Share This Article
Presentations at METU Panel “International Relations and Area Studies”
June 17 2015
– Introduction to the Panel Discussions
In this panel we will be studying part of the efforts of the Foreign Policy Institute in the field of area studies. According to US academic circles area studies are a form of translation and particularize seeking through analysis of conditions and developments in the cultures ans policies of other countries through a multi-disciplinary lense. Indeed this description of area studies will be quites relevant for the academic and government needs of such globally importtant countries like the US for develeoping their policies. In the case of Turkey, there is a different outlook. The need for area studies has changed both according to international conjuncture as they affect Turkey and for foreign policy needs.
During the Cold War years, Turkey was a marginal country in the mids of continents and Turkey’s main concern was how to secure its indeefendence and and bounderies. While it was threatened by a global power, it succeeded to establish an alliance with Europe and US through memberships in Council of Europe and NATO. During this period academic area studies were not much needed as Turkey’s need for development of policy relied on its diplomatic network and alternative sources were looked upon.
However, the end of the Cold War highly increased Turkey’s need for knowledge in newly created former Soviet countries and renwed interest in the Middle East and the Balkans. Particularly with regard to new Turkic Republics who looked upon thşis country for friendship, assistance and guidance, the need for knowledge was highly critical for policy function. All through the Cold War, the Foreign Policy Institute was the unique private think-tank engaged in policy and area studies. Following the end of the Cold War, many new centres became involved in strategic and area studies.
During the Cold War and immediately before,Turkey’s main concern was security. Turkey was encircled by hostile group of nations all around. That was the Soviet Bloc that had territorial aims on Turkey and Turkey had sought alliance links to balance the Soviet power and succeeded through cooperation with the U.S. and eventually an alliance with NATO. So, during the Cold War if we look at our immediate neighbourhood we have Greece and Bulgaria in the West. Bulgaria was dominated by Soviet Union and Greece we had problems. In the East we had Iran with which we had correct, serious but not necessarily warm relationship that has come through history. Moreover, developments in its Southern neighborhood also necessitated particular focus on them.Relevant states, Iraq and Syria were dominated by other factors that prevented good relations with Turkey as Baath parties were conducting policies close to the Socialist camp. Baath nationalism was also an obstacle to develop friendly relations with Turkey. On the other hand, the everlasting conflict in Cyprus had negative impli,cations on our rwelations with Greece. Regional problems when they up now and than, we look them from a reginal perspective. We could deal with developments in Greece through contacts within the European security arrangements. Beyond this immediate neighbors we reach Russia itself, and than Moldova,Ukraine and Romania and in the south, to Eastern Medittarrenean and certainly to North Africa.
The rest was coceived within the European context covering mainly 2 groups. m One is The Council of Europe when we became members in 1949 it was only 12 members and then the start of Turkey’s EU membership process when we signed the Ankara treaty in 1963 there were only 6 members. It was such an area fairly hostile, fairly unknown and we did not know what to focus our studies on. Ambassador Oktay Aksoy will deal with area studies we have conducted at this region. But let me tell you, this neighborhood now numbers 20 which is fairly large for Turkey’s capacity to handle the know-how required at the time and what we can study in these areas. And I say from the academic point of view that there practicaly was no sufficient contact with most of those countries. Academically they were living in another world, we were living in another world. We were more pro-european, our education system was pro-euro-oriented and our main sources of study originated from Western University and Western think-tanks. Well, under these conditions Turkey relied on knowledge from these sources. Fortunately, we have an excellent diplomatic service. This diplomatic service provided ambassodors such as Mr.Hazar who was part of this diplomatic service until recently. They both can tell you their experiences much better than I do and this diplomatic service provided the Foreign Ministry and also the policy makers of Turkey with detailed reports about countries, their economies, their policies, their cultures where ever they served, their daily living, their education systems and every area they covered and send reports to Turkey. One regretable situation is that these reports, by nature, were confidential and could not be reached by the academia. Moreover, high government officials did not colloborate with think-tanks, in fact during Cold War years there were practicaly no think-tanks except the Foreing Policy Institute which started to function in early 1970s and this situation changed after the end of the Cold War. When we look around we see at least 20 countries that were suddenly opened to us. And then opening of our economy to other parts of the world provided need for Turkey to obtain wide ranging area studies.
