Turkey opposition worries that Europe is sacrificing democracy for security

Turkey opposition worries that Europe is sacrificing democracy for security

Turkey's main opposition says its Western allies are failing to respond as a widening crackdown by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government targets its leaders and elected mayors. The latest arrests this week followed a court decision to remove Republican People's Party (CHP) leader Ozgur Ozel and reinstate former leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu in an unprecedented move that was widely condemned by Turkish and international human rights groups. The European Union [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/european-union/]'s response has been far more restrained. "There are some visits, there are some letters sent to us," said Ilhan Uzgel, the CHP's former deputy chair. "There are some public statements regarding the situation in Turkey, but the wording and language used is quite mild. [There's] no action." The CHP [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/chp/] has faced more than a year of arrests targeting its mayors on corruption charges. This week, two more were detained, adding to a list that already includes jailed Istanbul mayor and presidential candidate Ekrem Imamoglu. HRW denounces Turkey arrests ahead of NATO summit [https://www.rfi.fr/en/international-news/20260625-hrw-denounces-turkey-arrests-ahead-of-nato-summit] STRATEGIC PARTNER Uzgel said the European Union can no longer stand by and should take a firmer stance. "Mr Erdogan has to be told, 'you're destroying democracy and what you're doing is against the rule of law [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/rule-of-law/],'" said Uzgel. "There could be some kind of a diplomatic isolation," he added. "So whenever Mr Erdogan meets a foreign leader, he's selling it to his own audience, the Turkish public, that he's a world leader. At least this opportunity could be taken from his hand." Yet Erdogan is expected to reinforce his international standing at next month's Nato summit in Ankara [https://www.nato.int/en/news-and-events/events/2026/07/overview---2026-nato-summit-in-ankara-]. "The two big allies of Turkey [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/turkey/] have decided not to make human rights an issue in the bilateral relationship," said Asli Aydintasbas, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. She notes that the EU and Washington have found rare common ground over Turkey. "For President Trump, this comes naturally; he doesn't care about human rights advancement globally," she said. "But now Europeans are also looking for some type of functional relationship with Turkey and wanting to disregard human rights [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/human-rights/] as an impediment to bilateral relations." Turkey steps up as Europe's indispensable and uncomfortable defence partner [https://www.rfi.fr/en/podcasts/international-report/20260426-turkey-steps-up-as-europe-s-indispensable-and-uncomfortable-defence-partner] Federico Donelli, an international relations expert at the University of Trieste, said the European Union's restrained response reflected Turkey's growing strategic importance. "The restraint of EU reaction is closely linked to an increase in recognition of Turkey's structural importance for European security." With Nato' [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/nato/]s second-largest army and a rapidly expanding defence industry, Turkey is increasingly seen as an important security partner as Europe faces the threat from Russia [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/russia/] and uncertainty over the United States' long-term commitment. "The US is definitely less stable than in the past, so in this context Turkey is increasingly seen less as a [EU] candidate country and more as a strategic partner," said Donelli. PRESSURE ON GREECE AND CYPRUS Donelli said this shift could increase pressure on Greece [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/greece/] and Cyprus [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/cyprus/], which have long used their vetoes to slow closer EU defence ties with Turkey because of disputes in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean. "We know how much the two countries have conditioned EU-Turkey relations for many years," said Donelli. "These two countries cannot constrain broader EU strategic choices in the next few years, in the next decade." Amid the Russian threat and uncertainty over America's resolve, Turkey's opposition worries it is being sacrificed in the name of Europe's security.  "Historically, Turkish EU relations [https://www.rfi.fr/en/podcasts/international-report/20250621-turkey-steps-into-eu-defence-plans-as-bloc-eyes-independence-from-us] were working for the democratisation of Turkey, but the equation has been reversed. The EU-Turkey ties have been working against Turkey's democratisation," said Uzgel. "The closer Mr Erdogan gets to the EU, [the more] we are losing democracy in Turkey." He nonetheless warned that Europe's approach is short-sighted and could have wider consequences. "Turkey is a country of 86 million, so if democracy fails here, it has to have some implications for other countries as well."

Brexit at 10: What price has the UK paid for 'taking back control'?

