Turkey Archive - Atlantik-Brücke e.V.

“Democracy is fighting for survival”

b.wild — Mon, 15 Dec 2025 13:06:39 +0000

Our world order is facing profound upheavals. Democracy, peace, and the rule of law are in peril in many places, warns journalist and human rights activist Düzen Tekkal. In this interview, she speaks about growing identity conflicts and the global rise of extremism and populism. Tekkal calls for an active defense of democracy, stresses the importance of Europe’s strategic autonomy, and criticizes the role of various actors in the Middle East conflict.

Interview with Düzen Tekkal

ATLANTIK-BRÜCKE: Ms. Tekkal, looking at current global conflicts, are we witnessing a world order in transition?

DÜZEN TEKKAL: Clearly, we are experiencing a true Zeitenwende, if I may use that word again. Francis Fukuyama’s thesis that liberal democracies would prevail everywhere at the “end of history” has not come true—quite the opposite. The Western era is over. We are seeing a shift from a bloc-based system to one of single nations increasingly positioning themselves individually. The international architecture as we knew it no longer exists. States act today more “à la carte,” and global politics is more complex than ever. The central task now is to create order—in our thinking, feeling, and action—especially for liberal Western democracies.

Does a “new world order” bring more opportunities for peace—or new risks for conflict?

We see profound identity crises everywhere. We are once again in the midst of a “clash of civilizations” and identity conflicts. What Samuel P. Huntington once described as an open confrontation of cultures has become our reality. Conflicts arise when warlords deliberately instrumentalize identity, ethnicity, and religion. The credibility problem of the West is obvious—too often, values were preached while only self-interests were pursued. This can be seen in conflicts around Ukraine, Israel, and Gaza. Extremists are more active worldwide than ever before. Peace is not a given; it must be actively defended, something we in Europe have ignored for too long.

Much is at stake—our democracy and the rule of law are under threat. Democracy faces unprecedented hostility and fragmentation. Values such as self-criticism and openness to discourse are fading. Social polarization is increasing further through phenomena like “cancel culture.”

Where do you see that democracy is fighting for survival?

[related] Most clearly in the United States, where the rule of law is being eroded piece by piece. Donald Trump governs more and more like someone wielding emergency powers—deploying the National Guard in major cities and using the ICE immigration agency aggressively, which has even led to U.S. citizens being deported. His policies divide the nation and poison the social climate. Extremist political views have become socially acceptable, fueling one another—even through political assassinations, which are disturbingly being normalized in public discourse. For some political observers, the question is no longer whether the United States is on the path toward fascism—it already is. We in Europe must also remain vigilant and resist disinformation campaigns, the hollowing out of democratic institutions, and politically motivated violence.

Right-wing populist parties are gaining traction globally. Should we be seriously concerned about democracy, freedom, and human rights?

Right-wing populists pose a major danger—the AfD (the far-right party Alternative for Germany) shows how extreme positions conquer parliamentary space. But extremism is not confined to the right; left-wing extremism, Islamism, and antisemitism are equally serious threats. My impression is that democrats give up too early. It is alarming to see how many from the political center now believe they can benefit by adopting the AfD’s policies and rhetoric. Yet political barometers show they are not rewarded for tearing down the so-called “firewall.” There is every reason to fear that in next year’s local and regional elections, voters will choose the “original” instead.

The reasons for the shift to the right also lie within the political establishment: many people truly feel left behind, as reflected in the success of radical parties like the AfD and the BSW (the left-wing populist party Bündnis Sarah Wagenknecht) —and not only here; we see the same in America. We must reclaim the spaces of debate and stand up more strongly for our values. Right now, I observe a dangerous “spiral of silence.” People are no longer willing to take risks, as those who clearly voice their anti-fascist stance are immediately attacked. This is especially visible on platforms like TikTok, where the AfD and Islamist groups dominate discourse and deliberately spread their content. Algorithms fuel polarization and lead to dangerous disinformation in parts of society.

Is social media amplifying these developments?

Social media acts like a magnifying glass for society. Algorithmic dynamics often escape any meaningful control. Tech companies fail to take sufficient responsibility, with the result that hate and threats often go unpunished. In my view, we are facing a crisis of democracy.

How can we save our democracy?

It’s now about breathing life back into this democracy—online and offline. That means building a democratic ecosystem. We need civil society actors, but also businesses and organizations like Atlantik-Brücke, to engage in discourse with motivation and courage. Politics has not yet realized that it must give people a sense of what Germany stands for. We must not leave the narratives about Germany to the wrong people.

What role do the United States play in the new world order?

