Speech of Ahmet Davutoğlu, Former Foreign Minister and Prime Minister of Turkiye; and Subsequent Discussion with Helga Zepp-LaRouche at the May 15 EIR Emergency Roundtable

May 19—The following is the transcript of remarks by Ahmet Davutoğlu, Former Foreign Minister and Prime Minister of Turkiye, to the May 15 EIR Emergency Economic Roundtable. Included is a subsequent discussion with Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Subheads have been added.

AHMET DAVUTOGLU: Thank you very much for this excellent organization, roundtable discussion, and inviting me and giving me an opportunity to meet some of my very respected colleagues like Richard Falk. The topic is very important, very strategic and very timely.

In 2017, I wrote an article, “Systemic Earthquake,” in an e-journal edited by my dear friend Richard Falk. That was the first year of the first Trump era, and I predicted that the world was going through a systemic crisis, a very comprehensive systemic earthquake, which would shake all of the international structures. Unfortunately, today we are in the midst of this systemic earthquake.

The Need for Order in International Relations

Why do we need an order, especially in economic relations? The economy needs order. Economic relations and progress need order, as Helga has emphasized. The basic term of order is predictability. Without having predictability, you cannot make a plan. You cannot establish a rule of order. So today Trump, and Trumpian diplomacy, destroyed predictability. No company, no individual, no state today can predict, not next year, even next month, next week.

I followed President Trump’s and Chinese President Xi’s meetings very closely. There were very good, very pleasant wordings, but I don’t think that the Chinese side was convinced of the real intention of President Trump. Because last year, he declared a trade war against China, and he has been using his terminology, his rhetoric every day. So today, the international order and regional structures are all being shaken.

The values—how can we see international order? First, the values, the common values, regardless of continents, economic development, etc. The basic values, as my dear friend Richard mentioned, all the basic values of humanity have been violated in the Gaza genocide. And there was no real response from the leading powers. The global masses, peoples all around the world reacted to this genocide in Gaza. And we also have written a book with Richard on this. So when these values have been violated, there has been a widespread understanding that you can do anything you want if you have the power. There is no rule. There is not any criterion one has to respect. And these values have been shaken. The international system has been shaken: The Westphalian system… [His internet was lost temporarily.]

What We Face Today

So now, what are we facing today? I want to give you three examples in the last almost six, seven years. The first one was pandemics. Pandemics, in fact, showed us the significance of traditional geopolitics; because the main problem of pandemics, global pandemics and their impact on the global economy, was the issue of logistics and the supply chain. And that has been a big threat to the world population in the transfer of the basic needs of peoples around the world.

The second was the Russia-Ukraine war. And I think it is a great success of Turkiye, that Turkiye established a grain corridor during the war of Russia-Ukraine. And even the African people, African nations, needed grain from Russia and Ukraine. But because of the war, it had been affected. Now, the Istanbul Strait, Dardanelles Strait became the basic life-stream for this grain corridor. Now I want to say, I have seen Helga’s maps. Please imagine certain trade routes, sea routes, and the straits from the north to the south: Istanbul, Dardanelles, Suez Canal, Bab-el-Mandeb, Hormuz Strait, Malacca Strait, and several straits in the Indonesian archipelago. So if you close these straits, international trade will collapse. Today, the Istanbul Strait, the Bosporus, was critical for the grain corridor. The Hormuz Strait is critical for the energy corridor, but not only as an energy corridor. Some people think about natural gas and LNG, but I think Helga was very right when she referred to fertilizers. Today, in many countries, there is not enough fertilizer to be put on the soil, and that will create a food shortage. So it is a big crisis.

A Proposal for Peace in the Middle East

How can we overcome this crisis? Let me summarize my proposal as a solution to this, which was published in [International Non-Profit Media Organization] Project Syndicate two, three weeks back. I am following this very closely as a former Prime Minister, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, and I have close contacts with almost all of the players in the region. Today, we have four basic questions regarding the war. I don’t want to say the war. It is an Israeli-American aggression against the Iranian people, not the Iranian state only, but Iranian cities, Iranian people, Iranian civilization. It was a shame for President Trump to declare that he will destroy a whole civilization. This is inhuman. This is barbarism.

So, what are these four? The first and urgent issue is opening the Hormuz Strait. The second is the nuclear program of Iran and how we can solve it. The third one is the proxy wars, what they’re being called, but basically the absence of a regional security architecture. The fourth, the mother of all problems in the Middle East, is Palestine.

Now, step by step, my proposal is this: First, the Hormuz Strait. Iran has control over the Hormuz Strait and Oman is different from the other Gulf countries and is in some sort of dialogue with Iran. Iran has certain rights. Because of this war, it has been attacked without any UN Security Council resolution, without any verified reason for this. Yes, but Iran now is under pressure from many countries that they should open the Hormuz Strait because it is not only affecting Americans or Israelis, but it affects all the world’s affairs. Many developing countries are suffering as well. And I again agree with Helga: the cost of this war is trillions, not billions.

