Dynamic Changes in Its Foreign Policy: Where Does Turkiye Stand?

Since the establishment of the Republic on October 29, 1923, Turkiye has occasionally found itself entangled in discussions concerning the axis of its foreign relations.

Turkiye, while striving to maintain harmonious ties with the Western axis, has once again been drawn into these debates in recent years.

With the rise of the National Vision movement (Milli Gorus), led by the late Necmettin Erbakan, a more Islamic perspective shaped Turkiye’s foreign policy.

After the military coup on February 28, 1997, Turkiye tried to return to the Western axis.

It’s worth noting that what distinguishes the ideology of “Milli Gorus” from the “Founding Will of the Republic” is its emphasis on the Islamic element in its identity definition of Turkiye.

Upon the Justice and Development Party’s accession to power in 2002, Turkiye pursued a foreign policy aligned with the European Union and the United States. Adjustments and reforms were made in various areas to conform to the rules of the Eurozone.

During its efforts to join the European Union, Turkiye underwent several transformations, including constitutional amendments and reforms related to human and civil rights.

Starting from 2020, global conditions and regional developments compelled Turkiye to adopt stances that balanced the Eastern and Western axes. It began enhancing its relations with the East while maintaining ties with the West.

 

Consolidating Its Position

Turkiye did not remain a bystander to the negative developments in the region during the Arab Spring events. Instead, it intervened directly in neighboring arenas, such as Syria and Libya.

It developed varied reactions toward Western interests and interventions in the region.

Driven by the “Strategic Depth” theory proposed by then-Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkiye aimed to establish a strong foothold in the region using its geographical and geopolitical resources.

Davutoglu’s theory remains a guiding principle in Turkiye’s foreign policy, seeking to solidify its presence in the region through soft power.

In this context, Turkiye managed to carve out a respected place in cultural, political, and economic spheres in the European region.

The relationship between Turkiye and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has seen periods of both calm and tension. The relationship between Ankara and Athens occupies a significant position in this regard.

The conflict between these two NATO members regarding their maritime boundaries and airspace gained momentum, causing strain within the alliance.

On September 3, 2022, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated, “O Greek, look at history. If you insist, you will pay a heavy price.”

Such statements sometimes lead to political strife between NATO members. Experts warn that this could impact the alliance’s operations and unity at a time when focusing on unity against Russia is crucial.

While Turkiye turns one of its faces toward NATO and the European Union, its other facet is oriented toward the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and D-8 Organization for Economic Cooperation.

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation was founded in Morocco in 1969 and is the second-largest international governmental organization after the United Nations. Despite its continued work on issues related to the rights of Muslims, its previous popularity has greatly diminished.

As for the D-8 Organization for Economic Cooperation, it does not currently receive sufficient attention.

The group aims to be an international organization open to membership by other developing countries that share common goals, objectives, principles, and ties. Despite all efforts, the D-8 platform has not reached the desired level.

Returning to Turkiye’s relations with the West, we can cite the NATO summit in Vilnius in July 2023.

In the summit statement, it was mentioned that Turkiye and Sweden, which had differences, reached an agreement regarding Stockholm’s accession to NATO.

The statement also emphasized that each country has the right to choose its own security arrangements, suggesting that NATO retains its expansionist perspective.

While Turkiye has maintained its Asian and African relationships, it has occasionally opposed NATO’s focus on the Asia-Pacific region.

President Erdogan received the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in late July 2023. According to the issued statement, they discussed mechanisms to develop bilateral trade between Turkiye and China, making it more balanced and sustainable, and opportunities for increased mutual investments.

Erdogan expressed his desire for greater cooperation between the two countries, both of which play crucial roles in global and regional affairs.

According to Chinese media, during his meeting with Erdogan, Wang Yi indicated that Turkiye did not support NATO’s focus on the Asia-Pacific region and was ready to continue coordinating on international and regional issues, such as the Ukrainian crisis.

 

Continuous Void

In his interview with Al-Estiklal, Ilyas Tonguc, lecturer at Haci Bayram Veli University, assessed the axis policy debate as follows:

He said: “The world could not fill the void that emerged with the withdrawal of the Ottoman Empire from the stage of history during World War I, and the imperialist countries failed to agree on division.”

World War II claimed millions of lives, established a bipolar world, and created institutions that were part of an exploitative system, which failed to bring peace and justice or prevent exploitation in the world.

Tonguc pointed out that “this competitive war is ongoing, and the world is rapidly heading toward a third world war.

“The human need for food and security has reached its peak, allowing imperialist countries that control the arms industry to provide new resources through this avenue. Today, relations between countries are more tense than ever.”

He continued: “The United Nations has failed to find a solution to the wars, occupations, injustice, and cruelty we’ve witnessed.”

He added that “at this point, Turkiye must make great efforts to establish a new global system based on justice and rights, and rooted in the legacy of the Ottoman Empire, rather than the exploitative system established by Britain, the United States, and Russia at the Yalta Conference after World War II.”

This conference is described as the most important since 1945 when British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, and then-U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt met in Yalta, Crimea, to agree on the post-World War II Europe division, as the three allies’ forces approached Berlin.