The U.S. is deeply divided and has partly turned away from its international leadership role. Transatlantic relations are more strained than they have been in a long time. Polarization and populist tendencies—especially under Donald Trump—are attacking the democratic core values head-on. Europe is increasingly being seen as an adversary in U.S. politics.

In Europe, we often hear of “strategic autonomy.” Is that a realistic option, or does the continent remain dependent on the U.S.?

Europe is more important than ever for those who defend freedom and democracy. Strategic autonomy is therefore indispensable, and the “European Dream” must be actively advanced. Europe’s ability to defend itself and articulate its position is crucial to our future—this must finally sink in, even for peace-accustomed Europeans. We must convincingly convey that freedom and peace give meaning and life—and are therefore worth defending.

Many European countries are again introducing border controls. Are these signs of the EU’s disintegration?

These are indeed worrying signals. However, their causes often lie within rather than outside. The lack of integration and the failure to convey democratic values are central problems.

Turning to the Middle East: What long-term consequences will Israel’s military actions have for the region?

The Middle East clearly shows that conflicts are no longer regional but have become globalized. Decisions made there have far-reaching consequences because the issue is like social dynamite. We see a dramatic surge in antisemitism worldwide—but also growing dehumanization and lack of solidarity with Palestinians. We must not leave discourse to extremists who exploit the issue for agitation. Many of them are not genuinely concerned about Gaza—otherwise, they would also highlight Hamas’s role or support Palestinian voices calling for a peaceful solution. On the other hand, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government has been issued what amounts to a blank check. We must do everything possible to ensure a livable future for Palestinians in Israel-Palestine.

You have just returned from Syria. The new transitional government under President Ahmad Al-Sharaa is trying to consolidate control after Assad’s fall but faces numerous militias, religious groups, and international actors. Where do you see chances for a sustainable solution?

When I was recently in Syria, I sensed both a spirit of new beginnings and of fear. The Americans’ “easy way out” is, at best, naïve. One cannot ignore or forget Al-Sharaa’s background—and his example shows how one can be both Islamist, jihadist, and statesman. We will pay a bitter price if we don’t view Syria realistically and continue to look away while minorities are threatened. It should be in everyone’s interest that the Syria of the future represents all people—Druze, Christians, Kurds, Alawites, and Yazidis alike. The West’s main mistake is choosing the wrong interlocutors. The massacres committed in Syria, now confirmed by the UN, are driving migration. Where are minorities supposed to go if they no longer feel safe there?

Iran remains a key factor in the region. How will power relations between Iran, the Gulf States, and the West develop in the coming years?

That is the key question. Iran remains a central actor with an aggressive policy, particularly toward Israel. The human rights situation in Iran remains dire, as ongoing protests by the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement and strikes over supply crises show. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should finally be placed on the EU terror list, as many human rights organizations have demanded. Regarding the nuclear program: pretending that one can deal realistically with the Islamist regime is, in my view, naïve. It remains to be seen how the Gulf States will position themselves in the face of the Gaza war. Hamas and the Islamic Republic have succeeded in one respect: talks about the Abraham Accords have stalled, and normalization efforts among the Arab population have likely lost support—as the Israeli government takes steps undermining a two-state solution.

What role does Turkey play in the new world order?

Turkey acts strategically and exploits its position. President Erdoğan has become a symbolic figure for parts of the Islamic world. But opportunistic interests also play a role: Turkey is considered an ally in stopping migration flows. At the same time, a NATO partner is carrying out heavy military strikes in Kurdish regions, especially in Northeast Syria—bombing villages and destroying civilian infrastructure. Why is this reality barely discussed in political debates, and why does hardly anyone call for an end to arms deliveries to Turkey?

Many people fear Russia. Do you think this fear is justified?

Of course. It should now be clear to everyone: Ukraine is Europe’s defense line. Ukraine is not only defending itself but all of us. Therefore, it is unbearable that some are now turning perpetrators into victims. The policy of “change through trade” with Russia has failed. The fact that parties like the AfD and BSW win support despite echoing Putin’s propaganda is a clear sign of growing polarization and the poisoning of our society.

And what about China?

China’s influence is expanding immensely—especially in technology and, more subtly, in political matters. Control over information and algorithms, as seen with TikTok, shows how far China now shapes the global agenda.

You often say that civil courage must be thought of globally. What does that mean now, as the world order shifts and many feel powerless?

We in Europe cannot afford this sense of helplessness or world-weariness. I regularly meet people in war zones—in Iraq, Kurdistan, or Syria—who have far more to lose yet risk everything. We should take inspiration from that. We live in a country that guarantees freedom of expression—so why do we so rarely take a stand, even though we could? Civil courage is more important today than ever.

