide bomber,

a boy sent there by Da’esh terrorists. The blast killed 56 people and injured more than 100. We were

patient until that critical moment. That was the precise time when we said, enough is enough. Along

with the moderate opposition, we initiated the offensive. Primarily in Jarabulus, we have eliminated

Da’esh and extended operations all the way to Al-Rai, where Da’esh was repelled. The local

inhabitants of Jarabulus were resettled, as were those from Al-Rai. From A’zaz to the Euphrates, the

entire region was saved from becoming a belt of terrorism. Instead, it was converted into a belt of

peace. The operation we are conducting today has the eventual goal of protecting that safe zone and

102

ensuring that it is in fact safe. The people of Jarabulus were saved from the grip of the terrorists

and are confident in returning to their homes. The electrical and water infrastructure will be

made operational immediately. The Turkish Red Crescent, Turkish humanitarian aid

organizations and all of the other non-governmental organizations have mobilized to meet the

needs of the local inhabitants. All of the civil facilities needed by the local inhabitants will be

constructed in the near future. In order to make that possible, the areas officially designated as safe

zones should also be declared as no-fly zones. We must maintain a firm stand so as to ensure that a

no-fly zone will be established for the protection and security of the region’s inhabitants. It is

unfortunate that the ceasefire, a process that has received enormous investment, has failed. As is clear,

a ceasefire is no longer possible. Yesterday, a United Nations convoy was attacked by the regime’s

forces, resulting in the death of one person and many others injured. The Syrian regime has not

allowed aid deliveries supervised by the United Nations to reach the people of Aleppo, who are in

dire need. They are also attacking United Nations convoys. The regime is condemning people to

famine and suffering, in order to encourage them to surrender or to die. The United Nations and the

Security Council should no longer tolerate the regime’s policies.

In Iraq it is clear that it will not be easy to establish a political system to effectively protect its

ethnic and sectarian diversity, which makes up the greatest underlying strength of the country.

Within that context, the Mosul operation should be conducted by taking into consideration the

sensitivities of the people of the region. Otherwise, a new humanitarian crisis will emerge, leading

to the influx of yet another 1 million people seeking refuge in other countries. We cannot leave

the Iraqi people alone at this critical juncture, when they need the support of the international

community now more than ever. Allowing the Palestinian people to live in an independent

Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, based on the two-State solution, is an obligation of the

international community to Palestinian children, if nothing else. Israel, especially, should respect

the sanctity of the Temple Mount and put an end to violations of its status. We will try to benefit

from our normalized relations with Israel to facilitate the peace process and resolve the economic and

humanitarian challenges faced by our Palestinian brothers and sisters through every possible effort.

In that vein, we will continue our efforts to deliver humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip.That

brings me to a very important point. The World Humanitarian Summit was held in May, in Turkey,

for the first time in history. We consider that Summit to have provided an important opportunity to

explore new ways of more effective crisis intervention around the world. In that connection, I would

like to be clear in my remarks. With respect to providing support to the least developed countries

around the world, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States rank among the top three donors.

But in the ratio comparing the amount of humanitarian aid to gross domestic product, Turkey is ranked

number one in the world.

We are the country housing the most significant number of refugees around the world, and we are

doing everything within our ability to stop irregular migration. Upon Turkey’s initiative, the subject

of Syrian refugees was addressed by the General Assembly last year for the first time. Similarly,

migration and terrorism were incorporated into the Group of 20 agenda, thanks to Turkey’s

efforts. We are cooperating with the European Union on the refugee crisis to the greatest extent

possible. Based on the goal of preventing deaths in the Aegean Sea, we have succeeded in reducing

the irregular migration number to 50 people per day; whereas, in October 2015, that number had

reached 7,000 per day. That shows that Turkey has successfully fulfilled its commitments under

the framework of the refugee agreement with the EU. However, we regret that the promises made

by the EU in the context of the agreement of 18 March have been forgotten, while ongoing false

pretexts prevail and excuses are all that we hear. The Security Council must be reformed to improve

the effectiveness of peacekeeping and peacebuilding. We fully appreciate Secretary-General Ban Ki-

moon’s progress in that respect. Furthermore, it is obvious that, unless the Security Council, as the

main organ responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, is reformed, such

efforts will be in vain and the task will remain unfulfilled. That is why we say that the world is greater

than the five permanent members. We have been reminding the international community of that

fact over and over again with every chance we get. The Security Council was established in the

aftermath of the Second World War. One cannot preserve the same structure of the Council under

the circumstances of modern times. One cannot condemn the fate of the rest of the world to

depend on what the five permanent members in the Security Council say. There are five

permanent seat-holders and 10 non-permanent seat-holders in the Security Council. That is not a

proper Security Council. A Council that does not represent the entire world can never serve to re-

establish peace and justice around the world. That is something that we need to revisit over and over

again. Can everyone think about that — three European countries, one country in Asia and one

103

country, the United States of America, of course — five countries as the permanent seat-holders?

What about the rest of the world? What about the other countries around the world? They have

remained on the sidelines. We ignore them. Instead, why not have 20 countries as permanent seat-

holders in the Security Council, under a rotational system? In that system, each country would,

deservedly, be represented on the Security Council every year or every two years. That is the

only way to establish fairness and justice. The representative nature of the Security Council

should be established so that the organ will be much more effective, more just. In order for that to

be possible, the General Assembly has to reach complete consensus. Please do not even consider

remaining silent, or else we cannot achieve anything. We cannot succeed in our policies. We have

to engage in spying, so to say. We have to be strong. We have to stand on our two feet, and talk

about the truth and nothing but the truth. We have to stand behind the truth. We are the politicians.

Only in that way can the world attain the level of justice that it yearns for. This is the only way to

achieve democracy.

Islamophobia is an alternate name for racism and discrimination. We see it prevailing in countries

with a large Muslim population. About a decade ago, along with the then Prime Minister of Spain,

we co-chaired the initiative of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations project that aimed to

find permanent solutions to such dangerous movements that threaten our prosperity around the

world. Similarly, we are also glad that interest in the Mediation for Peace Initiative that we

pioneered along with Finland in 2010 under the auspices of the United Nations has increased. The

2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which we have jointly developed, includes ambitious

and transformative goals for us all. Official development assistance makes up the most important

resource for supporting development efforts, notably for the least developed countries (LDCs).

Turkey’s official development assistance reached $3.9 billion in 2015. As I have previously

mentioned, the 0.54 per cent of our gross domestic product, which is the ratio of humanitarian aid

that we provide, is beyond the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development average

and helps us approach the United Nations target, which is 0.7 per cent. Turkey has surpassed its

commitment to provide $200 million annually to LDCs in 2011, and has delivered more than $1.5

billion to LDCs in a mere five-year period.

