Rather than focusing on developments abroad, debates revolve around the government-opposition struggle and their biting remarks and accusations against each other. Nevertheless, discussing the choices Turkey made in its foreign policy and the policy Turkey has adopted only in the light of domestic politics prevents us from comprehensively interpreting new developments and radical changes. Therefore one should not be limited to polemics when discussing the fundamental parameters or the constant and variable aspects of Turkish foreign policy. As a matter of fact, analyzing primarily foreign actors and variables is a must in order to foresee new strategic choices and the evolution of the current policy in the future. Foreign policy choices and decisions constitute a process. This process becomes more complicated in practice; external factors may change the speed and direction of this process; decisions that once seemed to be indispensable can be reviewed and foreign policy choices can be altered within acceptable limits. Therefore it is unrealistic to expect that foreign policy decisions will yield results every time and in every condition. Regional and global relations of a country, in other words, its acts, depending on foreign policy decisions and choices constitute a process.
Even if a country maintains continuity in its foreign policy to a certain extent, it is not a given that this country’s decisions yield expected and planned results. This is because, as witnessed in Turkey’s Syria policy, it is clear that many actors became involved in regional developments, became party to those developments and pursued different interests beyond Turkey’s control. Indeed, regional and global competition based on different approaches and conflicts of interest have an influence on Turkish foreign policy as well as on other countries. When those who consider that foreign policy will yield results in the short-term are disappointed, they immediately criticize it. Those who consider foreign policy as a multi-factor process believe that policies will yield long term results and choices and goals can be revised due to uncontrollable actors and variables. Essentially, they argue that foreign policy is by definition a process and it would be better to hold debates keeping this in mind.
Changes in Turkish foreign policy and the need for revising our foreign policy due to unexpected developments indicate that foreign policy should be considered as a process and choices are not absolute and can be subject to revision. Analyzing how Turkish foreign policy has evolved in these days when we celebrate the Republic’s 89th anniversary will not only enable us to better understand and analyze today but also contribute to the understanding of the changes in Turkey’s vision for the Middle East.
More than 25 nation-states were established in former Ottoman territories in the wake of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. It was the traumas and perceptions of that period which have primarily shaped Turkey’s relations with these countries.
Due to Turkey’s ideology of modernization and Westernization, Turkey’s relations with the Middle East and North Africa remained limited even though it shared a common history and culture with these regions. This was because Turkey preferred to be close to the West and its relations with Middle Eastern and North African region—which today spark discussion that Turkey’s axis is shifting—remained symbolic. Cold War ideology and Turkey’s strategic membership in the Western bloc prevented the political elite, notably foreign policy makers, from adopting an independent political line. Turkey acted together with its allies and failed to prioritize political and ideological opportunities that would have allowed Turkey to establish relations in line with its national interests. Turkey’s membership in NATO strengthened this image and it dominated Turkish foreign policy until Özal came to power. On one hand Ö