Central Asia was included in addition to our immediate neighbourhood. Relations with European countries was carried through EU and Council of Europe which increased its membersip opening to new countries in the European copntinent and the Eurasian geography. Later on, we started to look at Africa and even to Latin America and Far East Asia. There are other areas that we will discuss. Ambassador Hazar will speak today on the ECO countries. Now we have think-tanks dealing with Africa, that deal individually with Europe. One regretable thing is that these studies do not rely themselves on the excellent reports of our diplomatic representations in many parts of the world.They study these reports as they interest the Turkish foreign policy. They are not communicating it to the academia, unlike the Americans who cooperate with the think-tanks. In the U.S. I see when we have a round table meeting focused on a certain area, on a certain subject we see a diplomat sitting in those discussions, member of the State Department or Defence Department as the case sitting there explaining what the official point of view is and how they can help the think-tanks organize their studies. Unfortunately, in Turkey it is not habitual to benefit from this valuable source of activity and compilation of information.Well, I do not want to delve into this any further. It is a short introduction to our panel discussions. But all I can say to you is, during the Cold War we have organized seminars over specific area subjects, we have done a lot. I will request Ambassador Aksoy to tell us what the Foreign Policy Institute have been doing.
Area focused activities of Foreign Policy Institue
Curiosity is behind the urge to discover new lands, to find out the other peoples and to get hold of the riches others possess.The rulers of empires have sent envoys, encouraged and even financed travellers to other lands.You need to have strategic objectives or ambitions to go beyond your own limited borders.That is how Marco Polo was financed by the Venitian Doge to reach the lands of Kubilai Khan, ruler of the East at that time.That is why countries like Holland, England, France, Russia, Poland and Hungary have established Oriental Studies Centres. That is why King of Sweden was presented by the dragoman at the Swedish Embassy in Constantinople, Mouradgea d’Ohsson (nee Muradcan Tosunian) who later became the Swedish Envoy to the Sublime Court with a two volume book, “Tableau General de l’Empire Othoman” narrating in detail the state of the Ottoman Empire in late 18th century, the habits and social structure of the Turks.
You may call these as early attempts for area studies, even though in some of them it may not be easy to distinguish myth and reality.It has become more of a multidisciplinary research and study effort with the US getting more and more involved with the rest of the world, becoming more of a global power after the Second World War. They must have realized their ignorance of the developments in other regions and other countries. With the establishment of international relations departments in many universities they were also preparing the cadres for their foreign service, for their intelligence institutions, sometimes even for the media trying to feed the hunger of the public in world affairs.
Contrary to this curiosity and strategic ambitions of the Western powers, rulers in the Orient were hardly interested to know what the rest of the world was doing or even to learn more about the vast geography they were ruling. They were content with their possessions envied by the others.Ottomans were no exception. They were interested to learn of the designs of the other rulers threatening their security. But not so much about the other countries beyond their reach. Rare incidents are in 16th and 17th centuries when we see Evliya Çelebi (1611-1682) with his “Seyahatname” (travel book) telling in detail the cities and peoples the Sultan ruled. There was a famous scholar, Katip Çelebi (1609-1659) with his “Cihannuma” (a geographical ensyclopedia) writing about the other countries. And of course, Piri Reis (1465-1554) with his “Kitab-ı Bahriye” narrating the many ports and cities he had reached and also drawing a world map including the newly discovered Americas. Rumour is that when he presented this map to the Sultan, the Sultan tore the map into half and kept the part of the map of the lands he was ruling for himself and strangely the other half, including the Americas was discovered in the Topkapı Palace library only in 1929 by a foreign scholar (Paul Kahle). We also have reports of the envoys, “sefaretname”, but not sufficient to be called an early area study.
