President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan answered journalists' questions on the plane on his return from his visit to the United States.
'Fair peace in Syria would benefit Türkiye the most. We want peace in Syria, and we expect everyone who stands for peace to support this historic call. Most important step in this process is to start new era with Syria," the Turkish president said in a statement.
On a potential meeting with Syrian regime leader Assad, Erdoğan said, "Turkish foreign minister working with counterparts to determine roadmap, we will take steps accordingly."
On Ankara's peace efforts in Syria, Erdoğan added that "the United States and Iran should welcome these positive developments, and support the process to end immense suffering."
Here are Erdoğan's statements:
Dear friends of the press, I greet you with my warmest feelings. We have completed our visit to Washington on the occasion of the NATO Summit of Heads of State and Government. We participated in the 75th-anniversary celebrations of NATO.
The summit we attended was beneficial in demonstrating the unity and coherence of the alliance. I extensively shared with you the topics we discussed and the decisions we made during our press conference. In addition to these, I would like to touch on a few points here. The world knows the prices we have paid in our fight against terrorism. I emphasized once again here that we expect sincere solidarity from our allies in our fight against terrorism.
I also stated that the restrictions on defense industry trade should be lifted quickly. As you know, at NATO's Vilnius Summit, all allies made commitments in this direction. Most of our allies have taken the necessary steps in line with their commitments during this period.
However, some NATO members have not changed their negative attitudes despite their promises. I addressed this situation in both the first session and my bilateral meetings during the summit, specifically explaining these issues to the leaders I met. I said, "We do not want to talk about restrictions among NATO allies anymore."
Our balanced stance since the first day of the Ukraine-Russia war is already known by all the leaders. Russia, like Ukraine, is our neighbor. It is a country with which we have strong ties. We have multifaceted relations with both countries. We also place importance on maintaining these relations despite the war.
I emphasized that diplomacy should be returned to and a negotiation ground prepared without more bloodshed. In this regard, I stressed that we are ready to continue the Istanbul process. As you know, former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte has been appointed as NATO's new Secretary General. I had conveyed our sensitivities and expectations to Rutte when he visited our country during his candidacy process.
I believe he will act in this direction. Of course, I also met with my dear friend Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who will hand over his duties on October 1. I expressed our gratitude for his devoted work over the last 10 years and the close cooperation he developed with our country. On the occasion of the summit, I held bilateral meetings with many heads of state and government. I hope our visit and contacts will lead to good outcomes.
NATO's 75th anniversary was commemorated, how do you evaluate NATO's functionality in relation to its claims given the current state of the world? NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned about "evaluating new capabilities and opportunities within the defense industry," and you said the same thing when departing from Istanbul. Who is this defense that Stoltenberg is talking about against, and what for?
The world is rapidly changing. Power dynamics play a significant role in this rapid change. We are facing a world order where the powerful dominate. For example, Russia is in solidarity with China. This situation seriously disturbs the West. The West is providing all kinds of support to Ukraine with all its means, including financial and material support, weapons, and ammunition.
Despite all these supports, they have not yet achieved the desired result in Ukraine. At this point, their biggest assurance is the existence of NATO. NATO is a great power, and it somewhat relieves them. The United States is at the forefront of these Western countries. Alongside the United States are Western countries like Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. Thus, this power is reinforced. Despite this reinforcement, their failure to achieve the desired result in the great power competition inevitably brings these countries to a certain point. Our position as Türkiye in this regard is different.
We are in communication with both Russia and Ukraine. While doing this, we strive to approach as fairly as possible. This situation can sometimes disturb both Russia and Ukraine. But we say, "Both of you are our neighbors; we have had serious relations with you from the past to the present. For example, we took a fair step in the Black Sea Grain Corridor. We met the demands of both Russia and Ukraine. They said, 'Give what you take from this grain corridor to the West, but also give to Africa, and take it as Türkiye.'
