The themes of “Turkey’s Changing World Vision” session were increasing positive expectations about the likelihood of the establishment of a more peaceful and fair world, the increase in the ethnical and cultural conflicts in the 1990s, the terrorist attacks such as September 11 and negative scenarios after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq due to these terrorist attacks, no establishment of a stable international system instead of insecure but stable bipolar structure, gradual weakening of the structural factors of American centered hegemony, a new period in which new political actors has been developing as a natural outcome of the globalization process and how this period will be shaped, “Center-Surrounding Dualism” in the 1970s and 80s, and the structure of global system explained with the models such as “The End of History” and “The Clash of Civilizations” at the beginning of 90s.
The speaker of the second session was Prof. Dr. Kemal Karpat from Wisconsin University (the Department of History). Karpat:
“Now Turkey is at a crossroad. After undergoing a radical change, Turkey is now aware of the change. In other words, it means Turkey will shape itself according to new circumstances.”
Only with the Republic, we met the idea of national state brought forward with Westfalia Agreement in the 17th century in Europe. The issues such as whether one is from Turkey or whether one is Turkish were brought to the agenda. When we take these concepts into account, we see that how words take on new meanings. What is important at this point is how one sees himself/herself.”
“Both the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey lived with the fear of collapse. We are on the way to get rid of a foreign policy depended on defense. Without the fear of collapse in our mind, we need to look to future confidently. For this reason, we need to be powerful economically and politically.”
During the period of the Party of Union and Progress, a national middle class was tried to be composed. This class was composed depending on the state. Until land law was introduced in 1945, the middle class could not make themselves heard. Only after this law, democracy started to improve in Turkey.”
“Secularism emphasized positivist points and pushed spirituality and morale aside. After that extremely radical changes happened; freedom of religion was considered as freedom of human rights. In that sense in favor of human rights, the freedom of religion was granted. Those most disturbed by this situation were perhaps those from the West.”
“In the past talking about the Ottoman Empire or regarding oneself as an Ottoman was a political movement and was approved. However, if you separate the Ottoman Empire from Turkey now, it will not be good for Turkey. During the last 25-30 years we accorded with our Ottoman background; we saw it as a part of our culture. Of course these opinions of ours do not mean we try to bring the Ottoman Empire to life. If there had not been the Ottoman Empire, there would have been no Turkey.”
Karpat finished his speech by mentioning important points which are significant for Turkey’s history and contribute to our democratic improvement.
After Karpat’s speech SDE Board Vice Chairman Ambassador (R) Nüzhet Kandemir chaired the session. The chief negotiators of this session were ISRO (International Strategic Research Organization)’s Chairman Ambassador (R) Özdem Sanberk, and Stephen Larrabee from RAND Corporation European Security.
ISRO Chairman Ambassador (R) Özden Sanberk explained Turkey’s foreign policy considering its history starting from Turkish War of Independence and he emphasized changing points in Turkey in terms of foreign policy in recent years. Sanberk:
“Turkey’s foreign policy has always been based on peace and it was always in search of a stable peace in its region. The Justice and Development Party determined Turkey’s fundamental foreign policy principles. Turkey took important steps with concrete movements for peace.”
“Turkey continues to grow economically despite the economic crisis. This economic growth affects Turkey’s foreign policy positively. Nonetheless, Turkey is a much more democratic country.”
Stephen Larrabee - responsible for RAND Corporation European Security Researches- said that it is possible to see current Turkish foreign policy as the continuation of reforms carried out to increase the economical level during the Özal administration. And the Justice and Development Party has raised the economical level by keeping these reforms going. With the rise in economical level, Turkey’s importance in the Middle East, Eurasia, and the Balkans rose.
Larrabee stated that interpreting Turkey’s active politics in the Middle East as moving away from the West is utterly wrong. He indicated that this situation is an outcome of a decision taken after the Cold War according to Turkey’s changing security need. He emphasized that it means Turkey’s recent policy has made Turkey more independent; has adapted more flexible security environment; and has expanded its foreign policy sphere.
Larrabee:
“American government and military analysts are not aware of the fact that Turkey is a very different country now. They think that Turkey is a country which does everything the USA wants and is tied to the USA’s apron strings; actually they want it. Now Turkey has different goals. Consequently, Turkey will be a much more independent actor.”
Larrabee finished his speech by analyzing Turkey-the USA relations during the Bush and Obama administrations.
The session ended with the question-answer part after the speeches of the negotiators.
