Middle East is a creation and this creation underwent significant transformations through the history. The tissues of the societies in the region have changed so much that it is not possible to define the region via a unitary single body as we do with Europe. Huseyin Yilmaz, thus particularly focused on the “problematique” of the Middle East because when we utter the phrase Middle East we recall only problems instead of a common culture or a unitary political legacy. Yılmaz defined the Middle East as the “geography of problems.”

However, this doesn’t mean that the region has always been in conflict and clash. There have been great empires in the region with deep cultural acquis but it was not the Middle East then. Middle East is a phrase coined by the Western power focuses and has an Orientalist implication. Therefore, it is a dynamic definition which changes in accordance with the perception or certain assumption used. For example, some identifies the Middle East with the Islamic World while some others narrow it down to the Arab world and Iran. Yılmaz claiming that different Middle East maps have been drawn stated that but each of them has a different perspective and a different perception of the region. 

The transformations in the region through history have been in line with the global trends since 18th century because the new world order coming out of the Enlightenment period accompanied the European power imposing that order spurred many differences among the societies. In 19th century for example nationalism, in mid-twentieth century socialism and fascism determined the conjuncture of politics in the world under the influence of Europe. However, today despite of certain crosses in interests the substantial transformation very like those of past has a position to integrate the region with the world through democracy, rule of law and freedom. In the meeting the revolts in the region were discussed within the frame of the historical background.