Before concluding my remarks, I hope and pray that the seventy-first session of the General Assembly

will be the beginning of a new age to alleviate the pain and suffering of people around the world, and

that it will help us change our world.

104


I greet the General Assembly with respect on behalf of myself and my country. I would like

to thank Mr. Peter Thomson for his successful work over the past year as President of the General

Assembly at its seventy-first session. I would also like to congratulate Mr. Miroslav Lajčák, who has

assumed the presidency of the General Assembly. I hope that this year’s session of the General

Assembly, which has been convened under the theme “Focusing on people: Striving for peace and a

decent life for all on a sustainable planet”, will bring well- being to all of the world’s peoples.

Unfortunately, global peace and stability have regressed further since our meeting in the Hall

last year. We continue to see the ugly face of terror and war in different corners of the world.

Terrorists, who are fuelled by an environment of conflict, continue their acts, spreading terror

across different regions. We are anxiously observing the violent actions of radical currents

converging on xenophobia, cultural racism and animosity against Islam. The most effective way

of reversing this negative outlook would be to engage in sincere cooperation in the Hall. We

need to develop a new perspective to promote world peace. No crisis or threat can possibly be

resolved by allowing it to play out on its own. We all have to shoulder responsibility for a safer

and more prosperous world. It is in that understanding that Turkey is pursuing an enterprising

and humanitarian foreign policy.

The Syrian conflict has entered its seventh year. This conflict has created deep wounds in the country,

the region and throughout the world. In Syria, an entire civilization is being annihilated, together with

civilians and innocent children. Terrorism, which is destroying the country and is fuelled by instability

and oppression, is spreading like a cancer across borders. The Syrian people who took action

demanding democracy, freedom, justice and a bright future were, unfortunately, abandoned by the

international community. Turkey cannot remain indifferent to the tragedy of these people, whom

we see as our brothers and sisters regardless of their origin or creed and to whom we are connected

by deep historical ties. Since the outbreak of the conflict in Syria in the spring of 2011, we have

exerted all kinds of humanitarian and political efforts to solve the problem and we will continue

to do so. We are currently hosting more than 3 million Syrians and over 200,000 Iraqis in our

country. Together with Russia and Iran, we have launched the Astana meetings, with the

participation of all parties to the conflict, in order to establish a permanent ceasefire and peace

in the country. Following our initiatives, the Geneva process, which has long been blocked, has been

revived. We are putting into practice a new plan to ensure the security of the Idlib region in Syria

within the framework of the agreement reached in Astana. Turkey would support any step towards

the construction of a stable and prosperous Syria, based on the territorial integrity of the country and

on respect for the democratic demands of its people. We have taken and will continue to take all

kinds of measures for those who came to our country with the outbreak of the Syrian crisis and to

stem the influx of refugees into Europe. We meet all the needs of these people, from shelter to food

and clothing and from health care to education, at standards that are appreciated by all those who

visit our country. However, I would like to underscore that we have not received sufficient support

from the international community, especially from the European Union, for our efforts. The

expenditures of our public institutions, civil-society organizations and our people in order to meet

the needs of those living in the camps and cities in Turkey have exceeded $30 billion. In response,

the European Union has sent only €820 million out of the €3 billion + €3 billion that it promised.

The total assistance from the international community through the United Nations remains around

$520 million. I should point out that no share of the assistance intended for the Syrians goes into

our own budget; it is all delivered to those in need by the relief agencies through the relevant

institutions of the United Nations. Before the whole world, I hereby call on the countries and

international organizations that have placed the entire burden of the 3.2 million people on Turkey’s

shoulders to fulfil the promises they made. In fact, Turkey is a country that carries out

humanitarian aid and development assistance activities around the world. Not only do we

welcome those who come to our country, but through the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination

Agency, the Turkish Disaster and Management Authority and the Turkish Red Crescent and

various civil-society organizations we rush to the help of all who are suffering and under

oppression, regardless of which part of the world they may be in. For example, through its official

institutions and civil- society organizations, Turkey has spent $1 billion for the reconstruction of

Somalia so far. The work we carry out and the results we have achieved in Somalia could indeed

provide an example for similar efforts. According to confirmed statistics of the Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development, with $6 billion in humanitarian and development aid

105

in 2016, Turkey ranked as the world’s second-largest donor and top contributor in terms of gross

national product. Yet, Turkey is the seventeenth-largest economy in the world. Having spent 0.8

per cent of its national income on humanitarian assistance, Turkey is one of the six countries that

could meet the United Nations target. Therefore, Turkey is working diligently to achieve a

sustainable world, which is the theme of this session of the General Assembly. We will continue in

the coming days with the same consideration in mind. Turkey is engaged in an intense fight against

the bloody terrorist organizations of the region, such as Da’esh and the Kurdish Workers’

Party, which are nourished by the instability in Syria and Iraq. In addition, our fight against the

Fethullah Terrorist Organization, which attempted to change the legitimate and democratic regime

of Turkey by a bloody coup, is also ongoing. We have recovered 243 residential areas and a tract of

land larger than 2,000 kilometres thanks to Operation Euphrates Shield, initiated in Syria following

the attacks by Da’esh on our borders. We neutralized almost 3,000 Da’esh militants during that

operation. Around 100,000 Syrians returned to and resettled in the region we cleared of terrorists.

Operation Euphrates Shield is the single greatest accomplishment against Da’esh since its occupation

of the region. I must highlight the following fact before the Assembly. Most of the groups

and forces claiming to be fighting Da’esh in the region in fact have no such goal. These groups

and forces are using Da’esh as a pretext to realize their own agendas. The efforts of the Partiya

Yekitiya Demokrat- People’s Protection Units to change the demographic structure of the regions it

has captured, to seize the property of the people and to kill or exile those who stand against it constitute

a crime against humanity. If the fight against Da’esh is not waged on a legitimate basis, the world will

certainly face the threat of new, Da’esh-like entities.

Similar approaches exist in Iraq as well. Iraq also requires that compromises be reached on the

basis of territorial integrity and the realization of the ideal of building a common future. Steps

such as demands for independence that can cause fresh crises and conflicts in the region must

be avoided. We hereby call on the Iraqi Kurdish Regional Government to abort the initiative that

it has launched in that direction. Ignoring the clear and determined stance of Turkey on this issue

could lead to a process that would deprive the Iraqi Kurdish Regional Government of even the

opportunities they currently enjoy. We all should work on building tranquillity, peace, security

and stability in the region instead of sparking new conflicts. In addition to Syria and Iraq, we are

also closely following regions in Libya and in Yemen where terrorist organizations are trying to

establish their influence. The international community’s support for the legitimate Government of

Libya will contribute significantly to the stability of the country. It should be kept in mind that if

the mistakes made in Syria and Iraq were to be repeated in Libya, that would expose the entire

world, particularly Europe, to much greater threats.

