Newsletters
Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader Devlet Bahceli asserted that Türkiye’s place is "not Europe's waiting room," calling for a reexamination of the nation's European Union accession process following the NATO summit in Ankara.
Speaking at his party's parliamentary group meeting, Bahceli, whose party is a key coalition partner in the government, described Türkiye as an indispensable strategic partner for European security. Bahceli said that the summit made it clear that European capitals must reevaluate their relationship with Ankara.
He noted that Europe stands at a crossroads on critical issues, including energy security, irregular migration, defense capacity, demographic decline, and economic competitiveness.
"At this crossroads, there is a truth that cannot be ignored: that truth is named Türkiye. No security equation across the vast geopolitical belt stretching from the Ukrainian battlefield to the Black Sea, from the Balkans to the Caucasus, from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Middle East, can be lasting without Türkiye," the Turkish politican stated.
"No energy corridor that fails to account for Türkiye will be sustainable. No regional stability project that excludes Türkiye will succeed. This is not a wish, it is a strategic reality in a changing world," Bahceli said.
Bahceli argued that the EU has restricted its own strategic horizon by keeping Türkiye in a perpetual waiting room. He emphasized that the Nationalist Movement Party believes relations must be built on mutual respect, sovereign equality, and fairness. He noted that Türkiye is not dodging its obligations or seeking special privileges, but rather demanding honesty, an end to double standards, and the fulfillment of partnership agreements.
Bahceli said updating the Customs Union, completing the visa liberalization process and deepening economic ties were important, but said something else mattered more. "What matters more than these is for Europe to abandon its habit of viewing Türkiye as a country remembered only for temporary needs, whose door is knocked on in times of crisis and then pushed aside once things return to normal. Türkiye's place is not Europe's waiting room. Türkiye's place is at the tables where strategic decisions are shaped, with the weight it deserves."
Bahceli called Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis's remarks linking Türkiye's role in European security mechanisms to disputes in the Aegean Sea "extremely grave," saying Europe's security could not be held hostage to what he described as Athens's narrow political calculations.
Bahceli said relations between Türkiye and Europe could not be held hostage to third countries' prejudices, electoral calculations, or historical fears.
"No country has the right to present its own bilateral problems as if they were Europe's shared security agenda. No capital can put Türkiye's legitimate rights and interests up for debate. Türkiye's national rights are not a bargaining chip at the negotiating table. Türkiye's sovereign rights cannot be the subject of any political blackmail. There is no possibility of our position on this changing," he said.
Bahceli said the coming years would reveal what position Europe takes in the new world order. "Will Europe move forward together with Türkiye, or remain a prisoner of old prejudices? The coming years will answer that question. But whatever the circumstances, one fact will not change: Türkiye is not an option for Europe, it is the safety rope reaching down into the well it has fallen into. Türkiye is an indispensable strategic reality for Europe's security, stability, energy supply, trade routes and geopolitical balance. Those who accept this truth will win. Those who ignore it will sooner or later collide with the barriers of a changing world and fall apart," Bahceli said.
Bahceli also addressed President Trump's announcement, made during the NATO Ankara summit, that the agreement process with Iran was over for him, saying renewed bombing of Iranian territory had undermined confidence in the prospects for peace.
He said the sequence of events should not be reversed.
"Iran was attacked while it was party to an agreement. Iranian cities were bombed, Iranian citizens lost their lives, and the country's sovereign territory became the target of military intervention. It would not be a correct, fair, or conscionable approach to ignore this fact and treat Tehran's subsequent decision to close the Strait of Hormuz as an isolated act of aggression, as if nothing had happened beforehand. Presenting cause as effect and effect as cause is nothing other than turning the truth upside down," Bahceli said.
Bahceli said Iran had the right to defend its security and sovereignty in the face of attacks on its territory.
"No state is obligated to accept being suddenly bombed while believing an agreement it signed would protect it. No nation is obligated to respond to bombs falling on its territory with calls for calm. Those expecting restraint from Iran must first explain on what legitimate grounds the military intervention targeting Iran was based," he said.
Bahceli said U.S. concerns about Iran's nuclear program, its military activities in the region, and the safety of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz could be addressed at the negotiating table, but said security concerns could not be used as grounds for a larger crisis and chaos.
"Relations between states are conducted according to the principle of good faith in commitments, not personal decisions that are considered valid one day and arbitrarily declared void the next," he noted.
"The U.S. president's statement that 'the agreement is over for me' is problematic for this reason. An agreement is the commitment of states, not a person. If the agreement reached with Iran today can easily be abandoned tomorrow, this will raise the same question not only in Tehran's mind, but in the minds of every capital that will sit at the table with Washington in the future," Bahceli stated.
He said it is also notable that the statement was made during the NATO summit.
"NATO's deterrence does not rest solely on the size of its military inventory, the amount of its defense spending, or the breadth of its operational capability. The alliance's real strength lies in the trust placed in its members' word, the predictability of decisions taken, and the preservation of the rule of law among allies. Speaking simultaneously of alliance law, mutual assurance and collective security in an environment where an international agreement is rapidly abandoned and military intervention takes precedence over negotiation would create a serious contradiction," he concluded.
Set as preferred source
Set as preferred source
3 min read
