Let’s thank Barrack!

Even though Özgür Özel may have thought he declared him a “persona non grata,” or an unwelcome person, we should say that we owe him a debt of gratitude.

This is no joke.

Truly...

We know well that in international politics, a single sentence uttered can sometimes render years of debate unnecessary.

We have witnessed many times how a few words spoken can lay bare the truths hidden behind diplomatic courtesy in all their nakedness.

Tom Barrack, America’s Ambassador to Turkey, who struts about the Levant with the air of a colonial governor, has taken on a historic role, whether he realizes it or not!

He has laid bare the mentality on the other side of the Atlantic in all its nakedness.

He didn’t just blather; perhaps that wasn’t his intention, and perhaps what he said fit into a framework that was, in his own world, extremely “rational,” “pragmatic,” and even “realist.”

That is not what we are debating.

Because the real issue emerges at the point Barrack is signaling. 

So much so that he has beautifully exposed the fraudulent, hypocritical face of America—which at least a segment in Turkey insists on not seeing.

It is as clear as day that the chasm between the word salad they skillfully hide behind diplomatic rhetoric and their politics of interest can no longer be contained.

Let’s put on our reading glasses.

The foreign policy discourse of the West, and especially of America, has been shaped for decades around certain concepts: democracy, human rights, freedom of expression, the rule of law, and so on... These concepts have not only been a collection of values; they have also been used as tools of intervention.

In other words, if a country was to be pressured, if sanctions were to be applied, or if a regime change was to be supported, these concepts were often the excuse.

Now, with Barrack’s statements, the cat is out of the bag.

He came out and praised single-man regimes.

He said that monarchies provide “stability.”

He talked about “benevolent absolutism” and such.

He implied that non-democratic forms of government might be more suitable for some societies.

Perhaps most strikingly, there were his remarks regarding Tayyip Erdoğan in a speech he gave in New York last September.

Let’s recall.

"Our President said, 'I'm tired of this, let's take a bold step in terms of relations and give him what he needs.' When I asked, 'Okay, Mr. President, what does he need?' he said, 'legitimacy.' He is a very smart person. The issue is not borders, S-400s, or F-16s. The issue is legitimacy."

What does this mean?

It means that for Turkey, democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and so on are just stories...

The issue is who America can work with more comfortably!

Let’s sit crooked and talk straight; there has been a debate going on in Turkey for years. Does the West really want democracy, or does it want administrations that are compatible with it? This question has often been lost among ideological polarizations. Some saw the West as a system of absolute values, while others defined it as a purely opportunistic structure.

Barrack’s words have added a different dimension to this debate. Because this time, it was not an academic or an opposition politician commenting. It was someone who comes from within the system, does business with that system, and knows the logic of that system who spoke.

Moreover, this person was also a close friend of Trump.

In summary, he said, “If a leader provides stability in the geography they are in, this may be enough for the West. Whatever they do internally, we don’t care, we will ignore it.”

This approach is actually not new. We have seen similar examples for decades. Military regimes supported in Latin America, monarchies in the Middle East, authoritarian leaders in Africa...

They are all products of the same logic: “If they work with us, there is no problem.”

But the difference this time is:

In those periods, this reality was hidden more skillfully. The distance between rhetoric and reality was maintained more carefully.

Now, no one feels the need to protect it. The sentences are spilled out recklessly.

Of course, this is better.

Let us also read Barrack’s positive assessments of monarchies within this framework. Gulf countries have been in close relations with the West for a long time. Energy security, financial flows, geopolitical balances, and so on...

The forms of government of these countries have never been placed at the center of any serious criticism of democracy.

Why?

Because the system works.

Because interests overlap.

Because the risk is low.

Barrack’s words do not romanticize this situation; they normalize it. 

Let us underline its importance.

Because if this situation is normalized, it will become unquestionable.

Viewed from Turkey’s perspective, the issue is even more different.

Because Turkey is a country that has never completely severed its relationship with the West, but has never fully surrendered either.

This “intermediate position” produces both opportunities and crises.

This is the background of Barrack’s “let’s give Erdoğan legitimacy” approach; it is not a declaration of support, but a strategy proposal.

In other words, the issue is this: 

“If we cannot change him, let’s work with him.”

Perhaps the question is wrong.

The correct one might be this: The West sometimes says very clearly what it wants, but do we really want to hear it?

Of course, one should not fall into a fallacy here. Barrack’s words do not represent the entire West. There are different views within it, and there are different power centers within America as well.

However, the issue is which view is decisive in which situation. Perhaps more importantly, which value retreats in the face of which interest?

Barrack’s statements opened an honest window to these questions.

At the point reached today, the fundamental issue of the international system is that the tension between values and interests has become unmanageable.

This tension exists not only in countries like Turkey but also within the West itself.

While the discourse of democracy continues to be a strong reference internally, the same consistency cannot be shown in foreign policy.

And this means a crisis of confidence.

Barrack’s words are a symptom of this crisis of confidence, and at the same time, a confession.

Then let us ask again; why should we thank him?

Because he showed us that what is decisive in international relations is not morality. That is, democracy is defended in words but not always applied. Most importantly; power often takes precedence over values.

Let us underline this with a thick pen; seeing these truths may be uncomfortable, but not seeing them is more dangerous.

In short, Barrack’s statements should be a moment of enlightenment for the people of our country. A moment when masks fall, clichés are broken, and truths are seen more clearly...

That is why, thank you, Barrack.

Because from now on, no one has the luxury of saying “we didn’t know” or “we couldn’t understand,” and with that, we put a period to our article!