Turks had more or less isolated themselves from the rest of the world until restructuring eventually as a republic.And even than Turkey was more interested with its immediate neighborhood – leading to the Balkan Pact and the Sadabad Pact. Soviet Union was also a main interest and concern.
During the Cold War years Turkish interest beyond its borders were limited. It relied more on the studies made by its allies to whom it depended for its defence and security.After the Second World War choosing the side of the adversary of the Soviet Union for understandable reasons, Turkey felt the comfort of being a NATO member and closely following the general line of politics of the Western Powers during the Cold War years to the extent of spoiling relations with Egypt, lacking understanding of their nationalistic fervor and also not showing sufficient solidarity with the Algerian and Tunisian peoples’ strugle for independence from a colonial power.
Some academics and concerened intellectuals (including Mr. Seyfi Taşhan) had been publishing the journal “Dış Politika-Foreign Policy”, at first in Turkish and English since 1971 to increase awareness for international developments. But in 1974 the Foreign Policy Institute was established in an attempt to bridging the world of the academia and the policy practioners in foreign and securities policy and strategic issues.
When established, the need for area studies was not a priority and that would have required enormous funds beyond the Instute’s means. The aim was not to start an ambitious area studies programme but more so to provide information from Turkish perspective to those foreign institutes, politicians and media interested in developments in Turkey. However, over the years it has prepared works on its neighborhood, it has organized round table meetings on specific issues related with Turkish foreign policy and included articles in its journal on countries and regions Turkey needed to focus.
With the Turkish intervention in Cyprus to defend the rights of its ethnic kins and as a result of being confronted with an arms embargo from the US, its chief ally, Turkey realized the urgency to get into closer contact with other countries beyond its alliance partners and explain its differing policy priorities.
Even then, as Mr. Seyfi Taşhan just mentioned, it was not to start programmes to study these countries but to convey the message that Turkey should not be considered on the same line with its allies who had a colonial past and have a role in power politics.
End of the Cold War opened a vast geography for Turkey previously under Soviet rule – the immediate neighborhood to the East, the Caucasus and Central Asia.And the configuration in the global scene provided new vistas for Turkey as its industry had been developing and need to expand its trade was urgently felt.
Therefore, our Institute started to organize new meetings and made publications focusing on Turkey’s new interest areas. In the 35 th anniversary issue of our Journal we had a selection of articles we had consentrated over the years. During the Cold War years our relations with the US was most important. Developments within the Atlantic Community, as well as strengthening the political cohesion in the Atlantic Alliance was of priority interest. Also relations with the EEC, developments in the Middle East and as always relations with Greece, particularly with the dispute over the Aegean were highly valued subjects. On Cyprus we had articles by the late Nihat Erim who had been involved in the preparations of the Zürich and London Agreements reminisceing the early efforts to overcome the dispute, by the late Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktaş presenting his views on the conflict and by Prof. Haluk Ülman narrating the Geneva Conference proceedings after the Turkish intervention in the Island in 1974. During the final years of the Cold War we had articles focusing on the policy of detente aand future of the Atlantic Alliance, reflecting on Turkey’s international status changing from marginality to centrality and also proposing a federal solution for Cyprus. Post-Cold War years we see articles on effects of the ending of the Cold War on Turkey’s intertnational position, on Turkey’s military doctrine, on Turkey’s stand on the Gulf crisis, on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, on the Caucasus and Central Asia, as well as on the effects of the progress in Cyprus-EU relations to the search for a solution. In a more recent period the articles are again on developments of Turkish-US relations, on the beginning of a new conjuncture after September 11, on the impact of globalization on Turkey’s security, on Turkey_EU relations, as well as the Middle East and of course Cyprus.
I will just point out at some of our important activities and publications during the last 15 years.
“Turkomans of Iraq as a Factor in Turkish Foreign Policy: Political and Demographic Perspectives” by Tarık Oğuzlu, when published in 2001 it was one of the first studies on our recent discovery of the Turkomans of Iraq. It was published at a time of brewing turmoil in Iraq.