Another issue on which Turkey places special emphasis is the immediate resolution of the conflict

that has erupted in the Gulf region. We believe that the sanctions that are negatively affecting

the living conditions of the Qatari people should be lifted forthwith. We support the mediation

efforts of the Amir of Kuwait, Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, to resolve the crisis.

Our hope is that these efforts will yield positive results. We also hope that Saudi Arabia, which

we see as the elder brother of the Gulf region, will show a sincere will to resolve this issue.

Another important problem is the issue of Palestine, which we consider to be the gaping wound of

the world, and, by extension, the preservation of the historical status of Jerusalem and Al-Haram

Al-Sharif, that is, the Temple Mount. The crisis in Al-Haram Al-Sharif in July demonstrated the

sensitivity of the issue. The continuation of the peace process can be possible only on the

condition that Israel immediately stop its illegal settlement activities and take steps towards a

two- State solution. In this context, I call on the international community to support our Palestinian

brothers and sisters in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza in their struggle for an independent

and geographically unified Palestinian State. Despite the current absence of conflict there, the

Balkans is another geographical location of potential crisis that still faces serious challenges. For this

reason, we attach great importance to the integration of the Balkan countries into the Euro-Atlantic

institutions. Turkey will continue to do its part to ensure that peace, stability and well-being prevail

in this exceptional part of the world. The territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and Georgia is the key

to regional stability in the southern Caucasus. Therefore, we need to work harder towards the

resolution of the conflicts in Nagorno Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. We should never

forget that each crisis we ignore today has the potential to spark a regional or even global crisis

tomorrow. In this context, I would also like to underline that we are against nuclear weapons of

all kinds, which have increasingly come to occupy the world agenda in recent days. It is clear that

we cannot overcome these problems unless we completely free the world of the scourge of nuclear

weapons. We are also saddened by the fact that the comprehensive negotiation process begun in

106

2008 has ended owing to the incomprehensible stance of the Greek Cypriots. We will do our best

to ensure that the natural resources discovered in the eastern Mediterranean in recent years

serve to further the peace, stability and welfare of the region. We are ready to consider proposals

for a solution that respects the rights of Turkish Cypriots. Our world, already struggling with all

of these global and regional problems, was shocked once again by the sad news that we received

from Myanmar a few weeks ago. The Muslim community in the Rakhine region of Myanmar is being

subjected to what almost amounts to ethnic cleansing, with provocative terrorist acts used as a

pretext. The villages of the Rohingya Muslims, who have already been living in extreme poverty and

misery, deprived of their citizenship rights, are being burned as hundreds of thousands of people are

forced to migrate from the region and the country. The camps in Bangladesh to which the people

migrating from the region are being diverted are not in a position to meet even their minimum

humanitarian needs. As is the case in Syria, the international community has not given a good account

of itself regarding the humanitarian plight of the Rohingya Muslims. If the tragedy in Myanmar is

not stopped, the history of humankind will be marred by yet another dark stain. What is most

important is to ensure that the Rohingya people who have taken refuge outside their country,

especially in Bangladesh, are able to live in safety and peace and in conditions of well-being on their

own lands, where they have lived for centuries. Turkey is endeavouring to help resolve this crisis as

well. Recently, on the occasion of a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC),

we held a special session on that issue in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, with the

participating countries. My wife, my son and our Ministers who visited the camps in Bangladesh

immediately after the latest crisis personally witnessed the humanitarian plight of the people

there. Clothing, food and other humanitarian aid was provided, and we are now looking at the

second phase of such aid. We will be holding a meeting of the OIC Contact Group on Rohingya

Muslims here at the United Nations this afternoon. As I mentioned, my wife, my son, our

Ministers and some Turkish non-governmental organizations visited the area. The Turkish

International Cooperation and Coordination Agency, the Turkish official aid organization, is also

in the region; it is the only organization carrying out assistance activities. Furthermore, the

Turkish Red Crescent and other non-governmental organizations are continuing to deliver

humanitarian aid to the Rakhine Muslims in Myanmar. If the countries concerned provide

the necessary means, we would like to continue our assistance activities in a more comprehensive

way. I discussed these issues with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, His Excellency

António Guterres, and we are now preparing to take further steps. All these developments and

humanitarian tragedies confirm the relevance of our appeal for the restructuring of the United

Nations, especially the Security Council, as symbolized by our motto, “The world is bigger than

five”. Gathered here under this roof, we must understand that it is high time to reform the Security

Council. Under this roof, we represent the entire world, but if we cannot display the will to

prevent murders carried out by terrorist organizations or prevent humanitarian crises, then

everyone will find ways to help themselves. If that understanding prevails, then our world will be

dragged into a new maelstorm of chaos and cruelty. If Western countries do not prevent tendencies

such as xenophobia, racism and animosity against Islam, if the countries in the crisis-ridden regions

of the world do not demonstrate decisive will to fight terrorist organizations and poverty, and if all

of us do not cooperate with one another on all of those fronts, then how can we possibly reach our

ideals of peace and a decent life for all on a sustainable planet? We support the work done to that

end by the Secretary-General, with whom we cooperated closely during his tenure as the United

Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It is in nobody’s interest to insist on the continuation

of this distorted system, which no longer has the capacity to take concrete steps towards the good

of humankind under its current form. We want the Security Council to have a democratic,

transparent, fair and effective structure. We propose that the Security Council consist of 20

members with the same rights and competencies — each member serving for two years and half

replaced every year. In that way, all countries would have a say in that important organ when it

was their turn. It is imperative that we transform the United Nations, because the world is

changing. We are living in a different world than the one where the United Nations was established

after the Second World War. We must talk about a United Nations administered by representatives

of the entire world as the embodiment of humankind’s common conscience. Before I conclude my

remarks, let me remind the Assembly that, regardless of the colour of our faces and eyes, our tears

are the same. I urge the Assembly take action immediately to stop the tears flowing in different parts

of the world. I hope that the work of the seventy- second session of the General Assembly will

contribute to our efforts to that end. With those thoughts, I salute with amity and respect all countries

and peoples represented under this roof, at this joint parliament of humankind. On my own behalf,

and on behalf of my country, I extend my greetings to the Assembly. God bless the Assembly.

