[Comments on discussions regarding a shift of axis]
Interpreting foreign policy correctly in the East-West perspective
by
ADEM PALABIYIK*

“In the post-9/11 world where the postulate of the late Samuel Huntington, the ‘clash of civilizations,’ has become one of the major topics of global intellectual discourse, Turkey’s turn towards the East would be a significant tectonic shift over the civilizational fault lines given its indispensable geopolitics. Thus, Turkey’s direction becomes a concern for everybody, from West to East, from South to North. Since the beginning of fall 2009, not a single day goes by without reading titles and headings like ‘How the West lost Turkey,’ ‘What happens if Turkey leaves the West,’ ‘Turkey: An ally no more,’ ‘Turks’ eastern turn,’ ‘The Turkish temptation,’ ‘Turkey’s worrisome approach to Iran and Israel,’ ‘The new Turkish lexicon,’ ‘A NATO without Turkey,’ ‘Is Turkey Iran’s friend?’ ‘An Islamist pivot to the East,’ ‘Disillusioned with Europe, Turkey looks east,’ and ‘Turkey and the Middle East -- Looking east and south.’ These are a few examples of titles of think-tank reports and the headings of op-ed pieces and articles appearing in periodicals and dailies in the West ranging from the United States to the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. They underscore the prevailing sentiment on both sides of the Atlantic on Turkey’s current foreign policy direction.”

The transformation of Turkey’s identity as a buffer state into a proactive, multidimensional, diplomatically active state has caused problems in terms of attempts to grasp the reality, intention and purpose of Turkey’s foreign policy. It is interesting that whenever tension arises between Turkey and Israel, the foreign media focuses on a shifting of axis. However, there are still several questions raised by these discussions which have not been answered. First of all, it is never precisely explained what is meant exactly by the term “shifting of axis.” Second, the conditions necessary for the completion of a shifting of axis are never mentioned. Third, there is no thorough analysis conducted as to which axis and balances Turkey stands on, which axis it should be on and which axis is against it. In any analytical discussion with good intentions, these should be the first things to be considered. If the discussion takes place within this conceptual and analytical framework, it means that there is a conceptual system fuelled by ambiguity.

Active foreign policy

Ahmet Davutoğlu, who deserves his recent title as the “head architect” of Turkish foreign policy, has made great efforts to define the main principle of Turkish foreign policy as “zero problems” with neighbors instead of “neo-Ottomanism.” Although an expression such as neo-Ottomanism would drawn upon the popular nostalgia Turks share for the empire, it could lead neighboring states to perceive the new policy as one of expansionism. According to Davutoğlu, the most important concept in foreign policy is the concept of “strategic depth.” This concept is based on the idea that Turkey is a country that cannot pursue a single-sided and one-dimensional policy due to its historical and cultural heritage, and it is a nation that should position itself in the center while defining its benefits. At the same time, Turkey is in need of developing new approaches to its foreign policy in order to formulate foreign policy solutions under the umbrella of one over-arching policy goal, and such a policy should not follow in the footsteps of past foreign policy. Turkey should not corner itself with shallow strategic policies that force it to direct itself towards a certain position. Single-directional approaches and the policies formed by regarding other regions as central will lead Turkey to become an instrument for others to reach their goals and prevent Turkey from becoming a leading actor. The recent fuss over Turkey’s approach and its active foreign policy in the Middle East region, termed as losing its orientation by some, began after a period during which Turkey’s relations with Israel were being revised and the US and its NATO allies tried to pressure Iran because of its nuclear program following new developments in Turkey’s relations with Iran. In the same way, a few days prior to direct negotiations between Israel and Syria, great distances were covered even in the most important issues, Israel’s violent operations against Gaza, during which they were seen as having committed a crime against humanity. Due to the violence of these operations, the Turkish prime minister had harsh criticism for Israel at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Following the “post-Davos period trauma” in Turkish-Israeli relations, a shift of axis became one of the most popular topics of debate, especially in Washington. Turkey, which was presented as the ambassador of peace at the start of December 2008, was suddenly regarded as a country changing its axis from the moment it criticized Israeli actions in Gaza and established negotiations with Iran. The prevention of the Turkish foreign minister from visiting Gaza last year, halting joint military exercises with Israel, the attempt to use a television series named “Ayrılık” as evidence of an increase of anti-Semitism in Turkey and the speech made by the prime minister in which he stated, “Even if everyone shuts their ears, we will not, even if everyone shuts their eyes, we will not” was used as evidence of such a process.

Turkey’s political relations include eastern Mediterranean countries, ancient Mesopotamia and the heart of Middle East. One of the points that need to be taken into consideration is that following the US invasion, Iraq came under the influence of Iran and Syria became the main partner for Iran. Ankara has to take these realities into consideration. Turkey has the potential to change Iran’s sphere of influence through the “soft power approach,” without causing any tension. Such a task cannot be successful while engaging in policies that will be perceived as opposition to the major actors in the territory, as well as Israel. This can only be successful if Turkey takes on the role of a powerful player to fill the gap created by the removal of influential Sunni countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and to balance out Iran.

