Ihsan Bal Head of USAK Science Committee printable version send your friend

Tuesday, 6 July 2010

Recently there is the question that we frequently see in columns and headlines of the Western media: Has Turkey shifted towards the East from the West? Has the axis of Turkish Foreign Policy really shifted?

Report of TESEV (The Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation) on Turkey’s perception in the Middle East, underscored that Turkey, with its democracy and freedom, is admired and modeled by the Arab countries. Turkey’s shift to the Middle East, which seems a popular belief recently in both national and international media, is not as prominent as the Turkification of Arabs.

To fully grasp the change in Turkish Foreign Policy, it will be beneficial to analyze foreign policy initiatives during the Ataturk era. It is reasonable to approach the discussion of shift in the axis of Turkish foreign Policy by drawing a comparison between Ataturk foreign policies and that of the current AK Party government.

Turkish foreign policy during the Ataturk era was structured within the framework of "Peace at home, peace in the world� principle. In addition to external circumstances, some internal reasons were influential in embracing this principle. Turkish people, who saved the country with great sacrifices in the War of Liberation and reluctant to enter any war, had also troubles in the foundation of the Republic of Turkey. In face of this exhausted society, a newly fledged Turkish Republic from the ashes of Ottoman Empire, considered the eagerness of its society towards peace and stability and instituted a particular foreign policy. In this sense, Turkey first tried to assure its security in the world by signing some agreements such as the Balkan Pact in the West and the Sadabad Pact in the East.

Foreign Policy of Ataturk prioritized peace at home and in the world, and was built over the nationalist movements of immigrants who had come from the Western Thrace. Moreover, the policy was carried forward despite the betrayal of Arabs who were stabbed Ottoman Empire in the back and the Greeks who aimed at the revival of Old Byzantine Empire. Furthermore, Sevres Treaty, signed at the expense of territorial integrity of Turkey, invasion of Western Anatolia by Greeks reaching very close to Polatli (a place near to Ankara, the capital of Turkey), and endless imperialist claims of the Allies on Anatolia were still alive in the memories of Turkish people at that time. However, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, by eliminating the negative effects of the history and successfully getting out of the syndrome of Sevres, followed a very realistic and rational foreign policy. He showed his self-confidence to the world by not hesitating to rebuild relationship with the invading powers at the end of the War of Liberation. As you remember, the protocols, recently signed among Armenia and Turkey, had brought about revival of historical hostility towards each other and a debate on whether Turkey betrayed Azerbaijan in international arena. However, more courageous steps have been taken in Ataturk’s period, less harsh criticisms had taken place at that time comparing to today’s Turkey.

Turkey sought to contribute to the modernization of Afghanistan in 1920s and tried to become a role model to this country with its democracy, principles, and policies. As for the relations with the communist Russia, until territorial claims of Soviets occupied the agenda of Turkey, Turkey had developed close relationship with the Soviets. French and British were much more active in the Middle East at that time. Therefore, establishing closer ties with the Middle Eastern countries, except Iran, meant developing good relations with France and Britain. From this point of view, it can be said that while Ataturk continued to conduct good relations with the Middle Eastern states, he did not also neglect to connect with the East.

While analyzing Ataturk’s Foreign Policy, we see that Ataturk modeled the Western values but also tried to develop good relations with the Eastern societies. In this period, Ataturk implemented a "reel politikâ€� instead of following an irrational line. This policy ended up with bilateral and multilateral treaties signed with neighboring countries of Turkey. Actually, the current policies of Turkey implemented and the relations developed in today’s world do not actually differentiate from those of Ataturk’s period. In this context, it can be said that "zero problem policyâ€� has similar line with the policy of "peace at home, peace in the worldâ€� in terms of their prioritization of peace.

At this point, rather than debating the shift of axis, the matter of question should be whether Turkey developed a foreign policy compatible with its resources or not. To illustrate, in case of Iran Nuclear crisis, is Turkey really a country which is able to develop new approaches by leaving the side of Germany, France and England, which are strong countries in terms of their economic, political and military power. Does Turkey really have an axis shift or boom of self-confidence based on the concept of power in its foreign policy? In other words, with the rapid flow of time, does Turkey experience a shift from the balance between its capabilities and its foreign policy?

As you remember, on 1st of March, Turkey’s parliamentary decision that declined to join the U.S. in the Iraqi War had triggered the question of whether there is a proportion between decision of Turkey and its capabilities. Related with the decision of Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM), some scholars and authors argued that Turkey could not afford these policies due to its fragile economy and its military dependence on the U.S. There were many scholars and authors, who claimed that Turkey needed American aid; moreover not aliening with the U.S. in the Iraq war would carry some risks. In addition, they asserted that Turkey missed the opportunity to be influential in the region and would be the victim of some policies conflicting with its interests.

However all of these disastrous scenarios which have been foreseen over Iraqi War were not true at the end. Turkey developed good relations with the Middle Eastern countries and its economic situation has not deteriorated contrary to the predictions. However, whether Turkey moves beyond its capabilities or not remains a matter of question as the legacy of these days.
In the 21st century, a more powerful Turkey emerged having a seat in the United Nations, Organization of The Islamic Conference, and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Turkey took an important part in these global and regional organizations. Therefore, Turkey currently has the potential to influence its environment by producing new policies and concepts. The official visits paid by Turkey to other countries display how Turkey is developing relations with its region and the world. So far, President Abdullah Gul has paid visit to Syria, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, China, France, Slovakia, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Jordan, Kuwait, India, Bangladesh, Democratic Congo Republic, Cameroon, Pakistan, Oman, Kazakhstan, and to South Korea. Countries visited by Prime Minister Erdogan and Foreign Minister Davutoglu encompass a wide of geography from Africa to America. However, the question which should be asked with a cautious and rational approach is: Does this situation arise out of the fact that Turkey considers itself bigger than it actually is or does the power of Turkey has its own base and resources?

As a result, it is not possible to discuss about an axis shift in Turkish Foreign Policy. It is historically known that Ataturk is not only interested in the West but also maintains good relations with the Eastern countries. Those who advocate that Ataturk implemented more Western oriented foreign policy should consider the conditions of Turkey in 1920s and 1930s that would probably limit further steps. The advantage of Ataturk period came out of the fact that Ataturk was a hero who saved his country from the enemies. Therefore, even in case of some problems, Ataturk was not subject to that much criticism due to the realities of his time. By eliminating Sevres syndrome and signing the Lausanne Treaty, Ataturk regained self-confidence of country and benefited from advantages of being a war hero. He pursued realist policies in order to make Turkey a model country around the world. He also chose to make agreements with neighboring countries. Obviously, if Ataturk had had the capabilities of contemporary Turkey, Turkey would have influenced much more its own environment in those years.

Today, those who criticized axis shift in Turkish Foreign Policy miss the reality that Turkey, as a model country for its neighboring countries, increases its capabilities. Therefore, rather than axis shift, one can emphasize on the boom of self-confidence in Turkish Foreign Policy. In addition to this, the main focus should be on whether this boom of self-confidence is compatible with the power of Turkey or not.