We organized a symposium on March 22-23, 2004 on what should the new Iraqi constitution contain with participants not only from Turkey but also from the US, England and Germany as well as academics from Iraq who undertook the many difficulties reaching Ankara partly by bus! The proceedings of the meeting was published as “Iraq on the way to its new constitution”. The Institute was also asked by the Foreign Ministry to prepare a draft constitution, which we did, emphasizing a secular and cantonal structure to avoid dismemberment of the country but the US led politicians in Iraq came out with a religiously based constitution with all its present day deficiencies.
Cyprus has always been of interest for us. One publication was “Cyprus and International Law” in 2002 tackling the conflict from different perspectives of international law and a booklet in Turkish “Cyprus: from Independence to Present Day – with documents” printed in 2010.
“Turkey and the European Union – 2004 and beyond” was a book we published in colloboration with the Luxembourg Institute for European and International Studies in 2004.Another book published also in 2004 was “The Europeanization of Turkey’s Security Policy: Prospects and pitfalls”.
We had a special issue of our Journal on a EU related Conference we had organized in 2006.Another publication was “Turkey’s Neighborhood” we did in collaboration with the Polish Institute of International Relations in 2008. We focused on Ukraine, Bulgaria, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq and Syria.
“Caspian Energy Diplomacy since the end of the Cold War” by Tuncay Balanlı was printed in 2006.A book on “Transatlantic Relations: A Political Appraisal” by Gökhan Akşemsettinoğlu published in 2005 studied this important relationship at a time of crucial changes in international politics.
“Eastern Mediterranean” published in 2009 covering Israeli-Palestinean conflict, Cyprus, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Greece and Turkey’s maritime issues as well as contributions on US policy in the Eastern Mediterranean, Europe and the Mediterranean and also Russia and Eastern Mediterranean.
NATO’s new strategic concept was thoroughly tackled in our special issue of 2010. And we had a special anniversary issue for Turkey’s 60 Years in NATO both in English and Turkish.
Lately in our Journal we have had some articles on Turkey’s relations with Africa by different authors as the focus on that continent has increased.
– Growing interest of Turkey in ECO region
Turkey has always had a particular interest, throughout the Republican history, in the regional peace and security. The Sadabat Pact signed in 1937 by Turkey, Iran,Irak and Afghanistan is an example of this Turkish approach in its foreign policy. The Sadabat Pact was a treaty of non-agression. It is meaningful that it was concluded at the time of Atatürk. We observe a continuity in Turkish approach when the Baghdat Pact was concluded in 1955. The Baghdad Pact was formed by Turkey,Iran and Irak due to security concerns at that time in view of a perceived threat from the Soviet Union. The United Kingdom joined the Organization at a later stage. The US did not participate as full member taking into consideration sensitivities of Arab countries in the region. It took its place in the organization,however,with observer status. The Baghdad Pact had its place in the chain of alliances namely NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organization) created by the West within the context of the containment policy against the Soviet threat.
The headquarters of the Baghdad Pact was in Irak. Nevertheless, the Republic of Irak was withdrawn from the Pact following a coup in 1958 against the royal régime. In 1959 the Pact changed its name to Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) and its headquarters moved to Ankara.
Regional members of the CENTO, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan, decided to develop economic and technical relations and cooperation among themselves and they created in 1964 the Organization of Regional Cooperation for Development (RCD). As a matter of fact, RCD realized some technical, economic and cultural projects. During the Cold War period in the bipolar era, the leaders of these countries believed that historical,cultural, religious and geographical bonds will be enough to realize closer cooperation among the member countries to contribute to their efforts to ensure economic development and to raise their living standards. This plan was supported by the West in general and by the US in particular in order to prevent Soviet influence in a strategically important region.
Nevertheless, in 1979 after the Islamic Revolution in Iran all activities of the Organization were suspended. RCD was dissolved in 1980 and it ceased to exist as an international organization.
