Is there a possibility to determine an axis shift in Turkey by following a policy on Iran, Palestine and Israel issues? This question is being seriously argued by both the western media and in Turkey for quite some time. Let this question be argued, does the concrete data determining for the diversity in ideas appear around this question or does the same concrete data cause diversity in ideas? Without a doubt, it seems that, even if the people claim that they talk on the grounds of the data, the same data cause different feelings on different people; for example it causes fear and anxiety on some people while it causes excitement on some.
Why could this be considered as a signal of leaving the international community, if Turkey said “NO” to a resolution-no matter what it includes- which was approved by 12 members of the UN Security Council by saying “YES”? “No” vote is not an option out of council’s preferences. Principally Turkey’s “NO” could be evaluated as an opportunity of the democratic legitimacy of the UN to some extend and even as a chance to restore it in a way. Because it saved the legitimacy of the UN by Turkey and Brazil’s 2 “NO” votes, on the ground where the other members of the Council’s also, permanent countries like China and Russia were somehow convicted by the USA with some certain conditions and slogged away using votes which is not coherent with their situation. Otherwise there appears a situation that even if the powerful one is not right, its words are valid without any objection. As a matter of fact; this situation has been the biggest paradox since the UN Council was established.
Of course, the most tragicomic part of the situation is that people, who talk about the axis shift in Turkey, used to criticize AKP being under the USA guidance until now. They are not worth being taken seriously. But it is necessary to underline the interesting exposed assumptions which are done by those people, about foreign policy analysis with the latest picture and the hypothetical which are accepted without any inquiry.
Even the idea of Turkey’s independence sounds nice, evaluation of opportunity to apply it, routes people to fear and the worry. Turkey’s acting as an independent country is not an accustomed attitude. What is being suited (tailored) for Turkey is not to get out of the axis which is “dependent” on foreign policy and to do whatever the axis countries want. Wherever this axis takes us, the role of obeying without any objection is being ascribed more.
One of the theories which are well-known in international relations but the validity of them is always being argued, is that there is an idea of some sort of hierarchy among inter-states. The approach, which was confirmed in the Cold War years, is that a world in which some countries are dependent on the others organically and hierarchically. Today the validity of this approach is being discussed because even every country closes up the ties in a good way likely in “dependent” way at some certain term with another, owing to the nature of nation-state the countries have a tendency of acting individually and later they launch to follow it. The evaluation of the possibility of the state administrators acting independently is entirely related to their coordination style and preferences about internal and external balances that are generated by them. With no suspension; the level of financial and social wealth of the country is also making things easy for the countries which act independently.
The existence of Turkey’s potential to act independently is actually more than what it is presumed. Giving credence to this independent attitude by no one so far, it could be linked merely to the laziness of the administrators, their fear of taking risk and liking guaranteed atmosphere, it may be their cowardliness or to be engage with their relations.
Both not being accustomed with Turkey’s independent attitudes and not in conscious of the power games, which are dragged towards a distinctive arena, played in the world, these attitudes of Turkey frighten some people. Turkey does not have to be a country which makes its all plans according to the EU accessions. The idea of the accession to the EU or walking on this path does not have to be put aside. However; it seems that the process will take a long time and Turkey takes an extremely rational movement by not waiting without doing anything. No one should be worried about the concurrently application of the new and the alternative roads, makes her valuable in other areas.
It is also meaningful that the approaches declared from the foreign policy analyses department on Turkey’s exhibited independent manners will get her into big troubles. It is a typical example of how to make precisely an objective foreign policy analysis. All in all, the decisive thing with this analysis is not something else rather than the people’s emotional behavior in the case of the events.
The emotional or ethical objectives like; courage, entrepreneurism, anxiety, fear, worry, inferiority complex, self-confidence, humanitarian values, selfishness, are more interesting in how determinative they are over the foreign policy analysis.