Speech of Bülent Kuşoğlu, Member of Turkish Parliament and Deputy Chairman of the People’s Republican Party (CHP) at the conference on “Global Security and NATO”
Speech of Bülent Kuşoğlu, Member of Turkish Parliament and Deputy Chairman of the People’s Republican Party (CHP) at the conference on “Global Security and NATO”
The World Civilizations Initiative Research Center organized an international conference on Global Security and NATO on June 26-27, 2026, in Istanbul, Türkiye, ahead of the NATO summit scheduled for 7 and 8th of July in Ankara. One of the speakers was Bülent Kuşoğlu, Member of Turkish Parliament and Deputy Chairman of the People’s Republican Party (CHP). Below we present his speech. The title was set by UWI.
Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Participants, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
On behalf of myself and our Party Chairman, Mr. Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, I would like to extend my sincere greetings and respect to all our distinguished guests. I would also like to express my appreciation to Professor Semih Koray and everyone who contributed to organizing this important gathering.
Our topic today is “Global security and NATO” — an exceptionally complex and timely subject.
As our distinguished chairman observed a few moments ago, we are living through extraordinarily difficult times. I do not know whether previous generations experienced challenges of this magnitude, but I fear that future generations may face even greater ones.
Following the Second World War, an international order emerged that was largely designed by the Western powers. It was based on a set of internationally accepted rules and institutions created to preserve peace and stability. Yet, before even a century had passed, the very powers that established this system began questioning and attempting to reshape it. The principal reason is that the global balance of power has gradually shifted from West to East, creating profound strategic uncertainty.
Today the world is searching for a new international order.
This search extends far beyond military and political affairs. It affects economics, technology, finance, social structures, and global governance. New realities require new rules, but those rules have yet to be defined. We are witnessing an intense global competition for influence, while the future architecture of international institutions remains uncertain.
Unlike the twentieth century, this new order is unlikely to be determined solely through conventional military conflict. Many other factors will shape the emerging international system, and at present no one can predict with certainty what that system will ultimately look like.
When NATO was established, the geopolitical landscape was relatively clear. The Cold War divided the world into two opposing blocs with distinct political ideologies. The West was identified with liberal capitalism, while the East was represented by the socialist and communist system led by the Soviet Union.
Today’s world is fundamentally different.
Those ideological divisions have largely disappeared, and the strategic environment has become far more complex.
This reminds me of a story about Pablo Picasso. Someone once asked him, “Could you paint us a wild horse?” Picasso replied, “I will paint wildness—and you may imagine the horse.”
That is precisely what I intend to do today. Rather than offering definitive conclusions, I will try to describe the strategic environment within which NATO now operates. Together, we may then imagine what conclusions should be drawn.
For that reason, I would like to congratulate the organizers of this conference. Meetings of this kind are increasingly necessary. They should become regular forums where we collectively seek to understand what is happening in the world and where humanity is heading.
Several months ago, I participated in a conference examining national security strategies and defense policy documents. One conclusion became immediately apparent: the concept of national security has changed dramatically.
Threats and opportunities today are far more diverse than they were in previous decades.
Technology has become one of the central components of national security. Artificial intelligence, CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technologies, cyber security, and digital infrastructure are no longer merely scientific developments—they have become strategic factors capable of influencing the future of states and societies.
Likewise, food security, water resources, environmental sustainability, and climate-related risks have become fundamental security concerns.
Economic independence has also become an essential component of national security.
Today, total global debt has reached approximately 330 trillion dollars, while total annual world GDP amounts to only around 120 to 130 trillion dollars. The United States alone carries public debt exceeding 38 trillion dollars. If such debt constitutes a strategic risk even for the issuer of the world’s reserve currency, the implications for developing countries are far more serious.
Economic resilience is therefore no longer merely an economic issue—it is a national security imperative.
Military and political power naturally remain important. Yet they are no longer sufficient on their own.
Energy security, demographic change, and social security systems have become equally critical.
Having previously served within the field of social security administration, I can say with confidence that almost every major social security system across the Western world is under severe financial strain. Türkiye’s own Social Security Institution is expected to record an enormous deficit this year, and similar challenges exist in many developed economies.
This means that institutions created in the aftermath of the First and Second World Wars must now be fundamentally reformed in order to meet the needs of twenty-first century societies.