What gives you hope?

Despite all the challenges, humanity keeps rising again—even in the most difficult regions of the world. That is the source of courage and hope for the future.

What do you wish from the German government?

Courage, realism, and an uncompromising commitment to stand up against racism, religious extremism, and all forms of hostility toward humanity.

Thank you very much for the conversation, Ms. Tekkal.

Düzen Tekkal is a German journalist and human rights activist. Besides her work as a filmmaker, she is involved in several social projects and serves as chair of the nonprofit humanitarian organization HÁWAR.help.

Interview by Beate Wild, Director of Communications at Atlantik-Brücke.

[Disclaimer: This text was originally written in German. The English translation was produced with the help of AI.]

Der Beitrag “Democracy is fighting for survival” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

“The U.S. has sold out the Kurds numerous times”

r.fehrenbach — Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:47:38 +0000

Joshua Walker views the Turkish military offensive in northern Syria as tragic, but in its emergence, as inevitable. The Global Head of Strategic Initiatives at Eurasia Group discusses in Atlantik-Brücke’s Transatlantic Call America’s foreign policy credibility, the late response of the EU, and a comeback of ISIS.

Listen to the conversation:

https://www.atlantik-bruecke.org/app/uploads/Audiofile_TaCall_Walker.mp3

Interview: David Deißner

Joshua Walker, on October 9th of this year Turkey launched a military offensive in northern Syria which is directed against the Kurdish YPG militia. This step was facilitated through the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region. What does this mean for the credibility of the United States in the Middle East?

American credibility and foreign policy have suffered not just in the Middle East. Although you could shrug and say American credibility has been suffering for a long time, not just under the Trump presidency, but ever since the so-called red line that was set by the previous administration in Syria. Nobody should have been surprised. The U.S. has sold out the Kurds numerous times. This was inevitable in coming, but it is still tragic to watch all the human suffering. It was not a matter of if but a matter of when. The surprising nature of this is how quickly it escalated and became a global crisis. To see the way in which the power vacuum that the United States has left in Syria has been filled by Russia, Iran, and now Turkey which used to be on different sides is particularly interesting to watch. October 9th joked at our military officials who have been working so closely with our Kurdish allies.

Which role does NATO member Turkey play in this situation in northern Syria regarding the Kurdish forces?

[related]From the beginning, the Turks have been the main protagonist. Turkey is the second largest military power in NATO in terms of the number of forces, and it is a sophisticated fighting force. The fact that it is also the Muslim majority power has always led Turkey to have a larger seat at the table. Turkey shares one of the longest land borders with Syria. From the very beginning of the Syrian uprising, Turkey has been very clear about its position: It is against Assad, but it also believes that the YPG or the PKK is a terrorist organization that represents an existential threat to the republic of Turkey. Turkey has been waging a war against this group for a good thirty-year period from the eighties onward. Thousands of lives have been lost.

There is a domestic context here for Turkey as well. President Erdogan, who has been flagging with his popularity, needs to find a reason to continue his policy given on what happened with the Istanbul municipal election recently. There is no political party in Turkey, with the exception of the HDP, that does not believe that this is the right course of action. There has been a steady drumbeat of war. Erdogan seized the opportunity.

There has been a steady drumbeat of war. Erdogan seized the opportunity.

What happens if Turkey invokes Article 5 of its NATO membership if it is attacked by some Kurdish forces?

First of all, a lot of us thought that because Turkey is a NATO member, perhaps it would not take these actions in Syria. Invoking Article 5 could cause an internal crisis in NATO. The bigger discussion in Washington is the following: With allies like this, what should we be thinking of NATO as we know it is no longer a relevant force inside of Turkey because of Turkey’s behavior, not just in this particular case with Syria, but also with the Russian S-400 weapon systems that have been bought? We as transatlantic friends struggle with this question.

Will Russia and Iran, which both protect the regime of President Bashar al-Assad geopolitically, benefit from the new reality on the ground in Syria?

Absolutely. The Astana process by which Russia, Turkey, and Iran have been negotiating these issues, even when there was a more adversarial relationship between the three capitals, has picked up to be one of the main deciding factors. If I am Syrian today, unlike in the past when I would need to go to Switzerland or New York to try to figure out what my fate would be, increasingly this is beginning to flow through Moscow and Teheran and to a lesser extent through Ankara. Because Ankara is playing much more like a regional player. Turkey seems to be focusing its energies on its regional aspirations and particularly protecting its sovereign territory, versus Russia, who is playing the role of a spoiler. Wherever it can really stymie unity or international efforts, it is doing so in a powerful way. It is really breathtaking to watch how Russia, which is from a purely numbers point of view a very weak power, is punching well above its weight. The difference between Russia’s actions and Iranian actions is that Iran has a much larger regional game here that is playing out with Hezbollah, Lebanon, and its antagonism of Israel.

