Erdoğan's Challenging Agenda: Middle East Diplomacy and Migration Policy in Germany

After a five-year hiatus, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is in Germany. The general consensus is that Erdoğan's visit will be a challenging one.

Erdoğan's personal participation in an anti-Israel demonstration in Turkey, where he made statements supporting Hamas, has caused a tense atmosphere in Germany. Protests by both anti-Israel groups and anti-Erdoğan groups are within the realm of possibility. The potential for anti-Israel protests in Germany to exceed their intended scope and turn into antisemitic demonstrations is causing concern among Turkish, German, and Jewish communities in Germany.

A Tense Wait in Turkish-German Relations: Erdoğan's Visit and Public Reaction

There are clear differences of opinion in the German press regarding Erdoğan's visit. While media outlets representing right-wing populist politics, such as Welt and Bild, have argued that the visit should be canceled following Erdoğan's statements about Hamas, government spokespeople have expressed the view that, despite the sharp disagreements between Ankara and Berlin, the talks must take place.

Although different stances on the Middle East war form the subtext of Erdoğan's visit to Germany, the discussions are expected to cover topics such as the future of the EU-Turkey agreement, migration management, and cooperation within NATO.

Erdoğan's Rhetoric and Diplomatic Approaches

Within the German government, there has been no direct criticism of Erdoğan at the presidential level so far. However, while government spokespeople and party leaders have clearly stated their disagreements, they consistently point to the importance of talking to individuals who carry international responsibility. As the focus shifts toward opposition parties, the tone and sharpness of the criticism increase.

Michael Roth (SPD), Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the German Parliament, stated in his remarks that "the President of Turkey, who is expected to act as a bridge between Europe and the Middle East, is harming his own country by pouring gasoline on a fire that is already dramatic with his provocative and populist tirades." Roth said, "as a state, it would not be wise to only hold talks with countries that think like us; we must evaluate all necessary discussions to resolve the dramatic situation in Gaza." Emphasizing that they are aware of the difficulties of holding meetings with authoritarian leaders, Roth stated that their expectation is for a meeting where issues are discussed more clearly, rather than a superficial visit.

CSU Chairman Markus Söder raised the bar a bit higher, listing his expectations for the talks as follows: "It is necessary to reduce the number of immigrants in Germany and to clearly address Turkey's stance on Hamas to achieve concrete results."

As a result of the meetings held in recent days regarding the immigration law, a consensus was reached on sending back immigrants who do not have the appropriate conditions to remain in Germany. However, where immigrants who have no country to return to will be sent may be one of the main topics of the talks to be held with Erdoğan. These statements by Söder show that migration policy and Turkey's international stance are among the important agenda items in the talks between Germany and Turkey.

NATO's Balancing Act Amid Conflicts and the Search for a Peaceful Solution

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said, "While NATO allies agree on many fundamental principles, we acknowledge the challenges of having different views within the alliance, and we are not trying to hide these differences. We must see that NATO is an alliance of 31 countries and that taking sides in disagreements could make the situation extremely complex and dangerous. This shows why efforts to find a solution through peaceful negotiations are so important."

Stoltenberg clearly stated NATO's position, saying, "NATO has never played a role in the Israel-Palestine conflict and does not aim to take on a role in this conflict. NATO's primary task is to protect and defend the alliance's territory. If the conflict escalates to a larger regional dimension, it is imperative that NATO is in a position to protect its own territory. However, our main task is to prevent such an escalation."

There has been no explicit criticism from NATO allies regarding Erdoğan and Hamas. This is likely also true for Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who will host Turkish President Erdoğan in Berlin today.

However, nearly half of Germans oppose Erdoğan's visit. According to a poll conducted by the YouGov research company for the Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 45% of participants believe that Scholz should not have invited Erdoğan due to his positive stance on the Islamist Hamas, while 32% said Erdoğan should still be hosted at the Chancellery, and nearly a quarter of the participants did not comment on the matter.

However, the general tendency among the public is to set aside the internal dynamics of countries and resolve the situation in Gaza as soon as possible. There is a demand to initiate the necessary talks to rescue both the hostages who are victims of the war and the people of the region as soon as possible.

Why Is It So Hard to Save These People?

The whole world either sees Hamas as angry or as jihadists. There are similar disagreements regarding Israel. However, if shouting disagreements loudly in the squares does not help save a hostage in that region or a child in Gaza, shouldn't we stop, think, and ask the right questions?

If neither the existence of Israeli hostages nor the civilians in Gaza is enough to stop the war, then whose interest is it still serving for civilians in the region and Israeli citizens held hostage to be there? Or what are the obstacles that have not been overcome for 40 days in saving these innocent people from that fire?

At the international level, is the power of the countries participating in daily political meetings not enough to create a security corridor in the war zone, or at least to save the women, children, and Israeli citizens held hostage in that region?

Is one of the first interlocutors in the current situation not Hamas, at least as much as Israel? Does the evacuation of people in Gaza not require cooperation with Hamas, which holds the armed power in the region?

I think these are natural questions that could come to the mind of anyone who cares about human life.

However, in the middle of a fire, while people are dying, I don't think the normal citizens in the fire zone look at the flames, hold a meeting, and say, "Friends, the building has burned down, there might still be people alive. The estimated human casualties are this much, now let's decide. Who will take on the demolition of the building in three days? Who will be the contractor, architect, engineer? In the new building we will build, who will get how many rooms..."

There are impossible-to-overcome political interest obstacles in the way of rescuing the Israeli civilians and the Gazan civilian population who have been held hostage for 40 days. None of these politicians are stupid or heartless. I don't think they enjoy human deaths either.

Whatever the political or strategic obstacles may be, they need to say stop, not to others, but to themselves. In a world that is becoming more totalitarian and ruthless every day, if everyone pours a gallon of gasoline on the fire, this fire could engulf the whole world in a very short time.

Just as after the Second World War, we need to come together and sign again under the humanitarian values that we actually determined a long time ago but are about to forget, not by talking like legal monsters wearing political masks, but like people of the world.