The hope expected from the US

The President's visit to the US (!) raises certain thoughts in almost everyone's mind, while at the same time creating significant question marks. After all, it does not seem very understandable to condemn the horror of the genocide Israel is inflicting on the oppressed Palestinian people at an Islamic world meeting on one hand, and then to rush to the leader of policies that openly support Israel—policies that even the American public itself opposes—on the other. Especially, as we learned from the press, the fact that the meeting was arranged through the US President's son has, I believe, deeply shaken almost all of us, whether biased or opposed.

There can be no resentment or hard feelings between countries. Despite all opposing views, trade agreements can be made and protocols can be signed between national economies, and even between individuals. However, in all these and similar transactions, every country must take a position that makes its own policy and upright stance clear. The process of pursuing mutual policy between countries is inevitable, but this process should not be in the form of dependency.

Specifically, while a country determines its policy, it must certainly take into account the behavior and possible opposing policies of the other country or countries; however, while potential counter-moves are taken into account in countries' decisions, the expectation of possible counter-moves cannot have a restrictive or obstructive function for the deciding country. Let us hope that our US-bound travelers, in this visit involving aircraft orders, can at least express objections as high-pitched as the sharp objections rising within the US itself and among some of its politicians against Israel's genocide policies!

For example, the visiting delegation could at least display a stance as respectful of human rights, labor rights, and the rights of the Palestinian people as a Richard David Wolff or a Stephen A. Resnick, or even Bernie Sanders, who makes interesting speeches in the US Senate. We will have an idea about the meetings from the statements reflected in the press after the meetings or from the customary plane meeting on the return journey.

The order for 250 or 300 aircraft to be placed with Boeing during the US visit, I suppose, may not be for Eurofighters or even F-35s, but the lower-model F-16s could be on the agenda. The US will consider its national interest, or rather its national gain, when evaluating these demands.

Aircraft sales please Trump, who has more of a shopkeeper's attitude than that of a head of state. But another issue is that the Eskişehir region, which contains very large and valuable mineral reserves, is dazzling to Trump, who is in fierce competition with China. Another favor Turkey is offering the US is the tax reduction to be granted to certain US products, which will be implemented around 2028. If we look at the balance sheet, Turkey's hand does not look very weak, but for some reason, the US's hand looks quite strong. I think this is the crux of the matter; let us now return to this critical point.

Let us go back a bit, towards the end of the 1990s. There is a three-legged coalition in power; the late Ecevit, whom the public dubbed 'Karaoğlan' (Black Boy), is in a semi-ill state, and Mesut Yılmaz from the Motherland Party and Devlet Bahçeli from the Nationalist Movement Party are on the scene. The key point here is that Ecevit, who opposed poppy cultivation, was the thorn in the system for the US. How is it possible to stand up to the US? That was done once and for all with the March 1, 2003, decision. This decision, which constitutes our pride from the past, should be an important lesson for the leaders of the AKP and MHP who effectively dominate the majority of the parliament today.

That delegation in the past that proudly gifted this lesson to our people—that is, the delegation that included not today's Bahçeli, but the Bahçeli of that day—was to be liquidated, and indeed it was! The current government, which was nurtured and unfortunately made beloved to its people, was brought to the White House, taught its lessons, and after being given a spoonful of honey by the IMF and Derviş in 2000, was made the 'chief' of the Middle East. This was not, as those concerned perceived, a local administrative role, but rather a task of doing what the 'boss' said. I wish this critical, yet equally tragic point had been clearly understood by both the public and the concerned parties themselves! The government, which started out by riding the FETO horse, was managed and directed through very intricate socio-psychological methods, both in the service of the boss and in the guise of appearing likable to the public, and then FETO was to be sidelined; indeed, it was withdrawn from both the system and the country because its mission was over. If today's administration had not been so eager to be tasked with achieving the goals of another state, as if ignoring its status as the representative of the people, we might not be talking about these things today, or we might be talking about them in a different context. Just as one cannot lament by looking at the past, there is no yet-discovered technical method for erasing the mistakes of the past. The only option today is to change the agent of the past and pave the way for new policies.

Let us hope that our people, by looking at politics not with passion but rationally for themselves, future generations, and the country in general, can demonstrate the foresight to save both the country and today's officials with a show of will reminiscent of the March 1, 2003, Parliamentary decision.

İzzettin Önder