Breaking the Gordian Knot

So, on the other side, the Americans want to control this strait, basically, because of the strategic interest of Israel. Today, there is a clear contradiction between Israeli interests and American interests, and therefore, American public opinion is getting more and more suspicious about Netanyahu’s war plan. Before Netanyahu, many Israeli prime ministers tried to convince American Presidents to attack Iran, but they were wise not to follow these adventurist calls. But unfortunately, Trump, because of his unpredictability, because of his egoistic approach, some sort of psychological problem, he followed Netanyahu’s advice and suggestions. Now, he is cornered.

In China, can you imagine the basic global rival power, he begged from Chinese leaders to help him to open the Hormuz Strait? And if it is closed, he even offered LNG to China. So, he needs a solution as well.

And most importantly, of course, are the Gulf countries. This is not a war between Iran and the U.S. only. Other parties which are victims of this are the Gulf countries. And of course, the absent factor is Israel.

Now, my proposal to open the Hormuz Strait is like a Gordian knot of the Hormuz Strait. If it continues under Iranian full control, that will be an excuse for the Americans to attack Iran. If it is controlled by military force—which is unimaginable, and I don’t think it will happen—but if it is controlled by the Americans, that will be a threat to Iran and to the region as a whole, because unfortunately “America” means Israel. So, there should be a third party for a transitional, temporary control of the Hormuz Strait to open the Strait in order to ease the pressures on the developing countries and other countries, especially regarding the supply chain of energy supply.

Who could these states be? I think it should be such a group of states, not one state. Pakistan? I admire Pakistan’s efforts to find a solution. I wrote letters to several leaders, including Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif about this solution. They are doing very well. But one country cannot take this responsibility. My suggestion is four countries who have good relations with Iran, confident relations with Iran, and who have good relations with the Gulf countries, especially with Saudi Arabia, and have some relations, dialogue, and some sort of convincing power over President Trump. These countries might be Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Turkiye. Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia are Indian Ocean states. And Turkiye, because of being a neighbor to Iran, could play a role there. If these four countries could guarantee Iran certain measures, I mean, about the absence of attack against Iran; I think these four countries are all members of OIC [Organization of Islamic Cooperation]. They all have good relations with Iran. They all have very good relations with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries.

And three of them are members of the Peace Board of Trump, which I am against. This is not a Peace Board; this is a Board of Neocolonialism. But still, first, maybe we can see some benefit out of this. Three countries, Turkiye, Pakistan, and Indonesia are members of the Peace Board. They should say to President Trump that it is time now for peace. We cannot afford war in our region, and we cannot afford another genocide in Palestine and Lebanon. So, I think there is a chance. They can take over this control to guarantee without any military, but a naval mission mandated by a UN Security Council resolution until the other solutions have been resolved. They can function in some sort of facilitating role over the Hormuz Strait.

The Other Issues

The second issue is the nuclear program. I fully agree with Richard [Falk]. Throughout my academic and intellectual career, I have always promoted a nuclear-free region. If Israel has nuclear power, nuclear weapons, not only power, but weapons, nobody can say to other countries not to have it. The best option is a nuclear-free Middle East, if it is not possible.

I was the mediator between the IAEA and Iran, and between P5 Plus One and Iran, and between the United States and Iran, Barack Obama and Ahmadinejad, between the two Presidents, supported by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Brazilian President Lula. In 2010, we signed an agreement, the Tehran Agreement. According to this agreement, enriched uranium would have been deposited in Türkiye in exchange for fuel for a peaceful nuclear program in Iran. This was the most viable solution for the crisis. And this was guaranteed by Barack Obama through a letter to the leaders of Türkiye and Brazil. Unfortunately, the United States didn’t accept this; but that model is still there. Iran, several times from the time of Khomeini until now, repeated that they don’t want to have a nuclear weapon. This is an option.

The third level is a regional security architecture. There should be a new security mechanism between Iran and the Gulf countries as the first layer. The second layer should be a new regional security architecture from Pakistan to Egypt, from Turkiye to Iran and all the Middle East. The fourth is the solution of the Palestinian question. There should be international pressure on Israel to respect UN Security Council and UN General Assembly resolutions. And without solving the Palestinian question, without establishing a viable state of Palestine, there cannot be peace in the Middle East. That is basically the security architecture which I have proposed.

Thank you very much for your patience.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I find the proposals by you, Mr. Davutoğlu, extremely useful. Because I think if these countries you named—Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Turkiye—cooperate, you already represent a very sizable part of the Muslim world. And I would just really suggest, you know, why not take what you propose and add to what I was proposing about the Oasis Plan? Because the business model of the Gulf States clearly is damaged, to say the least. It was based on the idea that you had a small establishment living in great wealth. Much of the labor was done by guest workers, and the whole project was protected by U.S. bases, or so they thought. Now it has turned out that these U.S. bases did not protect these countries but became a liability.

