Turkish foreign policy in the Erdogan era

International relations based on a country’s political interests serve as the underlying reason for the volatile nature of foreign policy. When considering regional and global developments, a country can choose to cut ties with another with which it had previously had good relations. In light of the recent changes that are currently unfolding on the international scene, it is impossible to consider principle and idealism as the driving force behind international relations because interests remain dominant.

However, Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (known by its Turkish acronym, AKP) has managed to achieve several changes in the country’s internal and foreign policies that some would deem revolutionary. These are based on forming a new leadership with an ethical, transparent and credible mind-set. In addition, the party aims to use a new formula for building political relationships that places both parties in a win-win situation; which aims to protect the interests of both sides; and which places selfishness and exclusivity aside.

Since the demise of the Ottoman Empire conflicts and disagreements have dominated the Middle East. The seeds of dispute, which still affect Turkey, have prevented government leadership from finding a reasonable opportunity to focus on foreign policy. Turkish leadership is still at the mercy of the “trusteeship” of benefactors who did not rise to power democratically but gained authority through serial military coups, which occurred every ten years or so. It is almost as if the military sought to contain the people within a very specific political framework. What I have just mentioned has led to a deep-rooted sense of despair within the collective memory of Turkish society and it has prevented Turkey from reaching its true potential within the international arena.

A new approach

Unfortunately, none of the successor governments that came after the founder of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, developed or pursued the concept of foreign policy. Following the Ataturk era, governments implemented shallow policies that were dictated mostly by internal issues. The problems were exacerbated further by politicians’ failure to take responsibility for certain policies. Furthermore, policies were not tied to particular institutions and this is ultimately what led to Turkey’s inability to carry out projects that would allow it to develop its foreign policy and integrate with the rest of the world. This paralysed these institutions, rendering them unable to make any significant decisions.

When the AJP came to power, Turkey’s foreign and other policies witnessed unprecedented changes. For example, a resolution was drafted in March 2003 in which the Turkish parliament prevented the United States from attacking or carrying out any operations against Iraq from Turkish territory. Through this, the party sent an important message about the unique structure of its emerging foreign policy. During the 2009 Davos conference, not only did Turkish foreign policy develop unique characteristics, but the AJP was also able to develop its own policy language. The party transformed the concept of policy from something that was particular to certain provinces to something that was truly effective. Political rhetoric went from evoking the sense that the country was surrounded by enemies on all sides to emphasising that Turkey will have “zero problems with its neighbours”.

Thus, Turkey was able to climb the ranks of the world’s most democratic countries and with these improvements it gained more respect regionally and internationally. Achieving political stability and peace internally and externally is undoubtedly an urgent matter that is essential for any country seeking to be influential in world affairs. Naturally, it is expected that Turkey will focus its efforts on achieving stability in the Middle East in light of the current conflicts and developments, especially since the region is of particular significance with regards to global stability.

In this framework, Turkey has adopted innovative approaches to solving political crises in that it seeks to find solutions to political problems as opposed to approaching said problems with a negative attitude; it uses this approach in order to be able to apply its political strategies effectively. Thus, Turkey initiated its “zero problem” policy with its neighbours in order to create a generation that was committed to peace and prosperity. The bigger goal behind this policy was to create a more prosperous life for the people in the region and to achieve the highest level of integration between countries.

In fact, due to this new initiative, Turkey was able to forge very positive relations with countries in the Middle East, the Balkans, North Africa and the Caucasus. Through the Justice and Development Party, Turkey realised its potential for growth and the responsibilities that came with that potential. Thus, Turkish foreign policy is based on a concept that avoids making a decision based on one-dimensional reactions and instead chooses to take positions based on developing political outcomes. Decisions are based on specific mechanisms that are tied to certain predefined programmes and multi-dimensional understandings. All initiatives must have an end goal and keep long-term political outcomes in perspective.

The concept of true foreign policy, which remains tied to nationalism, has witnessed a revival in the era of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In fact, Turkey’s efforts to improve its foreign policy led to the signing of high-level strategic agreements with dozens of countries. These agreements were not only reached in good faith and resulted in positive benefits for all parties, but they also led to several meetings of senior politicians and ministers.

There is no doubt that these effective policies have won Turkey a greater role in the international arena and enabled it to assume important duties in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and NATO, as well as its non-permanent membership of the UN Security Council.

Turkey and the Arab Spring

Taking into consideration the volatility that affects international relations, good policies, however beneficial they are, may not actually lead to good results because policies are always subject to change. For this reason, the Arab Spring created a barrier that prevented people from reaching their desired goals because the region’s rulers, who have ruled with an iron fist for decades, often prefer repressive policies rather than listening to their own people and meeting their demands. In light of these regional conditions, Turkey found itself facing two possible outcomes: it had to choose between supporting authoritarian regimes or supporting the people’s legitimate demand for freedom and democracy. Turkey, without doubt, made one of the best decisions in its history when it chose the side of the people.

This was coupled with sincere efforts to use diplomacy to prevent armed conflict; Turkey’s intervention in Syria serves as a good example of this. The regime in Damascus chose to use excessive force against its own people, leaving no room for further diplomatic development.

Longing for the trusteeship era

With the start of the Arab Spring, many commentators criticised Turkish foreign policy. Despite the fact that most articles were only published on the Internet and had virtually no professional and analytical depth, their harsh criticism of the policy were anticipated eagerly by individuals who were keen for a setback in Turkish politics. The events of Gezi Square last year demonstrated that some people in Turkey long for a return to the trusteeship era, when the government was under the control of non-elected elements; they have expressed this desire quite openly.

It is no secret that the trusteeship system only serves the interests of a few individuals and ignores the will of the people, as it did nothing to fulfil national interests in the past and it will not do so in the future. Today’s Turkey will no longer accept seeing an indifferent president dressed in his pyjamas as if he is completely ignorant of the events that are taking place; and it will no longer accept its prime minister standing in front of the US president with his head bowed.

The criticism of Turkish foreign policy prompts the following question: what are the true limits of the foreign policy initiatives undertaken by the foreign minister and the prime minister? This question remains unanswered despite the shocking momentum of the critics. Even so, how can they explain Japanese investments in Turkey, when it is common knowledge that Japan prohibits investments in foreign countries? How did they manage to ignore the strategic agreement signed with China, an agreement that set off the world’s diplomatic warning sirens?

Last but not least, can they not consider the acceptance of Turkey’s proposals at the “Friends of Syria” conference as an example of a successful foreign policy? The conference was held in London and was attended by eleven countries. In fact, I am waiting for the Turkish opposition to answer the questions I have posed above as they have tried vigorously to abort the “zero problems” policy through a mass-media campaign. The public is also waiting for the opposition to provide its opinion on recent visits by senior ministers from overseas, as well as Kurdish Prime Minster Barzani’s recent visit to Ankara and the Turkish Foreign Minister’s trip to Northern Iraq (Kurdistan). All can be viewed as good outcomes for Turkey’s foreign policy. I would like to remind the opposition that the keys of the policy are still in Ankara’s hands.

The author is deputy prime minister of Turkey. This is a translation of the Arabic text published by Al Jazeera net on 21 January, 2014