The member states of the RCD which have been aware of the significance of the organization taking into account great potentialities already existing in a number of areas, decided to reactivate it. Thus,in 1985 the Organization was renamed as Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) when the Treaty of İzmir was concluded. In 1992 the Organization was expanded to include Afghanistan,Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Since that time ECO has become an international organization with 10 member states and acquired international recognition and prestige.
It is meaningful that Afghanistan and the new independent states joined the organization following the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
After this historical introduction we can explain why the ECO is an important grouping by referring to various advantages the Organization has possessed.  We can summarize advantages of the ECO as a significant organization with great potentialities and particular characteristics as follows:
-The ECO comprises an area of 8 million square kilometers with a population of 450 million people. It is geographically vast and also a contiguous territory.
-In addition to human resources , it is a region rich in natural resources , for example the existing oil and natural gas reserves.
-The ECO region is situated centrally among three continents of the Old World -Europe,Asia and Africa (collectively known as Afro-Eurasia)- and thus it has great strategic value , as put forth by the well known theorist of strategy Sir Halfort MacKinder, within the context of his view to dominate the world through the domination of pivotal area. As a matter of fact, it was an area of competition for big powers throughout history.
-The ECO also symbolizes a region functioning like a bridge between the East and the West: Asia and Europe.
-The possibility of having access to the Indian Ocean,the Persian Gulf,the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea exists.
-Another significance of ECO is the proximity to big powers such as the European Union, Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China.
-There are highways, maritime routes and railways linking one country to another.
-More important than all these factors, there is a historical and cultural affinity among member states.
As regards the cultural and historical particularity of the ECO member states as a whole, it is possible to compare it with the European Union. This particular character of ECO has even drawn the attention of Samuel P.Huntington who put forth the thesis of the clash of civilizations.When he explained that countries with similar cultures were choosing the option of economic integration, he mentioned also the ECO as an example.Huntington refers to regional economic organizations as an indicator of civilizations’ strengthening against nation-state and claims that precondition of economic integration is cultural affinity. He underlines the fact that ”the success of these efforts has depended overwhelmingly on the cultural homogeneity of states involved.”
Together with the cultural affinity and close cultural interaction among member states, historical ties are also significant. In the ECO region there exists thousands of common words even with those which are linguistically different. As Professor Halil İnalcık, the dean of living Turkish historians indicates, historical researches confirm the fact that cultural affinity between Turkey,Iran and Pakistan is much closer and stronger than cultural affinity of Turks with Arabs. Obviously, when we take into consideration all member states of ECO this fact becomes more apparent. On the other hand, prominent Turkish historian Professor İlber Ortaylı underlines the influence of Iranian civilization on Turkey and Turks.
After the recognition that ECO represents an organization based on cultural affinity, we must also underline that all these elements are indicative of an Organization which has a significant infrastructure and important potential to deliver a successful performance.
At this point, however, I would like to emphasize that the ECO is a technical organization. In this respect it is different from the European Union. As is known, the EU had the purpose to reach political union at the final stage through economic integration at the beginning. Nevertheless, this particularity of the ECO does not constitute an obstacle for an exchange of views on actual political and global affairs during summit meetings or meetings of the Council of Ministers. On the contrary,an opportunity is always created for such consultations.
Before entering into details of what ECO has been doing, I would like to provide some information about its organizational structure:
-Summit meetings which are held every two years (Heads of state or government).These meetings give opportunity for consultations and general guidelines at highest level.
-Council of Ministers is the highest policy and decision making body at the level of Foreign Ministers,
-Council of Permanent Representatives which is composed of diplomatic representatives of member states accredited in Tehran, headquarters of the Organization. It is responsible to carry out policies and to implement decisions of the Council of Ministers.
-Regional Planning Council which comprises heads of the Planning Organizations It evolves programmes of action along with a review of past programmes and evaluations of results achieved to be submitted to the Council of Ministers.
-Secretariat which is headed by the Secretary Gcneral and his staff.