The same applies to the state itself.
Government institutions designed for the industrial age must now adapt to the realities of the digital era. Education, for example, can no longer be understood exclusively through the traditional classroom model. Remote learning, flexible employment, and digital public services are transforming the relationship between citizens and the state.
Allow me to emphasize another crucial issue: money itself.
Within the broader strategic competition between East and West, the nature of money is undergoing profound transformation. Currency is evolving beyond its traditional role as a medium of exchange and increasingly functions as a strategic instrument for preserving wealth, exercising geopolitical influence, and maintaining financial power.
This transformation is directly linked to the sustainability of existing international financial structures and therefore has major implications for global security.
Another issue demanding urgent attention is the growing inequality in both income and wealth.
While new billionaires continue to emerge across the world, poverty is simultaneously deepening and the middle class is steadily shrinking. This trend has become a serious source of political and social instability in many countries.
Migration represents another defining challenge of our age.
Today nearly seventy million people worldwide are refugees, asylum seekers, or displaced persons. Never before in history have such large-scale population movements occurred simultaneously. These migrations affect not only economies but also cultures, religious identities, and domestic politics. Developments in countries such as the United Kingdom clearly demonstrate how migration has reshaped political discourse and contributed to the rise of increasingly radical political movements.
Considering all these developments, I fully agree with the observations made earlier today by Mr. Doğu Perinçek. Whether we are discussing NATO or possible new regional partnerships involving Türkiye, Iran, Russia, and China, none of these initiatives can be evaluated solely through a military lens.
Technology, economics, finance, energy, demography, migration, and social transformation have become just as important as traditional military power. In many respects, they now shape military and political outcomes themselves.
Artificial intelligence alone illustrates how falling behind technologically may create profound strategic vulnerabilities in the decades ahead.
With regard to NATO itself, the Alliance faces both external challenges and internal structural tensions.
For countries such as Türkiye, NATO remains simultaneously a security alliance and a source of strategic uncertainty.
While countries on NATO’s northern flank naturally prioritize threats associated with Russia, countries on the southern flank—including Türkiye—face immediate challenges such as terrorism, irregular migration, instability in the Middle East, and security in the Eastern Mediterranean.
These differing priorities must be acknowledged if the Alliance is to remain effective.
More importantly, NATO must confront its own internal fault lines.
Military capability alone cannot sustain an alliance when common threat perceptions, political trust, and effective decision-making begin to weaken.
Four structural challenges appear particularly significant.
First, the concept of “the West” no longer possesses the strategic cohesion it once enjoyed during the Cold War. Domestic political polarization, populism, economic pressures, and democratic tensions increasingly influence the foreign policy choices of individual member states.
Second, NATO members no longer share a common perception of threats. For Eastern European countries, Russia remains the principal strategic concern. For southern members such as Türkiye, however, terrorism, migration, instability in the Middle East, and Mediterranean security remain the most immediate priorities.
Third, the predictability of transatlantic relations has weakened. NATO’s transatlantic identity depends fundamentally upon the United States. Yet fluctuations in Washington’s strategic priorities have inevitably generated uncertainty among its allies. The issue is not merely one of political disagreement but whether decisions continue to be made through genuine consultation and whether a coherent long-term strategy still exists.
Fourth, Europe continues to debate the extent to which it should assume greater responsibility for its own defense. As American priorities evolve, Europe is being encouraged to develop greater military capabilities of its own. The relationship between those capabilities and NATO itself is likely to become one of the Alliance’s central strategic questions in the years ahead.
Against this broader geopolitical background, Türkiye has always occupied a uniquely important position within NATO.
Rather than approaching this issue solely from a military perspective, I have tried to examine it through a broader geopolitical and geostrategic framework. As a political party, we believe our policies should ultimately prioritize the welfare and security of people, not merely the interests of institutions.
Finally, the upcoming NATO Summit in Ankara will undoubtedly represent an important moment for the future of the Alliance.
In our view, meaningful reform is necessary.
Above all, however, the essential issue for Türkiye is trust.
An alliance can function effectively only when its members genuinely trust one another. Türkiye must be able to trust its allies, and those allies must demonstrate through their actions that such trust is justified.
Thank you very much for your kind attention.