A ten-year shackle...

The "Mecca Agreement," signed between Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan and long whispered about in diplomatic corridors, has finally entered the records of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM). 

It may have entered the records, but the clauses bursting from between the lines of the text have presented us with a document of absolute "strategic blindness" in terms of Turkey’s foreign policy, regional interests, and potential maneuvers.

We do not need to drink from a fortune teller's cup to see what, whom, and which global scenario this agreement serves; we only need to take a look at the map.

Have we forgotten Donald Trump’s arrogant and insolent outburst, which we could translate as, "If I want, Erdoğan will attack Yemen"? 

Let us refresh our memory!

Government spokespeople could not, and still cannot, construct a single satisfactory, honorable sentence against these humiliating expressions that directly target Turkey’s sovereign rights. 

Why, you ask? 

Because the answer to whose order this agreement was prepared under is hidden exactly in that arrogant sentence.

Even though Trump shouted "Yemen" on stage, the whole world knows that the real concern of the Pentagon and the strategic game-makers in Washington is to encircle Iran, to take the wind out of the Tehran administration's sails, and to build a new front in the Middle East centered on the Israel-Sunni Arab axis. 

Let us not beat around the bush; before the government throws Turkey into a proxy war thousands of kilometers away from its borders—a war that has absolutely nothing to do with its own national security—it must explain to this nation why it is acting as a subcontractor for someone else's bloody scenarios!

This is the real place where an uproar should be raised regarding the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement. 

The issue goes far beyond signing an ordinary military cooperation or training protocol between two countries.

This is something we are all already aware of.

The real issue is: in the face of what concrete threat, in line with whose geopolitical interests, and to what extent of a military obligation (an obligation whose minimum bill is loss of life) has the Republic of Turkey undertaken with this agreement!

Our questions remain, and we continue.

While Turkey’s massive obligations arising from its NATO membership are already evident, what is the logical, rational justification for dragging Ankara into a new military pact in this most fragile field of the Middle East?

The second article of the agreement is a complete diplomatic minefield.

It is clearly seen that a structure similar to the Washington-patented NATO Treaty has been created in the agreement. However, using the NATO established with Cold War dynamics and today’s Middle Eastern quagmire in the same sentence is, to put it mildly, ignorance of international relations.

The agreement also contains a clause reminiscent of NATO’s famous Article 5. It stipulates that an attack on one of the parties shall be considered an attack on all parties.

In other words, because of Saudi Arabia’s reckless moves in Yemen or in the event of a direct conflict with Iran, Ankara will automatically find itself in the position of a "party to the war." 

A supposedly limiting and soothing annotation has been added to the text, such as "Each country provides support according to its own capacity."

Those who have read even a little bit of war history know very well that diplomatic word games on paper do not slow down the speed of a bullet on the front line. 

By the nature of war, an obligation that starts today as "diplomatic support" turns into logistical support tomorrow, and into the direct intervention of Turkish soldiers in the deserts of Yemen or the Persian Gulf the day after.

Let us put the Iran and Gulf balances aside for now; let us focus on Riyadh’s quagmire in Yemen.

Where and when have Saudi Arabia’s political, sectarian, and strategic calculations in Yemen overlapped with Turkey’s vision for the region? 

Why should the Mehmetçik (Turkish soldier) pay the price for the adventures the Saudi dynasty has embarked upon with the reflex of protecting its own throne? 

Most importantly; will the Houthis, whom Saudi Arabia has directly declared a "terrorist organization" and is fighting in Yemen, also be officially placed in the same category by Turkey after this agreement? 

How will Ankara maneuver tomorrow when the parties' threat definitions and relationships with actors in the region diverge? 

The vague, flexible, and circular general expressions in the text do not provide an answer to any of these vital questions.

Let us emphasize that the more painful and dire aspect is the "shackle" provision hidden in Article 16 of the agreement.

The fact that the agreement is indefinite and that a request to leave the pact can only be brought to the agenda after ten years is complete suicide in foreign policy. In a Middle Eastern geography where balances change not in days but in hours, and alliances melt like soap bubbles, what kind of state wisdom is it to lock Turkey’s room for maneuver for ten years? 

Moreover, the provision that a country wishing to leave cannot withdraw from previously agreed-upon activities and projects clearly reveals that the issue will outlive the political lifespan of the current government and is already mortgaging the will of future governments and the state.

However, beyond all these geopolitical risks, there is a scandalous question regarding our domestic law and democracy.

While the TBMM, the manifestation of national will, has not yet ratified this agreement, and before the constitutional and legal processes were completed, committees were formed, meetings were held, and decisions were taken as if the agreement had already entered into force.

This is a clear, de facto disregard for the constitutional order and the legislative-oversight authority of the Parliament.

Let us come to the dimension of political and diplomatic inconsistency. 

If Ankara has been so concerned with ensuring the security of Saudi Arabia and preventing instability in Yemen, and has deemed this "vital," why did it not impose the condition of recognizing the TRNC, our own national cause and piece of our soul, on this Riyadh-Islamabad axis? 

Why did it not slam its fist on the table with the same determination for the diplomatic legitimacy of the TRNC in exchange for this military pact?

Let us sit straight and speak truly; today, the urgent need of the Middle East is not new military blocs, Sunni-Shia-based polarization, or American-backed pacts. The region needs confidence-building steps, keeping diplomatic channels open, and economic cooperation. 

It is that clear, that simple! 

Every new military alliance established triggers counter-alliances and once again dynamites the hopes for peace in the region.

Turkey’s true national interest is not to take sides in proxy fronts opened by others from across the ocean, and not to be a shield for the security of Gulf sheikhs; 

Turkey’s interest is to ensure its own security in line with its own national priorities, with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s principle of "Peace at home, peace in the world." 

Let us underline this with a red pen. 

The government must transparently explain what exactly it has gained for Turkey (if anything) with the Mecca Agreement. 

Because what will be lost with these submissive military engagements is not just our diplomatic room for maneuver; it is the ability to make the decision to enter or not enter a war, when necessary, solely and exclusively in line with our own national interests—that is, the freedom to exercise the state’s sovereign right, and with that, we conclude our article.