Ten years after the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, Brexit supporters still see this as a historic act of sovereignty, while critics point to the resulting economic damage and political division.  This week RFI examines the legacy of the 2016 Brexit referendum through the sharply contrasting views of three analysts: Federico Fabbrini of the Brexit Institute [https://dcubrexitinstitute.eu/] in Dublin, Robert Oulds of the London-based pro-Brexit Bruges Group [https://brugesgroup.com/], and John Barry of Queen’s University Belfast [https://www.qub.ac.uk/]. Their assessment reveals a country still deeply divided over what Brexit has achieved, what it has cost and what it means for the UK's future relationship with Europe. For Brexit supporters, the desired "control" has been achieved. For its opponents, the economic consequences and divided political landscape loom ever larger.  Between those positions lies a complex reality shaped by trade, immigration, Northern Ireland and the much vaunted idea of “Global Britain”.

Brexit at 10: the promises, the costs and the search for accountability

Ten years on, the UK's decision to leave the European Union is increasingly seen as more than a single referendum result. Critics argue it reflected a wider crisis of political imagination, with Brexit supporters misreading both Britain and the world, while the promised future never arrived. The referendum held on 23 June 2016 remains one of the defining decisions in modern British history. Supporters promised sovereignty, control, lower red tape, new trade deals and a more dynamic “Global Britain”. Critics are unequivocal that Brexit has left Britain poorer, weaker and less able to deal with global shocks 10 years after voters chose to leave the European Union. Opponents argue that many of those promises have not been met. Britain is more constrained, less attractive to investors and still divided over what Brexit [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/brexit/] was supposed to mean. Nevertheless, the vote marked the moment Britain “changed track [https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20160624-brexit-shows-lack-trust-eu-french-fm]”, Colin Hay, professor of political science at Sciences Po in Paris, tells RFI. “Its relationship with the European Union [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/european-union/] and its relationship with the rest of the world has changed fundamentally from this moment onwards,” Hay said. “And 10 years on, we can see that very clearly now.” Two years after Brexit 'got done', poll shows many Britons want new referendum [https://www.rfi.fr/en/europe/20230102-two-years-after-brexit-got-done-poll-shows-many-britons-want-new-referendum] A CHANGED BRITAIN Brexit is hard to judge as a normal policy decision, Hay argues, because voters were asked to choose a direction without knowing what form leaving the EU would eventually take. “People didn’t know what the Brexit that they were voting for, if they voted for it, would turn out to be, and now they can see, and there’s a certain amount of buyer’s remorse, I think,” Hay says. One of the strongest attacks on Brexit has come recently from Michael Heseltine, the former Conservative deputy prime minister, who called it a “self-imposed disaster [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-heseltine-farage-boris-johnson-uk-eu-b2994030.html]” and a “con”. He also said those who sold it should “hang their heads in shame”. For Hay, Heseltine was pointing to a real problem in British politics – especially the way Europe moved from a low-profile issue to the central question shaping political life. “The question of Britain’s relationship to Europe [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/europe/] was – until UKIP came along and until the Brexit referendum – a relatively low salience issue,” Hay said. “Since 2016 and since the campaign, it has been the single dominant issue, which has influenced everything else.” That change helped Nigel Farage [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/nigel-farage/], UKIP and later Reform UK [https://www.reformparty.uk/] become powerful forces in British politics, while also damaging the Conservative Party. 'Rogue state' UK stands by new Brexit legislation which breaks international law [https://www.rfi.fr/en/europe/20200909-rogue-state-uk-stands-by-new-brexit-legislation-which-breaks-international-law-northern-ireland-border-civil-war-peace-customs] ECONOMIC COSTS The economic impact of UK's departure from the European Union [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/european-union/] is now clearer than it was at the time of the referendum, Hay tells RFI, though he adds that Brexit cannot be separated entirely from the other shocks Britain has faced over the past 10 years. “I think it’s as clear as it could be, but there’s a caveat in that, and that is that a lot’s happened in Britain over the last 10 years, lots happened in the world over the last 10 years, and to identify and to isolate the Brexit effect is actually quite tricky,” he says. The Bank of England has tried to measure the impact, estimating “a drop of 6 percent of GDP [https://econofact.org/the-economic-costs-of-brexit-on-the-uk] lost, as it were, to Brexit”. But the wider cost may be greater because Brexit also affected