It is really breathtaking to watch how Russia, which is from a purely numbers point of view a very weak power, is punching well above its weight.

Syria that has been in a civil war for more than eight years becomes once again a site of further combat operations. These cause an ever-increasing number of deaths and force tens of thousands of people to flee. Which responsibility does the West bear for this tremendous humanitarian crisis?

It is easy to point fingers. The West did not inspire the movements that led out of the Arab spring in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Syria. However, if the West had lifted a finger and put it on the scales in the Syrian War on one side or the other, we would have clearly made a difference and changed the outcome. If we had had even half or a third of the political will, that the Iranians or the Russians had in protecting Assad, in eliminating him, it would be over. Ultimately, we are all to blame for where we are. We are in the worst of both worlds.

Where do you see the qualitative difference between the Obama administration’s approach to this issue and the current administration’s policy?

There is an amazing amount of continuity with our policies. Even when Obama decided not to enforce the red line, there were still American forces there: State Department, U.S. Aid, intelligence, and defense. With the “New Beginning” speech in Cairo, the Obama administration put the rhetoric out ahead of its actions. When the actions did not meet up to the rhetoric, there was a real disappointment and cynicism that developed about America’s intentions in the region.

When Trump came in, there was an initial honeymoon period. Trump does not seem to have any appetite for foreign intervention and seems to want to get everybody out of the so-called endless wars. Yet many of the agencies I described continued to do business as usual in the region. Until last month, when Trump telegraphed Erdogan that he is not doing anything more and pulling American soldiers out. Now you see a real anger and backlash when you look at the Republican response to President Trump’s abandonment of the Kurds. Almost all foreign policy professionals were uniform in saying this is a pretty significant and bad move on Trump’s part. This is a lose-lose situation in a worst-case scenario.

Now you see a real anger and backlash when you look at the Republican response to President Trump’s abandonment of the Kurds.

German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer suggested to establish an internationally controlled security zone along the Syrian-Turkish border in cooperation with Turkey and Russia. What is your take on this?

I am disappointed about what I am seeing because it seems like it is too late. If there is one silver lining, it is to see that Germany is realizing it has to play a larger role. But while this proposal sounds really forceful and it is a great talking point and headline, the Europeans should have been more proactive and focused on Turkish concerns beforehand. That is not even to mention the EU membership, which we do not even talk about anymore. That used to be the biggest driver of Turkish foreign policy. I am concerned that clearly the EU does not seem to feel like a real foreign or security power when it comes to Turkey.

If there is one silver lining, it is to see that Germany is realizing it has to play a larger role.

Is the EU at least to some extent prepared for new high numbers of refugees seeking shelter in the European Union? Or is this rather not the case, and Europe is very much depending on the agreement it has completed with Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan so that more than three million Syrian refugees living in Turkish camps do not enter the European Union?

The EU is clearly dependent on Turkey. The EU has simply made the short term negative case of saying: We will pay you to keep the refugees there. There is no long-term solution. Turks are now literally piling refugees into trucks and driving them into Syria. Generally speaking, it would be a mistake to give up on Turkey. The Europeans are in danger of losing their relationship with Turkey over their fears related to national security concerns.

What are the ramifications of the latest developments for a potential reinvigoration of ISIS in the Middle East?

First of all, the killing of Baghdadi was a real blow. The fact that other top ISIS deputies were being knocked out may be the one positive silver lining. The broader ramifications are that there is a power vacuum. Russia has no interest in stopping a reinvigoration of ISIS, and Assad doesn’t really control all of his territory yet. If the Kurdish forces, which were fighting ISIS do not see any incentive to continue doing this, extremist forces like ISIS and al-Qaida will come back. I just worry, that we are so reactive at this point in time that we are just one terrorist attack away from something major.

I just worry, that we are so reactive at this point in time that we are just one terrorist attack away from something major.

What kind of overall strategy would you recommend to the transatlantic partners with regard not only to Syria but to the whole region in the Middle East?

One of the challenges we have for an overall strategy is that all of us are very distracted at home. You have to start at home. We as transatlantic partners have to focus on our core interests that we still share as a community of nations. NATO as the largest and most powerful and historic military alliance still has a role to play in protecting us and also in terms of working together. We are stronger together than individually. Turkey is a perfect example for us to cooperate with. Nobody has an interest for Turkey and its economy to go off the ledge. We need to find a way to reorientate our relationship with Turkey in a realistic manner. There are bright spots that we should be looking at, particularly in the economic sphere, when it comes to the Turkish youth and education system.

