It's primordial that the US, the European Union and Russia meet frequently, because international developments indicate that the world is involved in a game that no one can win.We witness coups in Latin America and civil unrest in Iran, scores are killed in Iraq, Pakistan has become the new Afghanistan and in Afghanistan, stability has become a myth. If we add to that list the unrest in the Caucasus, the energy security issues in the Black Sea region and the concerns about China's future, we have good reason to be worried. It is no longer possible to build a political or economic approach based on the classical dichotomy of “East-West” or “North-South.” In other words, as long as Eastern and Western countries, poor and rich, don't cooperate, there will be no solution for either bilateral or global problems.
However, which poor country will cooperate with which rich one? And which Eastern and Western countries will play as partners? These abovementioned meetings tend to find answers to these thorny questions. The rivalry between the US, Russia and some European countries is tangible. Furthermore, many local actors in the Middle East, Central Asia or the Caucasus are also in a fierce competition with each other while they are trying to establish cooperation with the EU, the US and Russia.
These rivalries in different levels push several countries to develop a self-protection reflex, which makes problems even more difficult to resolve. No actor is powerful enough to determine the rules of the game by itself. Nevertheless, there are some issues that can help, if they are resolved, to overturn the present dangerous tendency, such as the relationship between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the one between Armenia and Turkey, the problem of Cyprus, the Palestine issue and the stress between Ukraine and Russia.
It may seem as a too Turkey-centered way of thinking, but it's a reality that a great many international crises happen around Anatolia. Turkey directly or indirectly influences many of these key issues; it is also affected by these crises. When the rivalries between diverging actors become tougher, Turkey's stability is somehow damaged. Nevertheless, an unstable Turkey is risky not only for Turkish citizens, but for the inhabitants of a much wider area.
The best assurance of Turkey's stability is the EU integration process and that's why almost every international actor, except for a few countries within the EU, supports Turkey's accession. The search for more security that marks the international summits points out this reality, even if some people are determined not to understand it.
The new ministerial post of Pierre Lellouche, who is presented as a friend of Turkey, as the European affairs secretary in France made some people hope that maybe Paris finally understands all this. However, I have met with Mr. Lellouche personally, and I can say that he likes Turkey because of its “Eastern” colors, its intriguing aspects, its incredible natural beauties and cultural richness, but does not see all this as “Europe.” Appointing him as minister doesn't mean that from now on France supports Turkey's accession, but that France really wants to heal the Turkish-French relationship. To choose someone who will talk to Turkey with a smiling face in the hope of improving bilateral relations shows that France still uses old tactics and wastes its high-caliber people. I hope I'm wrong, not only for Turkey, but also for France.