Britain’s ability to deal with later crises, including Covid and the Ukraine war, he argues. Five years on, has Brexit put Britain at a disadvantage in EU talks? [https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20250131-five-years-on-has-brexit-put-britain-at-a-disadvantage-in-eu-talks] “Britain is less well placed to deal with those shocks and challenges today than it would otherwise have been in the absence of Brexit,” Hay continues. The idea of a newly liberated “Global Britain [https://fpif.org/the-crisis-of-global-britain/]” was always weak, because the UK already had many favourable trade terms through its EU membership. “I think the idea of a kind of new ‘Global Britain’ liberated from Europe was always a bit of a myth, frankly,” Hay says. The promise of “Singapore-on-Thames [https://ukandeu.ac.uk/singapore-on-thames-is-dead-long-live-singapore-on-thames/]” also failed to deliver. Britain was already a relatively lightly regulated European economy and had long been highly deregulated in financial services. “There’s been a marginal move in the direction of light regulation, but it’s not really achieved any positive gain for the British economy overall,” Hay said. Countdown to Brexit: Polls predict Leave campaign wins [https://www.rfi.fr/en/europe/20160614-countdown-brexit-polls-predict-leave-campaign-wins] CAMPAIGN ARGUMENTS However, the Leave campaign was highly effective in attacking warnings from economists, diplomats, businesses and officials with “Project Fear [https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2025/01/17/project-fear-unpacked-how-fear-based-appeals-became-central-to-the-brexit-referendum/]”. That tactic weakened the role of evidence in the debate, while the Leave side also used the promise that Brexit would free up money for the National Health Service. “I think the Brexit campaign was most effective in a sense, because it was able to discredit and disable any evidence, any expertise that was brought on the remain side of the debate to the table,” Hay says. The campaign, led in part by Farage and his populist message [https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20260508-english-elections-see-labour-party-punished-and-gains-for-right-wing-reform], encouraged voters to reject not only the EU but also “the form of expert technocratic governance associated with that”, he argues. At the same time, Leave campaigners used a simple financial promise. “They plastered a big number on big red buses and implied that a vote for Brexit would liberate the public finances and allow high levels of investment in the NHS, amongst other things,” Hay says. The result did not match that promise, he adds. EU and UK clash in first post-Brexit legal battle over North Sea fishing ban [https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20250128-eu-and-uk-clash-in-first-post-brexit-legal-battle-over-north-sea-fishing-ban] “Anyone who’s tried to be treated in a British hospital in the 10 years since 2016 knows that that didn’t turn out very well,” Hay says. Brexit supporters often argue that the vote was not mainly about economics but about sovereignty and control [https://brexitfactbase.com/2-sovereignty-and-law/brexit-impact/]. Farage and others have also claimed that Brexit failed because it was never properly implemented. Hay explains that argument was easy to make and had been repeated since Theresa May’s time as prime minister, when she faced pressure to deliver a harder and more economically costly form of Brexit. But public opinion has shifted over the past decade. “I think the argument that Brexit was not properly implemented, and that’s why it’s not turned out as well as it could have done, has not particularly been accepted by the public,” says Hay. Around 20 to 30 percent of those who voted for Brexit would now vote remain if given the chance again, he estimates. Burnham wins key UK poll, paving way for bid to challenge PM Starmer [https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20260619-burnham-wins-key-uk-poll-paving-way-for-bid-to-challenge-pm-starmer] UNCERTAIN FUTURE Meanwhile, Keir Starmer’s government has been trying to rebuild bridges with the EU while avoiding a return to the divisions of the Brexit years. The debate inside Labour [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/labour/] is also becoming more complex, with questions over how far any future leader could go in rebuilding Britain’s relationship [https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20260511-starmer-to-reset-labour-agenda-bring-uk-back-to-the-heart-of-europe] with the EU. For Hay, Britain’s uncertainty 10 years after Brexit is closely tied to economic weakness [https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/economic-surveys/united-kingdom-economic-snapshot.html]. “It’s much easier to be confident about Britain if it has a stronger economy,” he says. “The Labour administration assumed it would have more fiscal space to do positive things every single time it looks at the books,” Hay said. “It finds there’s no money in the coffer, and if there’s no money in the coffer there’s not much you can do.” Ten years after the vote, Brexit remains more than a question of treaties, borders and trade. It is also a question of what Britain was promised, what was delivered and how much control the country really gained.