The Turkish lecturer continued by saying, “It has become clear that peace will not come to the world through Western mentality. Here, it is now evident that solving the world’s problems relies on our leadership as a country and our representation of the late Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan’s vision.”

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation was initiated by Erbakan on June 15, 1997, with the aim of building a new world. It seems that the principles established in those meetings are the only way to overcome the world’s problems today, according to the lecturer.

Tonguc clarified these principles: peace instead of war, dialogue instead of conflict, justice instead of double standards, participation instead of exploitation, equality instead of superiority, human rights instead of repression and dominance.

Based on this foundation, Tonguc indicates that Turkiye must continue its efforts in this regard, emphasizing that Ankara’s role is to enhance unity, solidarity, and cooperation among Islamic world nations.

Tonguc concluded his remarks by saying, “The efforts that began in 1969 with the establishment of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and continued with D-8 Organization for Economic Cooperation will be realized thanks to Turkiye’s historical role, experiences, and experiments.

“They will lead to comprehensive development of Islamic nations, both materially and spiritually, liberating them from exploitation.

“In this way, it will be possible to establish a new world based on justice and rights, where wars will cease, tears will dry, and all oppressed peoples will be able to survive.”

 

Political Changes

Professor Ilter Turan, a faculty member at Istanbul Bilgi University, spoke to Al-Estiklal about Turkiye’s relationship with NATO and the European Union.

He believes that “Turkiye has recently begun making some changes in its foreign policy. The reason for this is the failure of the changes initiated in 2010.”

Since then, Turkiye has been changing the course of its foreign policy toward Sunni Arab countries in the Middle East.

After this policy proved unsuccessful, Turkiye began taking steps in what can be termed as “retail diplomacy”.

“Turkiye seeks to enhance its friendship with Arab countries that opposed the Arab Spring, on the one hand, while trying to strengthen its faltering relations with the European Union and NATO, on the other.”

He explained that Turkiye also aims to open up new prospects and build new relationships in East Asia, Africa, and Latin America. He said, “All of these matters are fragmented, and I wonder if this could be beneficial for Ankara in the short term.”

Turan continued by saying, “The change in the overall philosophy of foreign policy does not necessarily mean entering a new axis. Looking at it this way, it can be said that foreign policy may be undergoing a process of disengagement from a particular axis. Is that beneficial or harmful?

“The system that was established in the world after World War II has already started to disintegrate with the end of the Cold War. This disintegration is ongoing, and the type of system that will replace it is not clear yet.”

From this perspective, adopting a “fragmentation’ policy and not adhering to or committing to a specific axis gives Turkish foreign policy the flexibility to prepare for the future, according to his estimation.

“However, there is no other widely spread axis in the world so far. Therefore, even if Turkiye wants to distance itself from certain parties or axes, it’s clear that such policies won’t provide the expected benefits at the current time because the parties that can be approached are not sufficiently ready, or they are not formed adequately.”

Turan pointed out that the European Union represents more economic potential for Turkiye than being a security guarantee.

He believes that “the political and economic system represented by the European Union, characterized by liberal democracy and a market economy, is the path that Turkiye should move forward in.”

Turan continued, saying, “It does not appear that the European Union, at the present time, can function as an independent, active entity in the realm of security, as it is composed of a group of countries, each with its own agenda.

“If we look at it from the perspective of European defense, the United Kingdom and Turkiye, both of which possess the two most significant military forces in Europe, are not members of the European Union.”

In contrast, NATO emerged from a defensive treaty during the Cold War (1947–1991), with the main goal of preventing Soviet expansion, according to him.

With the end of the Cold War, it was believed that NATO would gradually lose its function. However, with Russia’s recovery and its emergence as a great power seeking expansion and influence to replace the Soviet Union, NATO returned to the spotlight.

This was facilitated by the United States as well, as the leadership of Europe in security once again gravitated toward it.

“However, we should not have too much trust in the United States. The former President, Donald Trump, intended to withdraw the defense mission for Europe.

“Looking at the situation from the Turkish perspective, our association with NATO presents a balancing weight against Russia,” he added.

Although relations between Turkiye and Russia may be friendly at present, Moscow might, in the event of Ankara’s disengagement from NATO, show expansionist tendencies toward Ankara. Russia could seek to curtail or weaken Turkiye’s role in the Black Sea region, as well as push it away from the Caucasus or exert pressure on it in other matters.

Therefore, Turkiye’s current NATO affiliation plays a positive role in balancing its relations with Russia. Hence, both organizations, the European Union and NATO, are important for Turkiye.

Turkiye continues to exercise its activities as a decision-making state in its region while acknowledging the responsibility imposed by its geopolitical and historical mission.

In the midst of a complex political landscape, Turkiye seeks to manage its relations with the international community and neighboring countries in accordance with various challenges.

With NATO’s presence in the Middle East, Russia’s policies in the region, and China’s expansionist efforts as a global competitor to the United States, Turkiye navigates a specific path in dealing with each of these factors.

Despite what some experts suggest about Turkiye “undergoing a shift in its axis,” the Justice and Development Party refuses to fully enter into any axis.

Turkiye’s political steps are taken based on its geographical position, with an independent vision that aligns with its national interests and strategic outlook.