We tried to do this as much as we could. Now we say, let's reopen the grain corridor. Now we are negotiating this with both Russia and Ukraine. We have not yet achieved a result in this regard. My last meeting with Russian President Putin was on this matter. We also discussed these issues with Ukrainian President Zelensky at the NATO Summit. We want to operate the grain corridor with the Ukrainian side as well. I hope we will start operating this corridor again.
We have a unique position within NATO. How fair and balanced do you think our relationship with NATO is? When you do a cost-benefit analysis, is there a reciprocity when you compare what we give and receive from NATO?
In a cost-benefit analysis, we as Türkiye have not fallen into a position contrary to the principle of reciprocity. We have not yet achieved a result in terms of NATO's intervention in the fight against terrorism. I have expressed our dissatisfaction with this to Secretary General Stoltenberg many times. As a NATO country, we have always explained our dissatisfaction to the West.
Germany, France, and the United Kingdom are among the first-degree countries that have found a certain level of support for terrorism. We explained these in detail to Germany. For example, our country, therefore NATO's borders, have often been left alone in protecting the borders and neutralizing threats in the fight against terrorism. Not only that, but support was also provided to strengthen the threats of terrorists threatening NATO's borders.
These do not present a very positive picture for us. On the other hand, we currently have a problem with Germany where the turbines that should come for the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant are waiting at the German customs. This has seriously disturbed us. I reminded German Chancellor Olaf Scholz of this issue again in my bilateral meeting. We need to overcome the issues such as the failure to meet our request for Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft, the turbine issue, and the procurement of some machines used in our frigates. We will follow the developments.
The issue of the NATO Deputy Secretary General is also on the agenda. As far as I know, Hüseyin Diriöz from Türkiye served as Deputy Secretary General between 2010-2013, and Tacan İldem also held the same position between 2016-2020. I understand that you requested a Deputy Secretary General position for Türkiye during your meeting with the new NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. How does he view this, will it happen, and if so, is there a designated candidate?
I clearly stated this during the press conference I held after the NATO Summit. Neither I nor our Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan make this decision. We conveyed our request to them. Rutte said he would visit Türkiye before the handover. If this visit takes place, we will discuss these issues with him again. We are one of the most important countries in NATO.
We provide very valuable contributions to keep the alliance together and maintain its effectiveness. It is natural for Türkiye to be represented in such a position in the Secretary General's structure. In fact, Rutte also stated that such a position would suit Türkiye. We want a person from our country to be appointed as Deputy Secretary General not only for our country's representation in that position but also because we believe it would provide great contributions to NATO in these delicate times.
You also touched on this during the press conference, but we are curious about how the F-35 issue will be resolved. Is there a possibility of returning to the program, or will there be a settlement related to the F-16?
Our priority here is meeting our F-16 request. There may be different situations in the sub-assemblies, but we do not want to bring the financial relationships there to the agenda. Because we have already made our payment for the F-35. In fact, 5 F-35s were also taken into the hangar, but unfortunately, the event developed differently, and later the US even came to the point of not giving us our F-16s.
In the last meeting, US President Biden said, "I will solve the F-16 issue within 3-4 weeks." For us, the important point is the F-16 issue. If these planes and their parts come to us, our technical staff is already sufficient. All our workshops are very successful in the modernization of F-16s. We and our relevant ministers and institutions are closely following this process and continuing our efforts to achieve a result in a short time.
Before the NATO Summit, you attended the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit. You also expressed Türkiye's desire to become a member. In the Western press, among the leaders of NATO member countries, you were described and commented on as "the only leader who can meet with Putin." Therefore, Türkiye is seen as a true center of balance. You also mentioned the new efforts related to the Grain Corridor and the current situation in the Russia-Ukraine issue. From this perspective, how does Türkiye pursue a balance policy in terms of international politics and the challenging process ahead?
We continue our relations with Russia, China, and even Belarus without breaking or damaging them. At the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit, we had a very sincere meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. We also had good meetings with Russian President Putin and Belarusian President Lukashenko. I believe the benefits of all these contacts will be seen sooner or later. We will see this.