107


I have the honour to greet you personally, Madam President, on behalf of my country and my people.

At the outset, I would like to thank His Excellency Mr. Miroslav Lajčák for his successful work over

the past year as the President of the General Assembly at its seventy-second session. I would also

like to congratulate Ms. María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés, who has taken over the presidency of the

General Assembly. I hope and pray that this year’s General Assembly session will avail us of an

opportunity to bring the best to all people of the world. We are holding this meeting on the 100th

anniversary of the end of the First World War. The League of Nations, which was founded after

the war, was immediately replaced by the United Nations in the aftermath of the Second World

War. Undoubtedly, the United Nations, over its 73 years of history, has carried out enormous

endeavours and achieved great successes. However, we also need to admit the fact that over time

the capacity of the United Nations to meet the expectations of humankind for peace and welfare

has diminished.

In particular, the Security Council has taken to serving only the interests of its five permanent seat-

holders, which have veto rights, while standing by idly in the face of oppression in other parts of the

world. The massacres in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda and Somalia, and recently in Myanmar

and occurring in Palestine as we speak, have all taken place before the eyes of the Security Council.

Those who remain silent in the face of the oppression of the Palestinians, those who have reduced

humanitarian assistance for them, are only increasing the courage of the oppressors. Even if the whole

world turns its back, Turkey will continue to be on the side of the oppressed Palestinians and will

protect the historical and legal status of our first qibla, which is Jerusalem. Unfortunately, in many

parts of the world, every day we confront scenes of ethnic cleansing and mass slaughter that none

of us would wish to see. Likewise, from health to education, from food to culture, there is a high

level of dissatisfaction in terms of the sum of the work undertaken by this huge Organization. We

do not wish to see such an important structure turn into an organization with a constant reputation

for failure and complaints. Therefore, on every occasion, we underline that there needs to be a

comprehensive reform in the structure and functioning of the United Nations, particularly of the

Security Council. We believe that when we say “the world is greater than five” we are becoming

the voice of the common conscience of the entire human race. The world is not the world of the

times of the Second World War, nor of its aftermath. We have representatives from 194 countries

under this roof. Why cannot 194 countries be represented at the Security Council? Why should

they not, in a rotational manner, have their permanent seats in the Security Council? We have

only five permanent seat-holders at the Security Council, and the remainder are just temporary

with no power whatsoever. Limiting the reform of the United Nations to the budget will neither

contribute to the settlement of real problems nor make anybody happy or content. There is a need

to increase the efficiency of the Organization, which I deem to be very important for the future

of the world. That includes in the fundamental areas of social equality, development and security.

We need to undertake many reforms. When Turkey looks at the world — beginning with our

own geography — we see that there are many important tasks to be undertaken by the United

Nations. In our understanding, justice is above all, and it will bring order, salvation and happiness

to the entire world. In our civilization we refer to a phenomenon known as the “circle of justice,”

which is based on a correct establishment and management of relations between the society, the

law, the State, the power of the State, the economy and justice. The links of that circle are

intertwined; however, those links are shattered regardless of where you go in the world today.

That is why our world today is entrapped by political, social and economic instability and is

constantly suffering. To enable a peaceful and secure future for all, we have a duty to succeed

in humankind’s struggle, starting with the search for justice and ending with the establishment

of justice. Today, when the assets of the wealthiest 62 people in the world amount to the assets of

half of world’s population of 3.6 billion people, it means there is a significant problem that we

need to do something about. Every night 821 million people go to bed hungry; at the same time

more than 672 million have been diagnosed with obesity. There is a problem with that. There are

258 million people across the world hitting the road in search for better conditions to live and

survive. And there are 68 million displaced people around the world, which points to yet another

outstanding problem that we need to do something about. There is a problem when the likelihood

of early child mortality of a baby born in Africa is nine times greater than that of a baby born

here.

The famous Islamic philosopher Rumi, who began shining a beacon from the city of Konya, in

108

the heartland of Anatolia, in order to enlighten all souls across the world, once said that justice

means restoring things to their proper place — that is. giving someone what he or she needs or

desires. Let us establish a global administration system that will serve as a shield to protect the

oppressed, the victimized, lending a helping hand to the hungry and the unsheltered, and thereby

bringing hope to future generations. Everything said from this rostrum, all the analyses and

proposals that we come up with, will make sense only if we can put them into action. Again,

according to the philosopher Rumi, an oppressor is someone who does not fulfil their duties vis-

à-vis humankind. If we want to make the United Nations a source of justice instead of cruelty,

we have to dedicate ourselves more fully to the tasks bestowed upon us. Turkey is sustaining its

efforts aimed at achieving a fairer world through its global humanitarian diplomacy. We are

currently hosting 4 million refugees inside our borders, 3.5 million of whom came from Syria.

On a global scale, this is unprecedented. Those refugees have access to all forms of services that

one could ever need. So far, the Republic of Turkey has spent about $32 billion for the care of

refugees. Furthermore, in cities such as Jarablus, Al-Rai and Afrin in Syria, which we previously

secured, we have provided humanitarian aid to millions of people in need just as has been done in

the de-escalation zones that were recently declared in the city of Idlib. The number of Syrian

students attending school in Turkey is well above 600,000. Refugees in our country have access

to all health-care services free of charge, just like any other Turkish citizen. In addition, we attend

to all the needs of refugees in Turkish protection centres. However, so far, we have received only

$600 million from international organizations and only €1.7 billion from the European Union

(EU). Those funds are not going directly into the Turkish budget, but rather are being directly

transferred to the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working for the refugees. The

European Union previously pledged €3 billion to be allocated to Turkey, but that is now

contingent upon the undertaking of specific projects. We continue providing our services to

refugees every day without any preconditions or interruptions whatsoever. We expect more

generous and flexible support to be provided to Turkey, especially by the EU, because we have

prevented a large refugee influx to spill over into other parts of the world, in particular to

Europe, thanks to the opportunities we have made available to refugees. Furthermore, we are

providing significant humanitarian development aid in all parts of the world, not just to refugees

within or near our borders. As of this year, Turkey ranks sixth in the world in terms of total

development aid and first in humanitarian assistance. Turkey ranks among the top donors in

terms of development and humanitarian aid, as we are the seventeenth largest economy in the

world. Our commitment is a strong expression of the degree of significance we attach to

humanitarian aid and helping those in need. As noted in the appeal by the General Assembly this

year, our world needs global leadership and joint responsibility more than ever for peaceful,

equitable and sustainable societies. Turkey has made substantial efforts in that direction within

the United Nations. The Mediation for Peace initiative, which we launched together with Finland

in 2010, is now supported by the Group of Friends of Mediation, which consists of 56 Member