Lebanon becomes latest battleground in Turkish-Israeli tensions

Lebanon is emerging as the newest flashpoint in the increasingly strained relations between Turkey and Israel, with the former's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan issuing a stark warning that Turkish security begins in Beirut. Earlier this month, Erdogan addressed his parliamentary deputies with a forceful condemnation of Israel’s strikes on Lebanon and Syria, warning that Turkey’s security now stretches beyond its borders, reaching as far as Damascus and Beirut. Tensions between Israel [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/israel/] and Turkey [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/turkey/] have been steadily escalating, with Erdogan vocally supporting Hamas and leading the chorus of condemnation against Israel’s military campaigns in both Gaza and Lebanon. “Lebanon is a new area of competition or dispute between Israel and Turkey," says Gallia Lindenstrauss of Tel Aviv’s Institute for National Security Studies think tank. “There was definitely concern in Israel after hearing Erdogan's speech. The fact that he speaks about Syria and Lebanon as part of Turkey's security is, of course, a problem for Israel….I think this adds complexity to already a very tense relationship between Israel and Turkey." SHIFTING INFLUENCE  In recent years, Turkey has quietly but steadily expanded its soft-power presence in Lebanon [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/lebanon/], dispatching aid and broadening the reach of its humanitarian groups. This comes as Iran’s influence in the region loosens, signalled by the collapse of the Tehran-backed Assad regime in Syria and growing pressure on Iranian proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon. “Turkey is concerned about Lebanon because it can create new venues of Israeli zone of influence, when the power of Iran is on the decline,” said international relations professor Ozlem Tur, of Ankara’s Middle East Technical University. Tur notes that Turkey is eager to seize the opportunities created by these shifting dynamics: “Turkey feels a vacuum of power – and who is going to fill it? And all of this is part of a larger geo-strategic position that Turkey wants to put itself in." Turkey expands influence in Africa through military training [https://www.rfi.fr/en/podcasts/international-report/20260606-turkey-expands-influence-in-africa-through-military-training] Erdogan [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/recep-tayyip-erdogan/] has frequently accused Israel of trying to assert dominance across the region, especially in the Eastern Mediterranean, which is believed to hold vast untapped energy reserves. Ankara suspects Israeli influence was behind Lebanon’s November 2025 landmark maritime demarcation deal with Cyprus, paving the way for potential exploration of offshore gas fields and energy cooperation in the Mediterranean – a deal Turkey argues undermines its interests, as well as those of the Turkish Cypriot administration and Syria.  “Lebanon joining the competition there is of course worrying [for Ankara]”, Tur added. "This maritime dimension adds to an already competitive environment, and it makes Lebanon a partner in this competition." TRUMP CARD Meanwhile, Turkey-Israel rivalries continue to escalate.  “The Israelis, especially the hard-liners, have been really working hard to get the United States on board with their plans to take Turkey as their next target,” said international relations professor Serhat Guvenc of Istanbul’s Kadir Has University.  However, Guvenc suggests that Erdogan retains a trump card. so to speak.  "The personal rapport between the two leaders, Trump [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/donald-trump/] and Erdogan, has been an impediment to the materialisation of such American backing to whatever plan Israelis might have in regard to Turkey." Trump’s recent criticism of Israel’s bombing of Beirut and Israel’s ongoing attacks on Lebanon [https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20260613-lebanon-reports-strikes-on-south-as-israel-issues-broad-evacuation-warnings] after a peace agreement with Iran, will likely further strengthen Erdogan's hand with Trump, at a time when Washington is increasingly viewing Ankara as key to its regional goals. Turkey steps up as Europe's indispensable and uncomfortable defence partner [https://www.rfi.fr/en/podcasts/international-report/20260426-turkey-steps-up-as-europe-s-indispensable-and-uncomfortable-defence-partner] “For stability, for mediation, for assistance... in these aspects definitely the US is looking for Ankara and looking for the role Ankara can play in relaxing tensions in the region,” said Lindenstrauss. "But Ankara itself is raising tensions and, of course, Erdogan's inflammatory rhetoric to Israel is not stabilising anything.” Trump is set to visit Ankara for next month’s NATO summit, where Turkey’s regional role will likely dominate discussions between US and Turkish leaders – a meeting poised to deepen Israel’s unease and growing sense of isolation.