Meanwhile, our ministers also had meetings. The senior management of our party was in China.
They had very productive meetings with the ruling party in China. When my friends briefed me on these meetings, they said they received "very high-level treatment." Our friends carried out such a beautiful and successful visit.
After that, we met with President Xi Jinping in Astana. We had our meetings with him in this way. He invited us to China again. I also invited him to our country. He said, "I will make my return visit next year." Thus, we had the opportunity to discuss our political and commercial relations. Now, we are likely to visit China after the United Nations General Assembly meeting. But I believe that President Xi Jinping will pay us a return visit in 2025.
You mentioned about the improvement of relations with Syria, saying "We will make our invitation to Bashar al-Assad." In the press conference you held after the NATO Summit, you also had an approach of "We made the invitation, we are waiting for a response." Is this invitation expected to take place in a location like Ankara, Istanbul, or a border area? We know Russia's stance on this rapprochement, but is there a reaction or attitude from the US and Iran?
I have given the task to Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan. Our Foreign Minister will determine the whole roadmap by meeting with his counterparts. Accordingly, we will take steps. We believe that a fair peace in Syria is possible. We always emphasize that Syria's territorial integrity is also in our interest. We say that a fair peace to be built in Syria will benefit us the most. The most important step in this construction process is to start a new era with Syria.
So far, this process has developed positively. I hope we will take concrete steps soon. The US and Iran should also be pleased with these positive developments and support the process to end the suffering. We have been striving for years to put out the fire in our neighbor.
Our basic expectation is that no one will be disturbed by the climate that will be created for Syria to build a new future as one and whole. Terrorist organizations will do their best to poison this process. They will organize provocations and set up games. We are aware of all this and are prepared. We want peace in Syria, and we invite everyone who stands for peace to support this historic call.
There are reports that members of the PKK terrorist organization are setting fire to villages, towns, and some settlements in Iraq and withdrawing south. It was revealed that they carried out arson attacks. There were reports that there were also people close to Bafel Talabani and names from the peshmerga loyal to them involved in these attacks. Statements were also made by the Erbil administration on this matter. Our Ministry of National Defense recently shared posts about "locking down." How do you evaluate the current situation on the ground? Are there any notes you can share with us?
After our visit to Iraq, we saw for the first time that very concrete steps were taken on the ground in the fight against the PKK. They passed a declaration through the National Security Council stating that PKK activities are banned in Iraq. We are now seeing the reflections of this on the ground. After that visit, the cooperation between our security forces and the Erbil administration is gratifying.
We have good relations with both the Ministry of Defense and intelligence organizations in Iraq. The Iraqi Ministry of Interior officially announced that the arson and fire activities in Iraq were carried out by the PKK. Following this, the Erbil administration made statements confirming this. These are developments that have emerged for the first time in the fight against the PKK in the recent period.
Therefore, this situation is not sufficient for us but gratifying. After all, there is a progressing process. The tension between the Sulaymaniyah administration and the Erbil administration in Iraq continues. When we went to Erbil, we also said; unless the Sulaymaniyah administration distances itself from the PKK, our attitude towards Sulaymaniyah will not change. The airspace embargo will continue. We have always told them, "If you take some steps on the Sulaymaniyah side, we will evaluate our position." The ball is now in their court.
We are unable to establish the desired level of relationship with the United States. Especially due to their approaches to the PKK, PYD, and FETÖ, we are trying to maintain an unreliable ally relationship. As you know, there is an upcoming election in the US in November. Washington is justifying its support for the PKK and PYD under the pretext of fighting ISIS. On the other hand, they are also supporting FETÖ without any excuse. At this point, what do you think the US is planning, even at the expense of losing Türkiye?
We did not discuss these issues with President Biden at the NATO Summit. We did not get into these issues, such as "There is this calculation with FETÖ, there is that calculation." Right now, FETÖ is not present. Its whereabouts are unknown. Moreover, there is an election in the US in three and a half months. We also have the United Nations General Assembly on our agenda. We will see what the world will talk about at the General Assembly.
