Just like the June 12th elections, developments in foreign policy and our region played a crucial role in shaping the agenda of 2011. Without a doubt, the wave of revolt called the Arab Spring was the most significant factor influencing not only Turkey but also the entire world in the last year.
A wave of revolt sparked by a street vendor called Muhammed Buazizi, who set himself on fire on December 17, 2010, put an end to the 23-year rule of Ben Ali and spread through the Middle East and North Africa. Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Syria followed Tunisia.
During this process sweeping across the Middle East, Turkey prevailed both globally and regionally because of its active foreign policy, its own democracy experience and its success in being independent while integrating with the world. One can claim that Turkey has been undergoing the growing pains—which North Africa and Middle East have begun to experience recently—for the last decade. Particularly the September 12, 2010, elections were a milestone for the structural changes in the post-2007 period. Having launched debates on the “New Turkey” since then, Turkey found itself in the middle of debates on the “New Middle East.”
Although each state experienced its own process during the Arab Spring, in response to different developments in each country caused by different dynamics, Turkey maintained its own fundamental principles. To begin with, Turkey supported the democratic reform demands of people in each country from Tunisia to Syria. It contacted current governments and called on them to carry out reforms, pave the way for change and undergo a transformation without resorting to an armed struggle.
It also met with opposition groups and used every possible diplomatic method to find a political solution. When Turkey realized that there was no progress being made through diplomatic avenues, it proved its willpower by calling on leaders to leave. Turkey stood opposed to military intervention as the sole solution. It intervened in the process, as was the case in Libya, when intervention was inevitable, insisted on determining the limits of the operation and tried to prevent the slaughter of people and any possible exploitation. Emphasizing that people in each country must decide their own fate, Turkey declared many times that it stands by people setting out to build a new democratic order. As a result, it enjoyed a privileged position as a country enthusiastically welcomed by people in the region.
The last decade has been the most active and prominent era of foreign policy in the history of the Republic. Turkey refused to be a party to the occupation of Iraq, marking the first breaking point in Turkish foreign policy. The second came with Gaza and Iran in 2010. The wave of revolt in our region brought about a new dynamic not only to our foreign policy but also to the Westernization project. As Turkey responds to regional uprisings and the possible new political order to be established in the aftermath of these uprisings, the structural changes in the region will also influence the transformation of Turkey itself. Being brought face-to-face with the regional dynamics, Turkey had an opportunity and an obligation to pick up the pieces and repair historical ruptures. Turkey continued to support democracy and will see that it must complete its own normalization process without delay.
IS TURKEY A MODEL?
People and new governments from Tunisia—where the wave of uprisings began—to Syria talk about Turkey to a certain extent. Here defining Turkey as a “model country” is as meaningless as defining it as a “bridge” because these definitions can be attributed to a passive actor. Bridges and models cannot take initiative and make history. They can only be an apparatus or a necessary instrument of a great design. These interpretations are expected in the copy-paste world from the Western Cold War perspective and have equivalents in our region as well, whereas w