States. We have also taken serious steps forward in that regard within the Organization of Islamic

Cooperation, over which we currently preside. The Alliance of Civilizations initiative, which we

launched with Spain, has become a United Nations initiative with the participation of 146

Member States. In helping Somalia, which is struggling with hunger, get back on its feet, we

are currently implementing a development programme that I believe will be a model for the rest

of the world. And to help millions of innocent people in Arakan, which is miles away from our

country, we have mobilized all our means and all our capabilities. We have exerted sincere efforts

to resolve the Gulf crisis. In Iraq, we are encouraging all parties to make efforts to secure the

future of the country. In terms of racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia, we strive to prevent

negativity from emerging in various parts of the world, especially in Europe. We have also

adopted an active stance in response to the developments taking place in Syria, which has now

become a place where the majority of the countries in the world export the radical groups residing

within their borders. By means of both our support to the Geneva and Astana processes and the de-

escalation zones that have been established, we continue to try to bring peace and stability to Syria,

and we are trying to make Syria a peaceful country once again. By clearing the Jarablus and Al-Rai

regions of the presence of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Sham and the Afrin region from the

presence of the Kurdistan Workers Party, the Democratic Union Party and the People’s Protection

Units — terrorist organizations all — we have turned an area of more than 4,000 square kilometres

into a safe and peaceful place for millions of Syrians. Quite recently, we signed an agreement with

Russia, the Sochi Agreement, through which we have prevented the regime’s bloody assaults

against the de-escalation zones in Idlib province, where 3.5 million civilians live. It is our belief

that, by preventing a repetition of the massacres previously carried out in Aleppo, Hama, Homs,

109

Dar’a and eastern Ghouta, Turkey has cleared the way for peace and a political solution in the

country, especially in the Idlib. Our goal is to clear the Syrian territory of the presence of

terrorists, all the way from Manbij to the Iraqi border. I hereby call upon all the parties to support

a just and sustainable political solution in Syria through a constructive approach. We wish to see

a principled approach taken against all terrorist organizations.Those who equip terrorists with tens

of thousands of trucks and thousands of cargo planes loaded with arms and ammunition for the sake

of their tactical interests will most definitely feel sorrow and regret in future for having done so.

Supporting terrorist organizations and closing borders to refugees, all the while putting the entire

burden on a few countries like Turkey, will not give the world a more secure or prosperous future.

On the contrary, issues deflected in such a way will reach a point where one day the measures at

hand will fall short of overcoming them. So let us make more sincere and constructive efforts

aimed at finding solutions in regions currently in conflict, such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya,

Afghanistan and Ukraine, as well as in regions potentially in conflict, such as the Balkans, the

Caucusus, North Africa, Central Africa, the Gulf and the eastern Mediterranean. Let us not

forget that, if we cannot create a minimum level of peace and prosperity for all in every part of

the world, no one can live safely within their own borders. Not all terrorist organizations obtain

their power solely from their armed actions. Some of them use more complex, more convert and

more deceptive methods. The Fethullah terrorist organization attempted a coup on the night of 15

July 2016, and, in the end, 251 Turkish civilians were martyred and more than 2,193 civilians were

wounded. That is the sort of terrorist organization I was referring to just now. The Fethullah terrorist

organization is hiding behind such glossy concepts as education, welfare and dialogue, and it

continues its operations as NGOs or businesses. The leader of this terrorist organization is currently

living in very comfortable fashion in Pennsylvania, on more than 400 acres of land. For the last four

decades, this terrorist organization has been growing and developing in Turkey through

deception, and we saw its true face when the terrorists felt that they had become powerful

enough to undertake coups d’état. They initiated consecutive attempts, first with their operatives

who had infiltrated the police and the judiciary in Turkey, and then with their agents in the armed

forces. With the economic and bureaucratic power they attained over time, that terrorist

organization has attempted to take control of politics, society and the State itself. However,

thanks to the support of our people and to our resolute fight against the Fethullah terrorist

organization over the past five years, we have eliminated the majority of members of that

organization in our country. We can now see that this terrorist organization is carrying out similar

activities across the globe. We are warning many countries that are friends of Turkey around the

world and demanding the extradition of the terrorists hiding within their borders, but some of those

countries are shying away from extraditing them. Ultimately, however, the price for such a failure

will be quite hefty. The Fethullah terrorist organization is generating between $700 million and

$800 million in the United States through their charter schools located in different states

throughout the country. That figure does not include the income generated by commercial

institutions involved in all sorts of money laundering activities and other structures with secret

agendas that appear to be NGOs. I am hurt, and that is why I am frankly warning countries that

are friends of Turkey around the world. I invite them to mobilize their efforts to combat the

presence of the Fethullah terrorist organization in their countries. We must show the same

solidarity that we have shown with regard to armed terrorist organizations and bloodthirsty

regimes with regard to that insidious gang as well. We are ready to share our experiences and the

information we have gathered on that issue with countries that are friends of Turkey and any

country that is willing to cooperate with us more closely. Trade wars have harmed humankind

in every age. We are on the brink of another such frightening war. None of us can remain silent

in the face of arbitrary cancellations of commercial agreements, the spreading prevalence of

protectionism and the use of economic sanctions as weapons. The negative effects of those

twisted developments will eventually affect all countries. We must all work together to prevent

damage to the world trade regime as a result of unilateral decisions in the form of sanctions. At

a time when we need to work towards the achievement of the 2030 Sustainable Development

Goals, no one wants the world to experience a new economic rupture. It is easy to create chaos,

but it is difficult to restore order. Today, unfortunately, some countries are persistently trying to

create chaos. There is no bigger danger than a world order that has lost mercy, conscience, truth

and hope. That is the danger we are facing now. Turkey has always been in favour of both free

trade and the free movement of persons and goods. Every regression in those areas has negative

repercussions that will be hard to overcome for future generations. Furthermore, the fact that

this approach is brought up with a rhetoric of threat, force and by entirely disregarding the history

of bilateral relations disappoints us even more. We are in favour of solving our problems through

110

constructive dialogue on equal terms. We expect responsible action by all our friends around the

world. We have effective, harmonious and constructive cooperation with our counterparts on

international platforms, such as the World Trade Organization, the Group of 20, the Organization

of Islamic Cooperation and the European Union in the form of the Customs Union. Turkey has

always expressed its support for a win-win approach to those we do business with around the

world. The sincerity of our approach is obvious, which is why we deem the allegations against

and pressure on our country unfair. We believe that, together with the countries and institutions

sharing our perspective, we can surmount the political and economic chaos that the world is being

drawn into. We hope to receive the international community’s support in that respect. Before

concluding my address, I would like to share with the Assembly two additional remarks.