The international and regional power: Turkey

Turkey is a major player in the international system, in the Middle East, as well as in Pakistan and Afghanistan as it begins to show its “soft power” within the strategic equation in these territories. As a new, emerging power during an era of fluctuations in international policy, Turkey has the power to terminate the current political axis of the Middle East centered on Iran and its supporters in the East and Israel in the west. Turkey deems Iran’s integration with the international system as one of the most important steps to be taken towards global peace. Turkey considers itself as the most suitable country to establish relations with Iran and it has the self-reliance to undertake such a difficult mission. Turkey is aware of the importance of access to inroads with the Middle East, as well as the importance of Iran in terms of its future ability to access energy, and there are other great benefits to be reaped by Turkey if it develops its relations with Iran. Currently the volume of trade between two countries is around $10 billion, and it has the potential to triple.

In his report, Çandar states several reasons for Turkey becoming an international or regional power:

1. The diminished power of the US in the region, due to its failure in the first Iraq War and the general opinion in the region in this regard

2. The failures of Europe and/or the failure of the EU in the Middle East, which it perceives as its own backyard

3. Following the 2003 US-led invasion, the fall of the Sunni government in Iraq and Egypt and Saudi Arabia’s loss of power in the Middle East, America’s best allies, and as a result, leaving the region more vulnerable to the influence of Shiite Iran

4. Turkey’s rise to the 15th greatest economy in the world and the seventh greatest economy in Europe, and the fact that it is soon to become a G-7 member state

5. The continuing modernization of Turkey thanks to the influence of the European Union. In this process of modernization, the rise of a political party, claimed to have an Islamist background, and its success as the government has showed that Turkish democracy is sufficiently developed to allow for all its development

6. The rise of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) to leadership of the government of the Republic of Turkey has successfully transformed Turkey into a nation to be admired among Muslim nations, the Muslim community and Arab nations.

Davutoğlu stated in his speech, addressed to European Union, that “the basic strategic target and government policy of Turkey is full membership in the European Union. This target has never been changed. The European Union process is among the most significant aspects of social and political life in Turkey, due to its importance in our foreign policy and the political and economic transformation it has sustained. It should not be denied that our modernization efforts, which are based on a European model, date back to the 18th century. Integration with Europe is a historic process and has strategic priority.” Davutoğlu’s speech summarizes our policy towards the European Union and can be interpreted as describing the position of Turkey in the international and regional arena in future.

Eastern Rome’s heir: Turkey

After listing all of these developments, it becomes obvious that there is a rarely used expression that is preferred when evaluating the actions of Turkey, that is not used when assessing the actions of other countries: a shifting of axis. Actually the problem is very clear: Turkey is going through a change in its foreign policy under the AKP in order to derive the most benefit from its current situation. It is developing a new and consistent policy, in line with some values, not defined as Islamist, Eurasian or Eastern, but rather, as international. The fact that some people fail to understand this new approach, which may be defined as a “realist foreign policy based on values,” and the perception of this approach from such a narrow perspective is another part of the problem. The other leg of the policy is that some nations which have always had privilege in foreign affairs, failed the new scale of values and principles which constitute Turkish foreign policy, and due to their reluctance to adjust to this new reality, they strive to change the terms of the debate in their favor. The countries that are concerned over the fact that Ankara is treating them as equals with the other nations strive to agitate the tension between the Islamist-secular groups through international relations and the media, so as to change the events in their favor and regain power and influence.

The attention of international actors has been focused on Turkish foreign policy due to the fact that its democratic and secular administration is in harmony with its citizens, a majority of whom are Muslim. This has also led to Turkey being perceived as a key player in global politics and in keeping the regional balance of power, as it is a country with all the relevant components of power, in addition to its traditional geopolitical importance. As many foreign policy experts describe, without doubt, the geostrategic structure of Turkey today, it is becoming a modern country as well as the leading democracy in its region and is a major, international player. All of these form the political foundations of Turkish foreign policy and contribute towards its proactive, multidimensional and constructive aspects.

The European component has never been a variable in Turkey’s status. Rather, it has constantly remained a stable value throughout the course of its history. Furthermore, Turkey is the heir of the Eastern Roman Empire. Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs Davutoğlu stated that “the persons who desire to understand Turkey’s foreign policy need to understand what decision Rome would have made, if they were assigned to act in place of today’s decision makers.” In other words, Rome would have done, or would have desired to do, whatever Turkey does and desires to perform in foreign policy today.

This is the fact that must be told to everyone …

*Adem Palabıyık is a research assistant at Muş Alparslan University’s Department of Sociology.