-Specialized Agencies and Regional Institutions in specific fields of cooperation.The number,nature and objectives of the agencies and institutions are determined by the Council of Ministers such as Cultural Institute, Science Foundation, Educational Institute, Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Trade and Development Bank, Reinsurance Company, Consultancy and Engineering Company etc.
-ECO also have expert committees in a host of areas: Economy and Trade, Agriculture,Transport and Communications, Science,Culture and Education etc. They summit reports to Regional Planning Council.
On the other hand ECO realized various agreements to promote economic cooperation and integration. ECO Trade Agreement is aimed at reducing tariffs among member states. Member states also concluded a Transit Transport Framework Agreement.There are also various agreements formulated by the ECO such as Encouraging and Protecting Investments, Cooperation among Cooperative Sectors, Establishment of ECO Smuggling and Customs Offences Data Bank etc.
Before trying to make an evaluation of ECO’s performance, we should go back to RCD, its predecessor. Despite the fact that RCD carried out some important projects, it is stated as root of its failure in general ”unwillingness of the member states to comprise their own individual interests as one of the requirements of the development of regional cooperation. This was the main obstacle for the implementation of RCD plans”. 
As far as ECO is concerned it is observed that it could not deliver a successful performance, despite already existing potentialities. There have always been painstaking efforts and various positive initiatives.Nevertheless, the Organization could not produce good results as compared to expectations.
In order to give an example, it could be indicated that there has always been an ambition to increase trade between the member states. In 2005, intra-trade was 6 per cent of all trade and in 2010 it increased to 7 per cent. This state of affairs could be characterized as a failure. As a matter of fact, in the ECO Vision 2015 document prepared by independent experts of the member countries, the goal of internal trade for the year 2015 was indicated 20 per cent of all trade. When we take into consideration that the internal trade of the European Union is 65 per cent of all trade, we can see a low performance from the point of view of the ECO’s success. Undoubtedly, it will be useful to eliminate all existing obstacles in this area. Nevertheless, principally, it is important that all member countries first sign the ECO Trade Agreement and implement it.
There are also several structural or institutional difficulties which prevent the ECO to become a well-functioning international organization.
Turkey has always attached particular importance to a well-functioning, efficient and dynamic ECO. In the eyes of Turkey, a successful and more active ECO would best serve interests of all member states.
In light of this evaluation, during the Summit Meeting held in Istanbul in 2010 where Turkey assumed the task of Chairman in Office of the Organizaiton, the then President of the Republic of Turkey, Abdullah Gül proposed the establishment of an Eminent Persons Group (EPG) to provide recommendations to enhance the dynamism, efficiency and visibility of the Organization. This proposal, approved by Heads of State or Government, was included in the Final Declaration of the Summit Meeting. 
The Eminent Persons Group (EPG) was established in-mid 2011 and it started its works towards the end of the year. The EPG was composed of ten independent experts from each member states. It was assisted in their works by the Secretary General and his staff.
This EPG was the third EPG created up to now by the ECO, The Second EPG prepared ”2015 Vision Document for the ECO” and proposed a host of measures in this context. This Document was approved by the Council of Ministers in 2005. In this Document Foreign Ministers declared that they wish to adopt a vision of ECO taking into account opportunities and challenges of the globalization process, the rapid social,economic,political and technological developments in the world and prospects in the decades ahead which need to be addressed adequately through a common and collective approach. With these aims, Foreign Ministers agreed on many commitments for a better functioning organization. 
The Third EPG carried out intensively its works in 2012. According to its terms of reference, the EPG, was given the task to examine all documents and the 2015 Vision Document in order to propose amendments to basic agreements, to interview the staff of the Secretariat, Specialized Agencies and Regional Institutions in order to submit its recommendations contained in a Report to the Council of Ministers. It was decided that the EPG would remain, if need be, in contact with the Council of Permanent Representatives (CPR) composed of Ambassadors of member countries in Tehran. The Secretariat would be providing facilities and services for EPG meetings for its well functioning. 