Armenia election result revives hopes of reopening border with Turkey

Nikol Pashinyan’s sweeping re-election in Armenia has raised fresh hopes that the border with Turkey could finally reopen after three decades of closure. The Armenian prime minister campaigned on restoring ties with Turkey and Azerbaijan, as well as moving Armenia closer to Europe – but constitutional reform remains a major obstacle. The vote on 7 June gave Nikol Pashinyan a clear victory [https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20260608-armenia-pm-pashinyan-wins-vote-cementing-pro-western-shift-europe-russia] over the opposition. But his success could prove bittersweet after he fell short of the parliamentary majority needed to change the constitution. Changing the constitution is part of Pashinyan’s peace efforts with Azerbaijan, brokered last year [https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20260117-us-takes-lead-in-caucasus-peace-deal-as-france-is-pushed-aside] by United States President Donald Trump. “This government is committed to passing what the Armenian opposition would refer to as 'the Aliyev [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/ilham-aliev/] referendum',” said Eric Hacopian, a Yerevan-based political consultant. “The problem is, now they have no votes to bring it up because you need to get a two-thirds vote to change the constitution.” Armenia PM Pashinyan wins vote, cementing pro-Western shift [https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20260608-armenia-pm-pashinyan-wins-vote-cementing-pro-western-shift-europe-russia] CONSTITUTIONAL HURDLES On the back of the Washington peace talks [https://www.primeminister.am/en/press-release/item/2025/08/09/Nikol-Pashinyan-visit-US-declaration/], “Armenia and Azerbaijan had an understanding that, after the election in Armenia, there would be certain constitutional amendments”, explained Hikmet Hajiyev, chief foreign policy adviser to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. Baku insists Armenia must remove claims to Nagorno-Karabakh [https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20231117-azerbaijan-must-allow-safe-return-to-nagorno-karabakh-un-court] from the preamble to its constitution. The two countries have clashed repeatedly over the contested territory. In 2023, Azerbaijan retook the breakaway enclave, causing more than 100,000 ethnic Armenians to flee. “We are looking forward to Armenia completely eliminating elements of its territorial claims,” Hajiyev said. “Then we will not have any stumbling blocks or hurdles on our agenda to move forward.” Constitutional reform is also seen as important for normalising Armenia’s ties with Turkey, according to Hajiyev. “It's not directly linked, but indirectly,” he said. “Once the Azerbaijan-Armenia agenda is solved, then Turkey will also act in a synchronised manner, opening the borders and also establishing a closer relationship.” Armenia election: what the vote could mean for Russia, the West and Azerbaijan [https://www.rfi.fr/en/podcasts/international-report/20260607-caught-between-moscow-and-the-west-armenia-goes-to-the-polls] BORDER HOPES Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993, siding with Azerbaijan after ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh declared independence and seized Azerbaijani lands. Efforts to restore ties are now gathering pace, said Zeynep Alemdar, an international relations professor at Dogus University in Istanbul. “They've already declared in May 2026 that the border is going to be opened up, and all the bureaucratic, paperwork-type obstacles are actually being dismantled,” Alemdar said, noting that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan [https://www.rfi.fr/en/tag/recep-tayyip-erdogan/] is believed to get on well with Pashinyan. Pashinyan’s Turkey visit signals new chapter as Ankara eyes Caucasus shift [https://www.rfi.fr/en/podcasts/international-report/20250707-pashinyan-s-turkey-visit-signals-new-chapter-as-ankara-eyes-caucasus-shift] But energy-rich Azerbaijan remains crucial to Ankara, Alemdar said. “Economically, comparing Azerbaijan versus Armenia for Ankara, of course Azerbaijan always wins... Of course Azerbaijan is going to be more influential,” Alemdar said. Erdogan congratulated Pashinyan on his re-election, while the Turkish foreign ministry urged Yerevan in a statement to embrace “bold reforms” – seen by many as a call for constitutional change. CAUTIOUS STEPS Pashinyan’s lack of decisive parliamentary support and uncertainty over a possible referendum mean Ankara’s role could be important in securing lasting peace, said Richard Giragosian, director of the Regional Studies Center [https://www.regional-studies.org/] think tank in Yerevan. “For Turkey this is a slow, gradual process of retaking the initiative with Armenia, away from Azerbaijan,” Giragosian said. “Because in many ways, at every round it's been the Azerbaijan factor that's the key determinant. And according to sources in Ankara, they only have a yellow light of caution from Azerbaijan – it's not a red light, but it's not yet a green light to proceed.” Reopening the Turkish-Armenian border would be welcomed by the European Union [https://euneighbourseast.eu/news/stories/interview-with-vassilis-maragos-head-of-the-european-union-delegation-to-armenia/] and Washington, as Ankara seeks to deepen its ties with both. But with Azerbaijan acting as a major investor and economic lifeline, Turkey is moving cautiously to avoid upsetting its powerful neighbour.