ONUR ÖNCÜ @oencueonur
Is the “Blue Homeland” a realism or a “fairy tale”? Can Turkiye “do the same” to Israel as he did to Karabakh and Libya?
These questions didn’t arise out of nowhere.
All hell broke loose when Namuk Tan, a retired ambassador and current deputy prime minister of the Istanbul People’s Party, called the “Blue Homeland” a name proposed by retired admirals years ago but quickly adopted by the government from the parliamentary rostrum as a “fairy tale.” It remains that Tan was not labeled a “traitor.” Finally, AKP Kayseri deputy, former chief of staff and minister of defense, said, “We know the fate of those who try to destroy the Blue Homeland.”
On the same day, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, “Just as we entered Karabakh and Libya, we will do the same to them.” The Israeli response was not delayed. Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz said, “President Erdogan is following in the footsteps of (deposed Iraqi leader) Saddam Hussein.” This time there was a “response” from Ankara.
So what do Erdogan’s remarks about Israel mean? What is the true nature of the “Blue Homeland” and why is it on the agenda?
We discussed these two fundamental issues with foreign policy writer Aydin Sezer.
Why do you think President Erdogan made such hostile statements against Israel?
President Erdogan and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Photo: Reuters
The President has said this about Greece and he has spoken about Syria frequently and brought it up, so unfortunately I don’t have a clear opinion on what the President is thinking or what he wants to say, but he has been very clear about such actions against Israel.
So I would like to ask: Is President Erdogan using such language in his foreign policy to design his domestic policies?
No doubt about it. This is a continuation of the AKP and Erdogan strategy from the very beginning, to instrumentalize foreign policy and hold such discussions on hot topics in domestic politics, in other words, to occupy the agenda with artificial topics. There is no hesitation in this. But there is another problem with the amount of explanation. You can bring up Israel-related issues, you can criticize Netanyahu, you can criticize Greece. But statements like “It may come suddenly one night” or “It will enter in the same way that it entered Karabakh or Libya” lead to some kind of sensationalist attempt. The clear answer to your question is “yes”. I would say that he is using it like this.
Erdogan’s comments on Israel were reminiscent of his past comments on Egypt, Syria and the UAE. Erdogan’s words are harsh at first, but then he takes a more moderate approach.
You said that he is “moving to a more moderate course,” but that’s a bit of an exaggeration. He is clearly making a “U-turn.” For example, his remarks about the Saudi Crown Prince, Sisi (Egyptian President), his remarks about the United Arab Emirates being supporters of the July 15 coup, etc. So the president can make a clear “U-turn,” which opens up a new debate about the weight of the statements he brings to the table. If the President of the Republic of Turkey is talking about entering the country, this is a very important statement. But unfortunately, if we look at the examples so far, what the process has been, what the process has been, it is clear that it is a waste of time to comment on the gravity of this statement.
What impact will President Erdogan’s remarks about Israel have on the international community?
For 20 years, the international community has been witnessing President Erdogan and his utterances. These utterances have been strongly criticized by interlocutors. What we encounter are mainly negative effects related to Turkey’s image and reputation. Apart from that, we have not yet witnessed the development of sanctions or a different discourse.
So have they grown accustomed to Erdogan’s abusive language?
No doubt about it. In an environment where Turkey economically needs the assistance and credit of Western capital, such harsh statements will certainly have some consequences, because we know how many people and organizations are sympathetic to Israel in the world of capital, markets and international markets. Such statements do not bring any benefits to the country in foreign policy, but, moreover, it is debatable what they will bring and what they will incorporate into domestic politics, but at the same time they will lead to a reaction abroad.
The Israeli statement was also very harsh…Erdogan’s words were interpreted as a threat by Israel. Is there any actual reflection on these mutual harsh words?
No, no. President Erdogan knows it too. Neither does Israel. Unfortunately, no one expects such statements to become reality. This word gives us a clue as to their seriousness as we debate.
From here, I would like to go to the “blue hometown”. How do you interpret this argument?