The EPG accomplished its mission in 2012 and the Chairman of the EPG presented the Report of the EPG to the Council of Ministers on the occasion of the ECO Summit Meeting held in October 2012 in Baku, Azerbaijan.
The EPG Report which contained in detail several recommendations including the strengthening of the Secretariat, selection of the staff on the basis of merit, increase in the budget, amendment in the decision-making mechanism which created some difficulties in the past for well functioning of the Organization.
Turkey did not only propose the establishment of the EPG, but also provided the necessary financing.
The submission of the EPG Report has a particular significance, due to the fact that in 2015 ECO Vision Document prepared by the Second EPG should be revised and a new Vision Document for the next Decade 2016-2025 is to be worked out. In this regard, the EPG Report is very much timely as a guide. The results of the works of EPG, as of 2013, would furnish basic elements of a new Vision Document. This new document was also expected to be prepared by the EPG .
As it is referred above, according to the decisions of the 20th Council of Ministers’s Meeting held in Baku in 2012, the Ministers, asked the Secretary General to prepare a roadmap for the implementation of the EPG Report, and to submit it to the Council of Permanent Representatives. The Paragraph, in the decisions of the Council of Ministers, related to the EPG’s Report is as follows:
‘’ 20) The Council appreciated the Report of the 3rd Eminent Persons Group (EPG), established pursuant to the Istanbul Declaration 2010 (Istanbul, 23 December 2010) and the decisions of the 19th Council of Ministers Meeting (Istanbul, 22 December 2010) to study and review the work of the Organization including the ECO Vision 2015, and asked the Secretary General to prepare a roadmap for implementation of the recommendations of the EPG and submit to CPR for consideration. The Council also authorized the CPR to take action on behalf of the COM in this regard. ‘’
Right after the Meeting of the Council of Ministers the Final Communiqué of the Summit Meeting of Heads of State and Government held on 16 October 2012 included the following Paragraph on the EPG Report:
‘’ 31. Appreciated the work done by the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) established on the initiative of the Republic of Turkey, which undertook performance appraisal of the Organization, identified major challenges and recommended ways to improve ECO’s efficiency, dynamism and visibility.’’
The EPG, proposed in its Report, the organization of national conferences in each member state with the participation of government and private sectors representatives, members of the media, think tanks and academicians. In these conferences, views, assessments and expectations of the member countries would be presented . The results of these conferences would be reviewed in a meeting of the EPG and at the end its evaluation will be considered in the preparation of the new ECO Vision Document for 2016-2025.
As unequivocally indicated by the instructions of the Council of Ministers, some of the recommendations of the EPG are to be implemented by the Council of Permanent Representatives on behalf of the Council of Ministers. It means that these recommendations do not need the approval of the Council of Ministers. Some others, by their very nature require the approval of the Council of Ministers. Certain recommendations can be implemented in short term. Some others have inevitably a long term perspective.
As identified by the EPG Report main impediments and shortcomings are as follows:
-Lack of efficient decision-making mechanism,
-Minimal participation by Member States in the activities of the Organization.
-Non-implementation of the decisions adopted by the decision-making bodies.
-Lack of financial resources and insufficient budget.
-Inadequate capacity of the Secretariat due to existing recruitment measures.
Turkey, supported all recommendations made by the EPG to overcome these impediments.
On the other hand, the Communiqué of the Tehran Ministerial Council held in November 2013 referred to the reform process of the ECO on the basis of EPG’s Report in the following terms:
‘’ ( Foreign Ministers and Heads of Delegations ) Building on the two decades of experience, decided to take forward the reform process of ECO on the basis of recommendations of the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) and instructed the ECO Secretary General to arrange, in cooperation with the Member States, the timely conclusion of the said process for enhancing the dynamism, efficiency and visibility of the Organization. The Council instructed the Committee of Permanent Representatives (CPR) to finalize and approve the roadmap for the implementation of the recommendations of the EPG by August 2014 with a view to its earliest implementation. ‘’
They also agreed that the reform process shall address, inter alia, the regulatory, institutional, budgetary and other requirements of the organization putting in place a reliable and durable cooperation framework for ECO region.
