MİLLİYET.COM.TR - While world leaders came together at the 81st General Assembly of the United Nations held in New York, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu targeted President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in his speech to the empty hall against the general assembly protesting him, and Erdoğan's failure to even mention Netanyahu's name throughout his speech became the main agenda of international politics. While President Erdoğan was emphasizing "justice" by not addressing the genocide perpetrator personally at the podium, Netanyahu was making combative statements targeting Turkey in the empty hall, and was literally making threats with the pager he carried in his hand, continuing his habit of not recognizing international law.
Director of Communications Burhanettin Duran, who made a statement regarding Netanyahu's speech, said, "Netanyahu's outrageous and despicable words targeting our President cannot make his massacres, the humanitarian disaster in Gaza, and the processes before international law invisible. This situation is also seen by the international community, and Netanyahu has become more isolated than ever." His words once again revealed the difference in approach witnessed by the world.
In addition, Turkey responded to Netanyahu's speech at the third secretary level in New York and stated, "We absolutely reject the unfounded and malicious accusations against Türkiye and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan." So, what did President Erdogan aim for by focusing the rostrum directly on the system, injustice and human tragedy? Can avoiding the personal name when addressing an actor who is a defendant before international law be seen as a move to reset his diplomatic legitimacy?
President of Ankara Crisis and Politics Research Center (ANKASAM) Prof. Dr. Mehmet Seyfettin Erol and Ankara Social Sciences University TRNC/Nicosia Faculty of Law International Law Department faculty member Assoc. Dr. Emete Gözügüzelli answered for Milliyet.com.tr.
'SPOKER OF GLOBAL CONSCIENCE'
*What did President Erdogan aim for by focusing his speech at the podium on the system, injustice and human tragedy, instead of targeting them directly?
Prof. Dr. Mehmet Seyfettin Erol: In his address, President Erdoğan focused directly on the structural crises of the global system, injustice and the human tragedy in Gaza, instead of personal polemics, aiming to transform the issue from a tension between the two leaders into a global soul-searching, virtually assuming the role of "Speaker of the Global Conscience". In other words, by not mentioning the name of the perpetrator, he declared to the world that the problem is not an individual government policy, but that the current global security architecture and veto system itself produces these tragedies. Because, Israel or the “History of Evil” is not limited to Netanyahu alone. With this move, which is a continuation of the "World is bigger than five" doctrine, Türkiye acts not only as a regional actor; As the voice of oppressed peoples and the protector of international law, it has also strengthened its position as the spokesperson of the global south.
Assoc. Dr. Emete Gözügüzelli: When we look at Kenneth Waltz, one of the pioneers of the neo-realist movement; There are famously three levels of debate: individual, state and international. Because when a leader centers another leader, he reduces the discussion to the first level, that is, to conflict between individuals. On the other hand, discussing the functioning of the system, the inadequacy of the UN, double standards in international law and the situation of civilians is taking the issue to the third level, that is, to the level of the international system. We see that Mr. President is leading a discussion by taking this issue to the international system level.
*How should avoiding the personal name when addressing an actor who is a defendant before international law be interpreted as a move to reset his diplomatic legitimacy?
Prof. Dr. Mehmet Seyfettin Erol: Not mentioning the name of an actor who is on the defendant's stand before international law is a diplomatic "delegitimization" move; This attitude can be considered as a "Legal and Moral Isolation" move that prevents the personalization of the crime and considers the state representation of the interlocutor as "null and void" in the eyes of the international community. In this context, not mentioning the name is equivalent to not addressing the person anymore.
Assoc. Dr. Emete Gözügüzelli: The fact that a head of state constantly targets another head of state by name sometimes unintentionally gives the mentioned name a discursive centrality. This situation may turn the scale of the debate into a 'Netanyahu-Erdogan conflict'. Not using names here is a different communication strategy.
*Is not mentioning the name a diplomatic tactic of "devaluing" and not taking it seriously?
Prof. Dr. Mehmet Seyfettin Erol: Not mentioning the name appears as a conscious diplomatic asymmetry of trivialization and frivolity, which completely ignores the addressee in the political literature. As a matter of fact, President Erdoğan has positioned Netanyahu not as a global actor, but as a temporary perpetrator who will be buried in the dark pages of history, and the "strong leader" image that Israel and even Netanyahu personally tried to create on a regional and global scale has been reduced to a level that is not even considered worthy of being taken seriously.
Assoc. Dr. Emete Gözügüzelli: Sometimes there is strategic silence in diplomacy. It may be a more effective means of communication than a direct attack. President Erdoğan placed Gaza, Palestinians, the dysfunction of the UN system and the debate on international order at the center of his speech. Netanyahu, on the other hand, directly targeted Erdoğan and criticized Turkey, Qatar, France, the United Kingdom, Iran and even the Mayor of New York.
*So, can we consider Netanyahu's direct targeting of Erdoğan in an empty hall after a speech in which his name was not mentioned as an "expression of psychological despair"?
Prof. Dr. Mehmet Seyfettin Erol: The picture is very clear. Directly targeting Erdoğan in the face of deserted seats after the representatives left the hall is an expression of a heavy diplomatic psychology of exclusion and loneliness. The desperation of an actor who has lost his legitimacy to speak to an empty wall is a delusion to attack Turkey's justice-oriented and humanity-centered conscientious stance by becoming combative in order to hide the global exclusion he is exposed to.
Assoc. Dr. Emete Gözügüzelli: In Robert Putnam's 'Two-Level Games Theory', leaders do politics at two tables at the same time: The first table is the international system, and the second table is the domestic public opinion. Netanyahu's speech must have been designed to appeal to the Israeli public and was considered to be important before the Israeli elections on October 27.
*So what does Netanyahu's targeting of Turkey and Erdogan tell about Ankara's weight in the global equation and its "disturbing" power?
Prof. Dr. Mehmet Seyfettin Erol: Israel sees Ankara's global influence as the main cause of its own geopolitical deadlock and guilt psychology. In this context, Netanyahu's targeting of Turkey and President Erdoğan, although his name was not directly mentioned, confirmed Ankara's founding will and staggering weight in the global equation. With its strategic moves that disrupt regional status quos and unfair alliances, Türkiye has once again proven that it is the biggest visionary obstacle and balancing global focus in front of imperialist plans.
Assoc. Dr. Emete Gözügüzelli: Turkey is a member of NATO, it is in the G20 economy, it is the most important power in the Eastern Mediterranean, it is the most important actor in the Syrian equation, it has very good relations with the Gulf states, it has been following the Palestine issue for many years... Therefore, Turkey's discourse stems not only from the harshness of a discourse for Israel, but also from its capacity to present the discourse as a productive actor.
*How do you evaluate the fact that representatives of dozens of countries deliberately left the hall when Netanyahu came to the podium to give a speech?
Prof. Dr. Mehmet Seyfettin Erol: The mass departure of dozens of country representatives from the hall at the delegate level, accompanied by protests, resulted in Netanyahu's performance at the podium with a complete diplomatic bankruptcy and loss of legitimacy on a global scale, turning it into a "Diplomatic Death" scenario. Netanyahu has become a "pariah" around the world.
Assoc. Dr. Emete Gözügüzelli: The issue of leaving the hall after Netanyahu started speaking is one of the very important images. When Netanyahu started speaking, dozens of delegations left the hall and reacted directly. This is a requirement of symbolic diplomacy in international relations...
