Besides, one should also consider the changing conditions dictated by the globalizing world. And even the states relying on the most despotic tools cannot remain indifferent to this obligation. The new foreign policy approach would represent a more democratic mindset and facilitate reform steps in the field of domestic politics. Moreover, the AK Party administration further noticed that EU and US support would be vital during this process. As such, while the party refrained from taking bold steps in the judicial and security areas, including the introduction of a new Constitution during its first term in office, the AK Party adopted a whole new foreign policy style in the same period. The AK Party drew a policy foreseeing the coming of the Barack Obama era, and it did this by designing a new foreign policy. The second term of the party pointed to even more success. All of a sudden, we witnessed Turkey lifting barriers with Syria, seeking to normalize its relations with Armenia, seeing northern Iraq as its partner and wanting to establish firm relations with countries like Iran. At the same time, the government got rid of the bounds of the military guardianship when the Ergenekon coup attempt was uncovered; in this environment, the government launched a Kurdish opening, held Alevi workshops and decided to discuss judicial reform. What mattered at this point was the conclusion that internal reforms may be legitimized through a foreign policy style because we are talking about political movement that is purely illegitimate from a pro-state perspective.
Those who fail to see that this change is an integrated part of a larger picture talk about the AK Party changing its orientation. They assert that the AK Party, which consolidated its position on power by minimizing the impact of the military, would have the opportunity to implement it amist agenda; they further note that its attitude vis-à-vis Iranian nuclear ambitions was a sign of this intention. Frankly speaking, this is a superficial approach because the case is actually quite the opposite.
Turkey is not changing its orientation. It is utilizing the EU axis, but through the East, and in doing so reinforces the mindset promoted by that axis. However, it should also be noted that the notion “EU axis” is becoming more symbolic over time because we have been observing that the EU’s stance towards Turkey does not bear strong traces of the approach represented by this axis. We are seeing an EU that is becoming more distant to Turkey and not bothered by the relations which have slowed down with this country.
The EU needs to make a decision now; will the EU actors want to make it an influential actor in the global world and lead a radical transformation through further democratization? If there is such a desire, the EU should be pleased with Turkey’s actions and its attempts to become more influential by staying within the EU vision. Unless, of course, the Europeans, under the influence of the fatigue caused by the lapse of time, hold that the EU axis has become meaningless.