First, we believe that there is a need for an institution within the United Nations for youth, as young

people ensure the sustainability of our future. Turkey proposes the establishment of a United Nations

youth organization as soon as possible, and suggests Istanbul, a city that symbolizes the history of the

world, as its headquarters. We can allocate a youth centre, which is currently being built in Istanbul,

to that organization. Secondly, in 2005, we hosted the world ageing summit in Turkey for the first

time, and then 2019 was designated the International Year of Older Persons. In that respect, the United

Nations international agency for the elderly is being established in Istanbul, and the third World

Assembly on Ageing will take place in Istanbul. I cordially invite representatives to attend that

summit, which will be held on 10 December.

Once again, I wish every success to the General Assembly during its seventy-third session. On

behalf of myself and my country, I wholeheartedly salute with respect all the countries and peoples

represented in this common parliament of humankind. May they prevail in peace and in health.

111


On behalf of the Turkish nation and on my own behalf, I salute the General Assembly with the

most heartfelt emotion. I would like to thank Ms. Espinosa Garcés for her successful work over the

past year. I also wholeheartedly congratulate Mr. Tijjani Muhammad Bande, who has taken up the

presidency of the General Assembly at its seventy-fourth session. I hope and pray that this session of

the Assembly will bring peace and prosperity to the whole world and humankind. Our world today

faces many challenges and much pain resulting from injustice on a global scale. The great scholar of

our civilization, Rumi, once defined justice as “appropriately sharing rights and obligations among

the people and allocating to them what they are entitled to”. It is obvious that today neither people’s

rights nor their responsibilities are shared appropriately. At the same time, injustice generates

instability, power struggles, crises, waste and extravagance. Yet the Organization in whose Hall

we are gathered today was established in the aftermath of the Second World War with the ultimate

purpose of eradicating injustice. Indeed, the international community is gradually losing its

ability to find lasting solutions to such challenges as terrorism, hunger, misery and climate change,

all of which threaten the future of all of us. We have no doubt that the theme for the seventy- fourth

session of the General Assembly is fitting in that regard: “Galvanizing multilateral efforts for

poverty eradication, quality education, climate action and inclusion”. But what is more important

than that is to understand what we can achieve together. It is unacceptable to see that one part of

the world lives in luxury and enjoys the benefits of prosperity while people in other parts of the

world suffer at the hands of poverty, misery and illiteracy. It is painful to see that, while a fortunate

minority in the world is discussing such issues as digital technology, robotics, artificial intelligence

and obesity, more than 2 billion people are living under the poverty line and 1 billion people are

suffering from hunger. We cannot turn our backs on the reality that, until all of us are safe, none of us

will be safe. For many years I have been saying from this rostrum that we cannot leave the fate of

humankind to the discretion of a handful of countries. Today I would like to reiterate once again that

the world is greater than five countries. It is high time that we change our current mentality, our

institutions, organizations and rules. The inequality between nuclear-weapon States and non-nuclear-

weapon States is by itself enough to undermine global stability. It bothers us, like everyone else, that

weapons of mass destruction, instead of being totally eliminated, are used as leverage in every crisis.

The possession of nuclear power should either be forbidden for all or permissible for everyone. For

the sake of a peaceful future for all humankind, let us solve that problem as soon as possible on the

basis of justice. At a time when 13 people lose their lives every minute owing to air pollution and

when global warming threatens our very future, we cannot afford to remain indifferent. First and

foremost, we need to strengthen the capacity and efficiency of the United Nations. In particular, we

should immediately carry out much- needed fundamental reforms of the Security Council, in line with

the principles of justice and equality. With a proactive and humane foreign policy, Turkey embraces

the rest of the world and strives to find justice-based solutions to our problems. It is not without reason

that Turkey has earned distinction as the most generous country in terms of humanitarian aid and the

country hosting the largest number of displaced persons in the world. The third African Union-Turkey

Partnership summit, to be held in Turkey in 2020, is another concrete example of our dedication and

our proactive humanitarian policy. I invite all the countries present in this Hall to support our policies

and initiatives, which we have formulated on the basis of justice, ethics and conscience. Syria today

has become a wound in the collective conscience of humankind and a symbol of global injustice.

Since 2011 the regime and terrorist organizations, as well as the forces encouraging them, have been

pursuing a policy of perpetual crisis. Almost 1 million people have been killed and 12 million people

have been displaced, while half of the population has been forced to live elsewhere. The Syrian crisis

needs to be ended once and for all. Turkey is the country most affected by the threat of Da’esh, the

terrorist organization that has threatened our borders and targeted the very heart of surrounding

cities with suicide bombings, killing hundreds of Turkish citizens. Turkey is the country that has

inflicted the most important and heaviest blow against the presence of Da’esh in Syria. Through

Operation Euphrates Shield, we have neutralized approximately 3,500 Da’esh terrorists and paved

the way for that terrorist organization’s downfall in Syria. We are also at the forefront of

international efforts to identify the terrorists and foreign fighters who come from all over the

world to join Da’esh, by imposing entry bans and deportations to and from our country.

At the same time, Turkey is the most generous country today in terms of humanitarian aid and in

terms of the ratio between official humanitarian assistance and gross domestic product. We are

currently hosting 5 million asylum seekers who are fleeing conflict, starvation and persecution.

112

In other words, there are more asylum-seekers in Turkey than in the combined population of 29

states of the United States, and 3.6 million of them are from Syria. In fact, the number of

Syrian brothers and sisters we are currently hosting on our soil is well over half the population of

New York City. We have devoted $40 billion to the asylum seekers over the past eight years. But

have we in Turkey received anything? I will tell the Assembly. To date we have received no more

than €3 billion from the European Union, not as direct contributions into our national budget but

through international organizations. That amount was allocated to the Disaster Relief Agency of

Turkey and the Turkish Red Crescent. Of the asylum seekers who have fled to our country, 365,000

have safely returned to areas that we have secured within Syria, including the city of Jarablus. Nearly

half the Syrian asylum seekers in Turkey are under the age of 18. The number of Syrian children born

on our territory has reached 500,000. We provide them not only housing but also with essential

services, such as education and health care. Unfortunately, the international community has been

too quick to forget the journey of survival that they have made, ending either in the dark waters

of the Mediterranean Sea or confronted by the security fences stretching along the borders that

they are trying to flee. As the Assembly can see, this is the picture of baby Aylan, whose lifeless

body washed ashore not so long ago but has already been forgotten. We should never forget that

that could happen to any of us. There are many baby Aylans. There are millions of baby Aylans.

