The more the domestic political dynamics are consistent and stable in a country, the greater its potential for running its foreign relations healthily and influencing developments in the world outside. On the contrary, we can also talk of the potential of foreign political preferences and maneuvers to profoundly affect domestic policy. However, we can note that the determining effect of domestic policy on foreign policy is far greater than foreign policy's shaping effect on domestic policy. It is obvious that for a country to shield its national interests in multinational foreign relations, it needs strong domestic political stability, a strong government and predictable and carefully planned political processes. The last thing needed to protect one's national interests within the field of international relations is internal political turmoil and instability, whose concomitant result is rendering political actors ineffective and giving rise to unpredictability, not allowing for middle or long term plans to be implemented. Let's delve a little into details from the perspective of our near past.
As is known, Turkish foreign policy has in the last six years probably experienced its most successful period in the history of republic. While eliminating all the international maneuvers that posed a threat to national interests, it, on the other hand, has taken initiatives and assumed facilitating roles for solution by getting engaged in many regional or international problems it had approached indifferently before.
It is essentially possible to gather the principles that have left their marks on the Turkish foreign policy during this era under six basic categories. Firstly, during this era a balance between the domestic and foreign policy has always been observed, and efforts have been made to perpetuate both parts in the security-freedom equation at the same time. On one hand, they have tried to meet the security needs at the highest level possible, and on the other, they have tried to expand people's freedom as much as possible. They have also made the utmost efforts to avoid sacrificing freedoms for security or vice versa.
Secondly, again as part of the policy of zero problems with neighboring countries, Turkey's relations with its surrounding countries have been improved and the country's horizon has been carried beyond its borders. The conflict possibilities along the border regions have been minimized in an effort to eradicate the security concerns and efforts have been made to prevent such tension and conflict possibilities from casting a shadow on the issue of freedom in the country.
Thirdly, Turkey has shaken off its traditional idleness in foreign policy and put an end to its indifference toward the developments in the contiguous and distant basins. It has started taking initiatives in regard to the events and developments in Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans and the Caucasus by being involved one way or the other. These efforts have made even Latin America a near place.
Fourthly, Turkey has tried to establish balanced relations with global actors and has demonstrated to the prominent international actors that Turkey is not reliant on a single center. During this era, Turkey has not avoiding entering into any sort of bilateral or multilateral relations entailed by its national interests.
Fifthly, Turkey has endeavored to secure itself a more influential position and role in international organizations such as the United Nations, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the European Union, the Arab League and the African Union, and has thus been part of important developments. The appointment of Turks as secretary-general of the OIC and as president of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the beginning of EU membership talks, becoming a member to the Arab League and the African Union, albeit as an observer, and the launching of a major diplomatic campaign for a provisional membership to the UN Security Council can be assessed from this perspective.
And lastly, Turkish foreign policy has in the last six years left its former reactive and unproductive attitude, giving its diplomacy and foreign policy a whole new image through the new rhetoric and style it has adopted. The soft power of diplomacy and politics has been employed also during this era after quitting the habit of resolving international problems based on military power or delaying them.
The achievement of all of these has been made possible through stability in the domestic policy, a strong and dynamic government, and through the ability to mobilize national dynamics toward targets determined single-handedly. In doing so, Turkey has become a country who receives more attention in its region and in the international arena, whose statements are appreciated and whose political image has been rectified. In addition, the bilateral and multilateral ties that have been developed in this regard have born fruits in the field of foreign trade, and Turkey has now achieved $125 billion in foreign trade revenue. Also, it has pioneered some regional initiatives such as the conference of Iraq's neighboring countries, and has assumed intermediary roles in regional problems between Palestine and Israel, Afghanistan and Pakistan and in Iraq.
These are all the fruits enjoyed in the foreign policy owing to the relative stability of the Turkish domestic policy in the previous era. Now the question to be asked is whether Turkey still has the possibility of maintaining this high performance now that it has embarked upon a new climate/process of instability and unpredictability because of the closure case. It has become a matter of debate to what extent the Turkish government -- which is obviously suffering a concentration problem in the international political sphere even at this very moment -- has the strength to realize proactive political expansions outside of the country.
Even though it may have taken an intermediary initiative toward the resolution of the Golan Heights problem that has persisted for years between Syrian and Israel, and even though it has contacted Iraqi Kurdish leaders again in the recent days, the uncertainties within its political bounds are strong enough to raise suspicion over its ability to proceed with similar initiatives. Even finding out that plans to open up to Africa have been interrupted and that plans to open embassies in about five African countries have been delayed until an unknown date reveals to what extent those investing in instability through internal political trickery have caused damage to our foreign policy. In brief, the domestic political instability's bill incurred by our foreign policy is heavy and will continue to be so.
