Breaking down the walls of the Cold War

Some argue that Turkey's new foreign policy initiatives are driven by a desire to form new alliances in the region in reaction to a growing frustration with the Western bloc, especially with the anti-Turkey sentiments in Europe. By moving East, Turkey opens up new areas of influence for itself, forcing Europe and the US to recognize its indispensability for the West. The recent row between Turkey and Israel over the cancellation of military air exercise called Anatolian Eagle drew similar comments and reactions. Is Turkey really forming a new axis against its traditional Western allies?

It is a legacy of the Cold War era to think of international relations in terms of opposite blocs and one-way alliances. For almost half a century, most countries in the world thought of themselves as belonging to one bloc or the other. They were either “red communists” or “white capitalists.” There was no color in between, no interface, no middle ground. This ideological division of global politics was reflected in the maximalist identity formations of the Cold War era: There was only one type of identity with no layers, no intermediate colors and no interpenetrations with others. The idea of fixed axes and alliances was formed through the prism of such identity-claims.

Do they speak to our realities today? No, they don't. The Bush neo-cons were the last major ideological movement to reshape the world along such rigid and one-dimensional alliances. Even their project failed, dragging the US into intractable problems in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and other places. In the last year of his presidency, even Bush himself had realized that casting world politics as a battle of rigid blocs does not work. This explains his attempt to have some sort of rapprochement with then-President Vladimir Putin of Russia, the famous poses at his Texas ranch, etc. Was Bush trying to establish a new alliance with Russia against, say, China or Iran?

What is ironic is that when the big powers of the world make moves gesturing and reaching out to their old rivals and enemies, this is seen as a sign of wise politics. When Turkey does it, it is seen as a suspicious move toward a mysterious “Eastern politics.” Turkish policy makers do not think of global politics in terms of rigid blocs and oppositional identities anymore. They see room for more opportunity and partnership than rivalry and enmity in their neighborhood. They want to normalize their relations with countries in the region and, by extension, with the world.

Bringing down the wall of separation between Turkey and Syria is an application of this principle. Does this put Turkey further away from its traditional Western allies? No. Because the principle is simple: we want to establish regional peace and stability in order to contribute to world peace. We know firsthand that there will be no global peace and order until and unless there is peace and order in our region. This is not an emotion or wish; it is a hard fact, a fact we have neglected for too long. If you look at the most hot button issues of the world today and how much they disturb global peace, you see the issues in our region claiming the lion's share. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Lebanon and the Caucasus are the fault lines of regional stability and global peace, and Turkey is neighbor to them all. In such an environment, Turkey cannot pretend these problems do not exist.

Abolishing the borders is a result of overcoming imaginary boundaries. This is a reality of the 21st century. Turkey and the region have still many more imaginary borders to overcome. Wait for more!