Here you can find Joshua Walker’s profile site at Eurasia Group.

Der Beitrag “The U.S. has sold out the Kurds numerous times” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Two perspectives on impeachment and northern Syria

r.fehrenbach — Fri, 11 Oct 2019 08:18:36 +0000

A possible impeachment against U.S. President Donald Trump and the domestic implications of the situation at the border region between Syria and Turkey dominate the agenda on both sides of the Atlantic. We asked Peter Rough, Fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute and Young Leader 2018, and Michael Werz, Senior Fellow at the Democratic Center for American Progress and a member of the board of Atlantik-Brücke, for their views on these two issues which influence the election campaign toward the Presidential Election in 2020.

A potential impeachment against U.S. President Donald Trump keeps Washington in suspense. Has it become more likely due to this week’s developments?

Michael Werz: Yes, public support for an impeachment inquiry has grown by leaps and bounds over the past few weeks and is now at 58%. More interestingly, 49% of all Americans now want President Trump to be convicted in the Senate and removed from office. The Democratic majority in the House of Representatives will insure the initiation of the process. However, two thirds of the Senate have to support the motion to impeach a President. That means, in addition to the Democratic votes, 20 Republican Senators would have to vote against President Trump.

[related]So, it’s unclear, as always. What is clear is that vulnerable Republican Senators who face reelection next November will have a near impossible choice: vote for Trump and alienate independent voters and some moderate Republicans or vote against him and potentially lose his hardcore supporters. This is important, since the Democrats need only four seats to win the majority in the U.S. Senate and vulnerable Republicans include Cory Gardner in Colorado, Martha McSally in Arizona, Thom Tillis in North Carolina, Joni Ernst in Iowa, and Susan Collins in Maine.

Peter Rough: The political fundamentals surrounding impeachment have not shifted over the past week. The Democratic party leadership, led by Speaker Pelosi in the House of Representatives, is overwhelmingly in support of impeachment. The Republican party, led by Senator McConnell in the Senate, vociferously disagrees. As things stand, this sets up a collision that will play out over the next year.

Prominent voices from the Republican Party have fiercely criticized the President‘s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria. What does this tell us about the overall situation of the GOP?

MW: Several things: that there may still be some life left in the Republican Party; and that military retrenchment in the Middle East stirs more unease than putting Latino children into cages at the U.S.-Mexico Border, the reversal of important environmental protections, or the corrupt enrichment of the President and his family. It remains to be seen if this is a watershed moment for the Grand Old Party, if the past two and a half years and the massive support of registered Republican voters for Donald Trump are any indication, the latest crisis will pass and the party will only re-discover its traditional moral and political bearings when facing electoral defeat.

PR: So much for the criticism that Republicans in Congress are poodles of the president! In all seriousness, though, these objections show just how much esteem Turkey has lost over the past decade amongst both parties. The distrust of President Erdogan is visceral in Washington; by contrast, the Trump administration believes it has no choice but to lean on Turkey if it is to build a stable Middle Eastern order without large-scale American troops.

Many argue that from a strategic point of view it is highly risky for the Democrats to push forward with an impeachment. Does the Democratic Party fall victim to its internal dynamics with regard to the Presidential Election in 2020?

MW: It might or it might not—but that’s not the point. Congress has the obligation to defend the Constitution of the United States and sanction behavior by the President that defies the law of the land. Donald Trump openly asked for—and in the case of Ukraine, extorted—the help of foreign countries in investigating his domestic political rivals. He even asked China, perhaps the United States’ primary geopolitical rival, to meddle in American politics. By taking these steps, Trump crossed a line that made it impossible for Congress to stay silent.

Just as a reminder: Impeachable conduct is not limited to criminal behavior. There are several kinds of conduct that warrant impeachment, including 1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office; 2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and 3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain. The Congressional Research Service notes that Alexander Hamilton described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Such offenses were “political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” Simply put: In a democracy, the sovereign may not act arbitrarily, nor abuse his office for his own personal gain.

PR: The Democrats are convinced that President Trump is a highly vulnerable incumbent on a glide path to defeat. If that assumption is correct, introducing a highly combustible external variable like impeachment is a risky proposition. In my view, the odds that the Democratic party overreaches is 100 percent. The extent to which that shapes the presidential election – and does so decisively – is anyone’s guess.

Der Beitrag Two perspectives on impeachment and northern Syria erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..