And we need to take action for them. It is a responsibility to which we must rise. In the first eight

months of this year alone, we saved 32,000 irregular migrants from drowning at sea and sent

58,000 irregular migrants, excluding Syrians, back to their countries. Together with those fleeing

other parts of the world, Turkey currently hosts 5 million oppressed and victimized people on its

soil. Unfortunately, we have been abandoned in our selfless sacrifice to benefit asylum-seekers.

Genuine return has not been possible to the regions in Syria controlled by the regime and terrorist

organizations such as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party- Kurdish People’s Protection Units (PKK-

YPG) and Da’esh. Syrians who fled their country for their lives have been able to return only to

those areas liberated and secured by Turkey. Today we face three important issues that must be

dealt with as we seek to resolve the humanitarian crisis in Syria.

The first is the territorial integrity and political unity of Syria, which depends greatly on an

effectively functioning constitutional committee. We met with our Russian and Iranian

counterparts in Ankara early last week and, through the Russian summit memorandum, have

managed to accomplish most of our goals. When a permanent political solution is reached in

Syria, territorial integrity will be restored. The second important issue is that we must do

everything possible to prevent a possible massacre in the city of Idlib and a wave of migration

4 million strong. Despite some setbacks, the agreement we reached with Russia in Sochi on that

issue remains valid. Turkey cannot withstand another influx of migration. We therefore expect

all countries around the world to support Turkey’s efforts to ensure security and stability in Idlib.

The third important issue is the elimination of the PKK-YPG terrorist organization east of the

Euphrates, where it occupies one quarter of Syria and seeks to legitimize itself as the so-called Syrian

democratic forces. We will not be able to find a permanent solution to the issue of Syria if we fail to

deal with all terrorist organizations in the same way. We remain engaged in talks with the United

States with a view to establishing a safe zone within Syria. We intend to establish a peace corridor

in Syria, 30 kilometres wide by 480 kilometres long, where we hope, with the support of the

international community, to facilitate the settlement of 2 million Syrians. I would like to show the

Assembly a map illustrating our plans — the border with Turkey and the proposed safe zone

below. If such a safe zone can be established, we could confidently resettle between 1 million

and 2 million refugees. Achieving that goal is within our reach. By working together — with the

United States, the coalition forces, Russia and Iran — we could resettle the refugees, thereby

saving them from tent camps or container camps. We can take the necessary steps by working

together. The Republic of Turkey cannot bear that burden alone. We need to take the necessary

measures as soon as possible. If the region can be extended to the Deir ez-Zor/ Raqqa line, we could

increase to 3 million the number of Syrians who will return from Turkey, Europe and other parts of

the world. We are resolutely committed to implementing that plan and have already begun the

necessary preparations. We are also laying the groundwork for the holding of an international

conference with the participation of Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan. We also attach great importance

to the success of the Global Refugee Forum, which we will co-chair in Geneva in December. In

our view, a donor conference should be convened under the auspices of the United Nations to

support returns to safe areas. There is also a need for worldwide implementation of the Global

Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration and the global compact on refugees, as adopted

and affirmed at the United Nations last year. If we succeed in establishing an environment of

trust and stability on the basis of the principles of legitimacy and justice in Syria, we will also

113

help to alleviate the situation in neighbouring Iraq that has been generated by the presence of

Da’esh and the PKK. I take this opportunity to call on the entire United Nations family to engage

in initiatives and support our ongoing efforts to stop the humanitarian crisis in Syria.

The Mediterranean basin, in addition to the tragedies triggered by the Syrian crisis, such as illegal

migration, faces further problems owing to developments in the eastern Mediterranean. Despite

negotiations over more than five decades, the Cyprus question has yet to be resolved because of

the uncompromising position of the Greek Cypriots. The Greek Cypriot side has been pursuing

an inequitable and unjust policy of imposition and refuses to share political power and prosperity

with the Turkish Cypriots. Turkey is the international treaty-based guarantor of the Turkish

Cypriot people, with whom it has deep historical and cultural bonds. Similarly, Greece is a

guarantor, as well the United Kingdom. It is clear that those who claim to be working towards

solving the Cyprus problem with zero security and zero guarantee have had ill-intentions from

the outset. For its part, Turkey will continue its efforts until a solution that guarantees the security

and rights of the Turkish Cypriot people is reached. We believe that the energy resources in the

eastern Mediterranean constitute an important opportunity for cooperation if we all adopt a win-win

approach. Unfortunately, however, despite our reasonable approach, some countries in the region,

through unilateral action, are trying to turn the issue of energy resources into a conflict. In the eastern

Mediterranean, we are determined to protect the legitimate rights and interests of both Turkey and

the Turkish Cypriot people until the very end. We will continue to be open minded to all proposals

based on cooperation and equitable sharing. Libya is another critical area of the Mediterranean. We

endeavour to ensure security and stability in the country by establishing a democratic

Administration based on the free will of the people. The political and economic empowerment

of Libya will provide relief for both North Africa and Europe. The solution in that country can

be reached only by respecting the choices and the free will of the Libyan people. Interventions

in Yemen and Qatar have had serious consequences in both humanitarian and economic terms.

We should all seek an immediate settlement to that crisis in the region, which has re-emerged

as a result of the attacks on oil production facilities. We will continue to follow the developments

relating to the demise of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was brutally murdered last year and on

whose case the courts have yet to reach a verdict, because we are steadfast in our commitment in that

regard. Another issue that we are heavily invested in is that Egypt’s first democratically elected

President, Mohamed Morsi, suspiciously lost his life in a court room and his family was not allowed

to give him a proper burial. That remains a bleeding wound in our hearts. They have both become a

profound symbol of the need for justice and equality in the region. We also hope that the discussions

about Iran’s activities, as well as the related threats to that country, will be resolved in a rational

manner. The Palestinian territories today under Israeli occupation have become one of the most

striking places of injustice. If the images of an innocent Palestinian woman who was heinously

murdered by Israeli security forces on the street just a few days ago will not awaken the global

conscience, then we have reached a point where words no longer suffice. I am quite curious about

this map of Israel. Where does the land of Israel begin and end? Look at this map. Where was Israel

in 1947 and where is Israel now? Where was Israel between the years of 1949 and 1967 in particular,

and where is it now? Look. This is 1947, the land of Palestine. There is almost no Israeli presence in

those lands; the entire territory belongs to the Palestinians, as the map suggests. However, in 1947,

the distribution plan took place and was ratified, Palestinian lands began to shrink and Israel

started expanding. From 1947 to 1967 Israel continued to expand and Palestine continued to

shrink. In the current situation there is seemingly no Palestinian presence and the entire land

belongs to Israel. But is that enough for Israel? No, Israel remains intent on taking over the

remaining territories. What about the Security Council, the United Nations and their resolutions?