Despite the fact that three years already passed, the Organization has not yet unfortunately been able to realize the implementation of some recommendations. It is now three years that the Third EPG completed its works. As a matter of fact, Third EPG’s Report containing recommendations aimed at enhancing dynamism,efficiency and visibility of the Organization was presented to the Council of Ministers in 2012.
As explained above, the Council of Ministers gave instructions to the Committee of Permanent Representatives to take action on its behalf concerning the recommendations of the EPG. The Summit Meeting, the highest body of the Organization has approved the decision of the Ministers. Nevertheless, works of the Committee of Permanent Representatives for the implementation of the EPG’s recommendations, have not yet been completed.
On the other hand, interestingly, a new rhetoric started to the effect that the Organization needed a more comprehensive reform process. Apparently, it may be an effort aimed at diluting EPG’s recommendations.
At this point, we must also once again draw the attention to the fact that every effort made to enhance the dynamism, efficiency and visibility of the Organization will only serve best interests of all member states.
The Secretary General and the Secretariat of ECO are making sincere and painstaking efforts in order to start the process for the implementation of the EPG’s recommendations. Within this context an in-depth analysis of the EPG’s recommendations has already been realized by the Secretariat.
The Council of Permanent Representatives of the ECO is also involved in expediting the finalization of efforts aimed at the implementation of the EPG’s Report.
It is hoped that a substantial progress concerning the implementation of EPG’s Report could be made before the next Meeting of the Committee of Ministers as well as the Summit Meeting.
The EPG Report underlined that all member states should have a high level political will in order to adopt necessary dispositions aimed at ensuring the ECO to become a well functioning international organization. It seems, at present, a strong political will is still needed to have a well functioning ECO.
In the Millenium Goals of the World Summit held in 2005, a special importance was attached to regional organizations. This is something that may encourage all member countries to demonstrate the necessary political will aimed at realizing a well functioning ECO.
 Economic Cooperation Organization, ECO at a Glance, ECO Secretariat, Tehran, 2012 p.5 .
 Elaheh Koolaee and Hormoz Dawarpanah, The Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) Achievements and Prospects, University of Tehran, Tehran, 2010, pp.2-8.
 Numan Hazar, The Future of Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), ECO will have a bright future when it gains dynamism, visibility and efficiency, Center for Middle Eastern Strategic Studies (ORSAM), Report No. 108, February 2012, Ankara, pp. 8-10.
 Numan Hazar, ”ECO: a significant regional organization for economic development and integration”, Today’s Zaman, 27.01.2013.
 Samuel P.Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the New World, Simon&Schuster UK Ltd, London,1996,p.351.
 Halil İnalcık, Rönesans Avrupası Türkiye’nin Batı Medeniyeti ile Özdeşleşme Süreci Renaissance Europe and the Process of Identification of Turkey with Western Civilization), Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları, Istanbul,2011, p. 351.
 İlber Ortaylı, Türklerin Tarihi (History of Turks),TİMAŞ Yayınları Istanbul, 2015, pp. 91-97.
 Elaheh Koolaee and Hormoz Dawarpanah, The Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) Achievements and Prospects, pp. 10-11.
 Numan Hazar,Economic Cooperation Organizaton (ECO) and Eminent Persons Group (EPG), Uluslararası Ekonomik Sorunlar Dergisi (Review of International Economic Issues-an unofficial publication of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs), July 2012 Year 12, No.44,Ankara, pp.11-20.
 Economic Cooperation Organization Treaty of Izmir ECO Vision 2015, Tehran 2009,pp. 21-32.
 Numan Hazar,Economic Cooperation Organizaton (ECO) and Reform Process, Uluslararası Ekonomik Sorunlar Dergisi (Review of International Economic Issues-an unofficial publication of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs), August 2014 Year 14, No.47,Ankara, pp.25-32..