Rethinking the Future

So these countries have to rethink what their future will be. Israel has to rethink, as I said; in the IDF and the security services, there is a debate if the present policy is viable or leading to the potential destruction of Israel. Likewise, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, all of these countries have been destroyed by previous interventionist wars. They need urgent reconstruction. Afghanistan, for example, after 20 years of NATO, was left in the worst humanitarian crisis on Earth, according to the WHO. It’s still not better. Iraq is still in shambles. Why not have the four governments you are mentioning—Türkiye, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Pakistan—suggest seriously to put a joint development perspective on the table?

The Gulf States have enormous sovereign wealth funds, which they wanted to invest in some useful projects like recreating museums and other things; but also to have ski resorts in the desert, which I don’t think makes so much sense. You could use the same money to invest in the well-being of the people, including the guest workers, whom they probably will need for the indefinite future, and build up a real economy for the benefit of all people. That is, in my view, the only way the conflict between Israel and Palestine can ever be overcome, because you have to have a model which serves the interests of each.

This Must Be Applied to the Whole World

And given the fact that it was mentioned by several people that we are in a systemic crisis, I think that model for the Middle East must really be applied for the whole world. I mentioned the Africa 2063 plan. Ukraine needed reconstruction before the war broke out. Ukraine could have been the bridge between Asia and Europe in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative. Now, maybe with the visit of Trump to China, and the—at least for now—good resonance between Xi Jinping and Trump, maybe that moment can be used to launch an initiative to really change the fate of the world. But bold action is necessary.

So, my concrete suggestion to you would be, can you not approach these four governments and suggest that your proposal and my proposal be joint?

Peace Through Economic Interdependency

DAVUTOĞLU: I think I fully agree. The best way of peace is economic interdependency. There is no other way. You can sign peace plans, you can make many declarations, but the best way of peace is economic interdependency. Whenever you have economic interdependency, nobody will be starting a war. So, economic interdependency means development. French and German armies invaded Paris and Berlin for many centuries. When they realized that there is a need for a new approach after the Second World War, they created the EU as an economic interdependency. Similarly, now we need to have regional economic development projects.

When I was Minister of Foreign Affairs, I declared the Mesopotamian Economic Integration Process of Turkiye, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. Also, another project was the Levantine project [also known as the Levant Quartet—ed.], Turkiye, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. So, today one of the best models of regional economic cooperation was the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] and ASEAN. Unfortunately, today the GCC is dysfunctional; and the GCC as a total had certain agreements with Iran. For example, the United Arab Emirates today attacked Iran, but they had close economic ties. Now, this system has fallen, has been destroyed by these attacks.

I fully agree with you about American bases in the Gulf. Yes, it is a liability, but I can assure you the Americans can declare that they are withdrawing their bases. What will they do? These bases will be national bases of the Gulf States, and the United States will send some advisors, and will sell trillions of weapons, F-35s, to these countries just to escalate. We should not forget this. They provoked Saddam against Iran, then they destroyed Saddam.

So, this logic of war is very dangerous. But I fully agree with you. Therefore, when I proposed this, I made this proposal, I sent letters to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, in fact, three letters during this war. And even before the war, during the negotiations in Oman, I sent my suggestions to the Iranian ambassador when he invited me to the embassy, asking my opinion to be sent to President Pezeshkian. And I insisted that Iran should be around the table of negotiations, because the main reason for Trump is to win the midterm election.

Breaking the Deadlock

I also sent letters to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who is my close friend, to Ibrahim, Malaysian Prime Minister, he’s also my very close friend, and Indonesian President Subianto. And of course, I sent this to the Turkish President as well. I don’t know how they will react, but we have to be creative. This is a deadlock. In deadlock, everybody wants to keep the status quo. But in fact, those who are breaking the status quo can bring peace.

And lastly, without taking the floor too long, I agree with you. With this, Iran has the right of compensation. When Iran says we need compensation, yes, there was no reason for this war. But the compensation should not be from the Gulf States only, because the Gulf States didn’t decide for the war. They found themselves in a war. Who started the war? Israel and the United States.

Today, what I am scared of is that, and I want to tell the Iranian ambassador from Mexico, as well. And yesterday, I sent two video messages to two international conferences in Iran, sending my messages. At any time, Israel and the United States may withdraw, or this may change the attention to another crisis point. In January, we were talking about Venezuela. There is no Venezuela today. They can make another attraction, but the crisis between the Gulf States and Iran may continue there.

Against this, there should be a new fund of cooperation, a regional economic fund, let me say, to be beneficial to this new energy flow or the new system. And my suggestion to the Iranian brothers as well is, instead of just asking for certain payments from the Strait of Hormuz, there should be a much more comprehensive economic plan to overcome this crisis. My friend, the Iranian former minister of foreign affairs Mottaki came to see me in Istanbul. He came to Van, in Eastern Anatolia, by car, by bus or by car. From there, he used an airplane. They said that many bridges on the way were destroyed. So today, there has been huge destruction in Iran. There has been destruction in the Gulf States as well.

Who is responsible for this? The clear answer is Trump and Netanyahu. And against these two people, there should be a regional belonging, supporting each other. And I fully share your opinion; and we can bring these proposals together, a geopolitical solution framework, as well as a developmental, visionary project together.