Are those resolutions being activated, implemented and enforced? No, they are not. We must

therefore ask ourselves, what purpose does the United Nations serve? Under this roof we adopt

resolutions that effect no change. When and where, then, can justice prevail? That is the origin of our

suffering and pain. The current Israeli Government, together with their murders and atrocities, is

busy intervening in and attacking the historical legal status of Jerusalem and its holy sacred sites and

artefacts.

We as Turkey have a clear stance on that issue — the immediate establishment of an independent

Palestinian State, with homogeneous territories on the basis of the 1967 borders and with East

Jerusalem as its capital, is the only solution. Any other peace plan, apart from that, will never

stand a chance at being fair, just and implemented. Now, from the rostrum of the General

Assembly, I ask those present, where are the borders of the State of Israel? Are they the 1947

borders, the 1967 borders or is there another border of which we must be informed? How can the

114

Golan Heights and the West Bank settlements be seized, just like other occupied Palestinian

territories, before the eyes of the world if they do not fall within the official borders of that

State? Is the aim of the initiative promoted as the deal of the century to entirely eliminate the

presence of the State and the people of Palestine? Is there a thirst for more bloodshed? All the

actors of the international community, in particular the United Nations, should provide concrete

support to the Palestinian people beyond mere promises. It is very important in that regard for the

United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to continue its

activities effectively. Turkey will continue to stand by the oppressed people of Palestine, as it has

always done. It is also very important for the South Caucasus to cease to be one of the areas of

conflict and tension in the world, with a view to achieving a fair and peaceful future. It is

unacceptable that Nagorno Karabakh and its surrounding areas, which are Azerbaijani territories, are

still occupied despite all the resolutions that have been adopted in that regard. One of the problems

to which the international community has failed to devote enough attention is the Kashmir conflict,

which has been awaiting a solution for 72 years. The stability and prosperity of South Asia cannot

be separated from the Kashmir issue. Despite the resolutions that the Security Council has adopted,

Kashmir remains besieged and 8 million people are still stuck in Kashmir; they cannot leave. In order

for the Kashmiri people to look towards a safe future with their Pakistani and Indian neighbours, it

is imperative to solve the problem with dialogue and on the basis of justice and equality, instead of

with conflict. Another issue to which the world appears to remain indifferent is the humanitarian

tragedy faced by Rohingya Muslims. The independent commission of inquiry, established under the

auspices of the United Nations, has recorded the existence of a genocidal intent behind the events

perpetrated in Myanmar’s Rakhine state. Turkey will continue to carry out initiatives to ensure the

security and fundamental rights of the Rohingya people, as well as the humanitarian relief activities

it has undertaken since day one. The invasions, conflicts and terrorist activities that have

continued uninterrupted in Afghanistan for almost four decades have also raised challenges at

the global level. It is high time for peace and security to be restored. It is up to us to assume that

responsibility and to take action. Today, one of the biggest threats to global peace and stability is

the rise in racist, xenophobic, discriminatory and anti-Islamic rhetoric. Muslims are the primary

targets of hate speech, discrimination and defamation against their sacred values. The most striking

recent example was the terrorist attack perpetrated last March in Christchurch, New Zealand. Just as

the terrorist attack targeting Muslims in New Zealand was wrong and unacceptable, acts of terrorism

targeting Christians in Sri Lanka and Jewish communities in the United States are equally wrong and

unacceptable. We are responsible for turning that disease into a raging insanity. Populist politicians

seeking votes by provoking such tendencies, as well as the communities that normalize hate speech

under the pretext of freedom of expression, are primarily the ones to blame. Prejudice, ignorance

and bigotry, as well as attempts to marginalize migrants, in particular Muslims, have paved the

way for the rise in such morbid tendencies, which can be defeated only by our common will

and efforts. As statesmen and stateswomen, it is our fundamental duty to adopt inclusive and

tolerant public rhetoric to eradicate the scourge of terrorism once and for all. The Secretary-

General recently introduced the Plan of Action to Safeguard Religious Sites, a United Nations

initiative in the establishment of which Turkey played a lead political role within the United Nations

Alliance of Civilizations. We hope it will help raise awareness on the issue. I hereby request the

designation of 15 March by the United Nations — the date the Christchurch attack was carried out

— as the International Day for Solidarity against Islamophobia. I also invite the Islamic world to

start a thorough assessment of all issues, in particular the Sunni-Shia divide, which have fuelled its

internal conflicts and political power struggles to date, and to settle their disputes once and for all.

Turkey is a rightful successor to the collective heritage of both Eastern and Western civilizations,

owing to its geographical location at the centre of the ancient world. Therefore, we are obliged to

take the necessary steps, assume responsibility and rise to the occasion. We will continue to fulfil

our responsibilities to humankind because we are deeply affected, directly and indirectly, by the

crises that besiege our region. A United Nations — and especially a Security Council — that is

reformed on the basis of justice, moral values and conscience will again give hope and

aspirations to humankind. Turkey stands ready to support all endeavours and initiatives in that

regard. With that understanding, we are willing to assume the presidency of the General

Assembly at it seventy-fifth session We have therefore nominated to that important post

Ambassador Volkan Bozkir, former Minister of European Union Affairs and current Chairman

of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. We have full

confidence that Mr. Bozkir, a seasoned diplomat and politician, will shoulder that responsibility

very successfully. I trust that the Assembly will give him its full support.

Istanbul, the biggest city in Turkey, currently hosts various United Nations regional agencies and

115

we would like to turn Istanbul into a bigger regional and global hub for the United Nations. The

United Nations Technology Bank for the Least Developed Countries became operational last year

in Istanbul. We also appreciate the positive and encouraging reactions we have received to date

to our proposal to host a United Nations youth centre in Istanbul, which I announced last year

from this very rostrum. There are now 59 members of the Group of Friends of Mediation, which

we co-chair. We have carried that United Nations initiative into the Organization for Security

and Cooperation in Europe and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. I believe that it is within

our reach to find fair, equitable and conscientious solutions to all the global challenges we face. I

would like to conclude my remarks with the following wishes: freedom for all, peace for all

prosperity for all, justice for all and a peaceful and safe future for all. I wish every success for the

work of the seventy-fourth session of the General Assembly. On behalf of my people, I extend

greetings to all members with the most heartfelt love and respect.

fortress europe and npe: compatible? - diva portal

Documents