Two things must be said about this argument. We need to look up the exact dictionary definition of the word “homeland”. A homeland is an area in which a state can exercise its legislative, executive and judicial powers. This is the first thing. If we are going to use the concept of homeland in relation to the ocean, which is a natural right, we need to limit it to the territorial waters, where our exclusive rights are exercised. The border of Turkiye’s territorial waters is Turkey’s blue homeland. There is no room for criticism here. I repeat. We are talking about territorial waters. In other words, the area in which we exercise full sovereignty and authority over the seabed, the waters above it, and the airspace above it can be called the “homeland”, “blue homeland” or “white homeland”. You can use any word you like. There is no hesitation here. This is a national duty for the military, or for those responsible for defending the territory of the homeland.
Secondly, there are two basic mistakes made by those who use the concept and definition of the “Blue Homeland” in Turkey. One of them is called “Blue Homeland” and uses a map of the continental shelf. The continental shelf is an area where you are only allowed to mine and extract minerals from the seabed and have limited sovereignty. You have no rights to the waters above it, and no rights to the airspace above it. Just like the Mediterranean, the Russians come and do exercises, launch missiles, and fishermen roam around there. So it is not a homeland. Unfortunately, calling a place that is not a homeland a homeland is a fairy tale, a story, or you can use any adjective you like.
A map of the blue hometown created by retired Major General Chihat Yayju
Their second mistake stems from their discussion of the Libya agreement.
What is that agreement?
We have moved the border of our “Blue Homeland” to the line established in the Maritime Boundary Delimitation Agreement we signed with Libya in 2019. Not territorial waters. Only the continental shelf. Why do you feel the need to use the word homeland?
Secondly, the government featured in the agreement with Libya is not a legitimate government. The term of that government, which the AKP presented to the people as legitimate, ended in 2017. So you made an agreement with a government that does not exist. This agreement has no effect in international law. And even though I said, “No, that government is legitimate.” If you say, “We signed it, we are right,” then there is a clear provision in the Suheirat Agreement of 2105 that international treaties and agreements require the approval of the Eastern Parliament. We are not asking for parliamentary approval here. In any case, the government is not legitimate. So, based on an agreement with a government that does not exist, you made the Libyan Agreement and created the perception of your homeland to that extent. Greece thought that this was not in its interest, so you went to Egypt and made an agreement. This agreement was beyond the borders that were made in the Libyan Agreement.
So, is the statement in “Blue Fairy Tale” true?
I think Namick Tan’s definition of a fairy tale is correct in some ways. He should have said fairy tales, not fairy tales. That’s it.
But Hulusi Akar says “the blue homeland is a clear reality, not a fairy tale”…
Now you said that Hulusi Akar said, I mean, you can’t degenerate the word homeland like this. It’s not that cheap. You can’t even steer the ship. You send ships to Somalia. “There is no natural gas there,” says the Minister of Energy. You can’t stick your nose out of the Gulf of Antalya anyway, then you say, “We will defend the ‘Blue Homeland,'” and so on. You say. Such an approach is not authentic and is not compatible with any technical definition.
The opposition sees this as an expansionist policy. Really?
The territorial waters of the Republic of Turkey in the Black Sea, the Mediterranean Sea and the Aegean Sea are the “blue homeland”. Anyone can say anything against it if they claim rights to the homeland beyond this. They call it expansionism, they call it xenophobia, they call it imperialism. Can you imagine other countries doing the same to us? No one disagrees with the concept of a “blue homeland”. Hulusi Akar says “blue homeland”. It is necessary to ask Hulusi Akar as a former Chief of Staff, what do you understand about the homeland? Do you consider the continental shelf as a homeland?
Doesn’t the government know about this?
It’s not that he doesn’t know, but that his government knows this is the case. That’s why he doesn’t steer ships in the Mediterranean. The European Union and the United States are pressuring that the Libya agreement is wrong, and Turkey is responding. Has President Erdogan ever been in this debate? No. Why isn’t he in? Turkiye cannot sail ships in the Mediterranean.