We will also give our messages there again. I think we will achieve positive outcomes from the United Nations General Assembly with these messages. The idea of putting terrorist organizations on the same scale as an ally like Türkiye is a fundamentally flawed approach. Supporting puppets like FETÖ and the PKK, using them in one way or another, cannot be an excuse.
Both FETÖ and the PKK are like harmful weeds planted to damage a neighbor's field. Your neighbor will inevitably find a way to fight them and clean those harmful weeds from their field, but those seeds will somehow spread to your land and certainly harm you as well. For years, I have emphasized the boomerang nature of terrorism. Various occasions have proven our righteousness over time.
Do you think President Biden will resist the pressure to withdraw from his re-election bid? Will he resist? Should he resist? You answered this at the press conference today, but would you prefer Donald Trump or Joe Biden?
There is a fact here, which is; first of all, Biden already said, "I am not withdrawing." The American media has already started to announce who will bring whom to where. Both names are seeking support from the American people for a second term. The American people will weigh what both names have done or failed to do during their presidencies and make a decision. We will wait and see this decision.
In France, early general elections were called by President Emmanuel Macron, and one of the main election promises of the left-wing New People's Union, which emerged as the leading party, is the recognition of the State of Palestine. If they succeed, will their stance towards Palestine set an example for other European countries? What is your comment on this?
As the President, the decision on who will form the government with whom in France will be made by President Macron. Currently, the coalition forces in the parliament will carry out the necessary work, and the final word will belong to Macron. On the other hand, those who want to stand on the right side of history should recognize Palestine as a state. A fair and just approach requires this.
The fuse for the process of recognizing Palestine's legitimacy and the State of Palestine has already been lit in Europe. The recent decisions by Spain, Norway, Ireland, and Slovenia have opened that door. It would please us if France takes such a decision. The decision to recognize Palestine contributes to world peace and tranquility. As of today, all countries that do not recognize Palestine as a state should make this correct decision without delay. The path to both regional and global peace lies in a two-state solution within the 1967 borders.
The president has changed in Iran, and Pashinyan in Armenia is making statements in favor of peace. Türkiye and Azerbaijan's perspective is to bring peace to the Caucasus. In this context, what do you say about the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement and Iran's view of the Zangezur Corridor? When the peace agreement is signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan, will there be a peace climate in the region, and could the Armenia-Türkiye border be opened as you indicated? Is this conceivable?
Why not? We have already told Pashinyan everything in this regard. We need to open all the sails to peace now. We hope that permanent peace will soon be achieved between Azerbaijan and Armenia. We wholeheartedly support this peace as Türkiye. The opening of the Zangezur Corridor will also crown and complete this peace agreement. Such steps will positively contribute to the prosperity and tranquility of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Türkiye, and other countries in the region.
We wish for the necessary decisions to be taken and implemented without delay. Positive signals are coming from the region, and we hope these will turn into good news. It is essential for other countries to adopt a similar approach to contribute to the peace process and establish lasting peace as soon as possible. We did not discuss the Zangezur Corridor issue during our meeting with the Iranian President.
We only made evaluations on how he won this election. We want to bring Türkiye-Iran relations to a much different point. The Zangezur Corridor is a strategic corridor that will benefit Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Iran, and once this corridor is operational, both Iran and Azerbaijan will be relieved. For Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, that corridor is very important. I hope that once the railway system there is operational, Azerbaijan will be greatly relieved.
The risk of World War III is being mentioned more frequently than ever. You participated in the last two major international summits. The Shanghai Summit and the NATO Summit afterward. Do you see this risk as high after these summits? Do you have such a concern? If so, what concrete steps should be taken to prevent it?
Frankly, I don't see it, and I don't want to see it. Considering the reasons that led the world to war
before and the precautions that were not taken, it is evident that we need to be careful not to repeat those mistakes today. We should talk about peace more than war. We should take every step for peace, and we should plan to ensure and make peace permanent. All countries need to implement efforts to build an environment of peace and tranquility instead of tension.
