Is Türkiye’s Opposition at a New Foreign Policy Threshold? A Watchful Expectation Around Kaya Türkmen and Namık Tan – Mehmet Öğütçü

The announcement of Türkiye’s main opposition party CHP’s shadow cabinet has revived a central question: Can Türkiye’s opposition finally break its prolonged silence on foreign policy? Individual names can, of course, be debated. Yet in a field such as foreign policy, where institutional memory, continuity and international credibility matter most, what ultimately counts is not individual profiles but the coherence of vision, team chemistry and performance on the ground. It is therefore unsurprising that attention has focused on the two figures entrusted with the foreign policy portfolio: Kaya Türkmen and Namık Tan. Their appointment signals more than a routine personnel choice. It reflects an implicit statement about the kind of diplomatic language and posture the opposition is seeking to develop. 

Kaya Türkmen: European Experience and a Measured Tone 

Kaya Türkmen is a career diplomat who has served as ambassador to Sweden and Northern Cyprus, and previously in London, Paris and Brussels, capitals where Türkiye’s foreign policy reflexes are shaped and tested. Experience in these centres offers more than technical knowledge of files; it builds fluency in multilateral diplomacy, contextual judgement and the ability to maintain balance in moments of crisis. These are precisely the qualities Ankara has been missing in recent years. Since leaving the foreign service, Türkmen’s writings and recent book have reflected a style marked less by grand claims than by calm assessment and forward-looking realism. In a field that rewards tone as much as substance, this is a notable asset. While he comes from a diplomatic family tradition, the fundamental distinction lies in his ability to turn that inheritance into critical maturity rather than rigid orthodoxy. 

Namık Tan: Experience Forged in Difficult Capitals 

Namık Tan, currently the CHP’s deputy chair responsible for foreign affairs, has served in some of the most demanding posts in Turkish diplomacy. Ambassadorships in Washington and Tel Aviv — two capitals requiring constant vigilance, crisis management and strategic patience — go well beyond ceremonial representation. They test a diplomat’s capacity to build trust under pressure. Tan’s earlier role as the foreign ministry’s spokesperson is also significant. Spokesmanship is not merely about speaking to the press; it is about shaping the state’s tone, boundaries and intent with precision. His Washington experience offers insight into the workings of the US system, while Tel Aviv sharpened his understanding of security-driven diplomacy, two areas where Türkiye currently faces acute challenges. 

Personal Observation, Measured Expectation 

I have crossed paths with both Türkmen and Tan in different countries and at different times, sitting at the same tables, walking the same corridors, debating the same dossiers. My assessment, therefore, rests not only on CVs but on first-hand observation of their judgment, restraint and human instincts under pressure. 

It must be acknowledged that Türkiye is facing an unusually dense and simultaneous set of foreign policy challenges. Some are structural, others stem from regional fractures, and many have accumulated over time to the point where postponement is no longer an option. This burden weighs not only on the opposition but also on the current government. Whether admitted or not, such an environment calls for guidance, constructive criticism and responsible support. 

Among the most pressing issues are Syria and the future of the YPG, including the question of its possible integration into Damascus’ armed forces and the regional implications for Türkiye’s own Kurdish question; the management of increasingly strained relations with Israel without allowing them to slide into permanent rupture; the trajectory of the Russia–Ukraine war and the risk of Moscow extending its influence further into the Balkans, the Caucasus and Central Asia; and the uncertain path Iran may take in the near future. In addition to these issues Türkiye’s relations with Kurdish actors in Iraq and Syria, the sustainability of its Africa policy, the state of relations with the EU,  where even the modernisation of the Customs Union and limited mobility seem elusive, the future course of ties with Washington, Cyprus, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Aegean disputes with Greece, and the militarisation of the islands. The list is long and unforgiving. 

No government can manage such a landscape flawlessly on its own. That is precisely why keeping alternative channels open, encouraging new lines of engagement and supporting any initiative that advances Türkiye’s national interests is not a sign of weakness, but of state maturity. 

Foreign Policy Beyond Security: Economy, Energy and Technology 

Foreign policy today can no longer be confined to classical diplomacy and security. Economic and trade diplomacy, energy diplomacy, technology and AI-focused engagement have become integral to international statecraft. Any credible foreign policy team must reflect these dimensions not merely in rhetoric, but in concrete policies and outreach. In recent years, bottlenecks between Türkiye’s foreign policy, security establishment and business community have become increasingly visible. Attracting more foreign direct investment, enabling high-technology transfer, expanding trade volumes and opening new markets require sustained and institutionalised cooperation with the private sector. This is not solely the responsibility of economic ministries; it is equally a task for foreign policy leadership. Rebuilding and strengthening channels with the business world is therefore essential as national interests are reassessed and alternative foreign policy approaches explored. A credible external posture today is one that not merely manages crises but also creates trade, brings technology, and supports prosperity. 

The core question is: will they take it to the field? The expectation is therefore clear. Türkmen and Tan are not expected merely to criticise, but to guide when necessary; not to produce statements alone, but to operate in the field. Alternative foreign policy is not crafted from podiums in Ankara. It requires engagement in Washington, Brussels, Moscow and Beijing; dialogue stretching from Tel Aviv to Tehran, Riyadh to Athens, Tokyo to Benghazi — explaining how Türkiye sees itself, what it offers, and where mutual gains lie. Trust, after all, is built face to face. 

A Gain for the Country? 

What Türkiye needs most today is not rhetoric, but memory, experience and composure. Kaya Türkmen and Namık Tan possess these attributes. The real test will be whether this potential translates into a foreign policy practice that transcends party lines and inspires confidence at home and abroad. When necessary, supporting the government’s diplomatic efforts and the foreign service from which they themselves emerged, on the basis of national interest, should be part of that responsibility. If they succeed, the gain will not belong to one party alone, but to Türkiye’s overall foreign policy capacity. For now, expectations should remain measured, but the moment warrants careful and hopeful attention.