The İstanbul Forum, organized by the Center for Strategic Communication (STRATIM), the Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA) and the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) sought to address this very question: What kind of an order do we need in the Middle East in the 21st century? The Oxford scholar Avi Shlaim, one of the most eminent experts on the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, describes the Middle East as “the most penetrated sub-system of the international political system” (see Avi Shlaim, “Israel and Palestine: Reflections, Revisions, Refutations” (London/New York: Verso, 2009), p. 187). Ever since the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt in 1798, the region has been the site of big power plays by Europeans, Americans and Russians. The modern Middle East, built on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, never had the luxury of developing its own social and political mechanisms in a free and natural environment.
Modernization was a top-down process in almost all Arab countries, and this created a major rift between tradition and modernity. Most of the newly established regimes after independence became political dictatorships because the Western powers put in place only those who would work with them and refrain from questioning the legitimacy of their colonial masters. Europeans may have forgotten the events of the 19th and 20th centuries, but the memory of European colonialism is still fresh in the mind of many people in the Middle East.
Today, the Middle East is suffering from more or less similar circumstances. Human security, political stability, social peace and economic development stand out as the shared problems of the region. The deep social and economic problems make the region look like a battle field. But there is a limit to such dramatization. Samuel Huntington's claim that “Islam's borders are bloody and so are its innards” was one of the most flamboyant statements of this skewed view of the Middle East. Yes, there is war in the region. Yes, there is unemployment, corruption, political autocracy and illiteracy in the region. But one can mention many of these facts in other parts of the world as well. Why single out the Middle East and depict it as the number one region with the bloodiest conflicts? Conflicts in Africa, Latin America and Asia have killed more people than in the Middle East.
The Middle East of today is changing fast. There is a tremendous social and economic change, affecting all aspects of life. Those who think the Middle East is a big desert populated by oil-rich lazy Arabs and religious fanatics need to go out and see the region for what it is. The Gulf countries have skipped the 20th century and jumped into the 21st. Others, if given a chance, will follow suit. If left to itself, the region will recuperate naturally. But it is the never-ending cycle of external interventions that radicalizes positions and forces people to be exclusivists in both political and religious realms.
Turkey's increasing role in the region scares some Arab states. They are concerned that Turkey will steal their role and supplant them as a regional leader. Turkey has no such ambitions. Turkey has never been in the business of nation building and always followed a policy of non-interference vis-à-vis the domestic issues of other countries.
What Turkey is seeking to do in the Middle East is regional stability based on the priorities of the region. This means accepting and working with everyone in the region. But it also means working with international actors, i.e., Europe, Russia and the US to minimize tensions. The problem is that the big powers are confused about what to do in the region, and their policies have failed to bring about peace, security and stability. In the absence of a working order, Turkey feels compelled to step up to the plate. This is not a self-proclaimed desire to be the “new boss of the neighborhood.” It is a response to a failure of policy that affects everyone from Baghdad and Ankara to Brussels and Washington.
