Dış Politika Enstitüsü Başkanı Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Bağcı ile Prof. Dr. Tarık Oğuzlu arasında Değişen Dünya Dengeleri ve Türkiye’nin Konumlanışı üzerine olan sohbeti aşağıdaki linkten izleyebilirsiniz.

Visits: 189

Youtube Video: FPI Global Talks Webinar – 7 December 2020 – Israel Turkey Relations

Foreign Policy Institue has organized a joint webinar with Israeli Embassy of Ankara on December 7th 2020.

Participants; Israeli Charge d’Affaires Roey Gilad, Rtd. Ambassador Namık Tan and İlker Aytürk

You can find the video of the webinar at the following link

Visits: 130


Foreign Policy Institute is organizing a joint webinar with Embaasy of Czech Republic by the participation of the Ambassador of Czech Republic Pavel VACEK on December 10th 2020. The summary of the issues which will be discussed during the webinar are as follows. The webinar will be aired on zoom and open to everyone.


Topic: Turkish – Czech Relations
Time: Dec 10, 2020 09:00


Join Zoom Meeting


Meeting ID: 843 860 9307
Passcode: 7h4F9z





Visits: 407


Foreign Policy Institute’s President Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Bağcı has a new book in Turkish langıage named “Uçan Profesörün Anıları” where he gathered several events from his life. The video is a detailed review of this book.

The link is below;

Visits: 233

Effects of the End of the Cold War on Turkey’s International Position – Hüseyin Bağcı

Effects of the End of the Cold War

on Turkey’s International Position


Hüseyin Bağcı


The system established in Yalta has ended and Europe has entered into a search for a “new system.” The end of Cold War and the Gulf War bring about  debates of a new order. Turkey also has entered into new searches in this new order and as a result has experienced some deviations from its traditional policies.


Europe has experienced the longest period of peace after the Congress of Vienna in 1815 between 1945 and 1989.[i] The “New World Order” emerged after Second World War has been a bipolar world and, as powers produced by the war, United States (US) and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) marked every development in the world. This New World Order, which has been perceived ideologically in essence, has ended with the political transformations evolved in Central and East Europe in 1989 and Europe became a continent fluctuating between new hopes and old fears.[ii] In other words, the system established in Yalta has ended and Europe entered into a search for a “new system.”

Actually, for the last thirty years Europe has experienced a stable state system. There is a system study in Europe after the collapse of this system. The essence of this system is the concept of “United States of Europe.”[iii] This concept, which targets for Europe to be a factor of political and economic balance in a multi-polar world, has continuously been set on the agenda and emphasized by European scholars. Europe begins to think about getting rid of the effects of two superpowers produced by the post-Second World War order and to isolate these two superpowers as a “whole Europe.”[iv] However, its realization is not as easy as it is thought. The recent debates demonstrate its difficulty. Especially, during and after the Gulf War, the difficulty that Europe has encountered in developing a common foreign policy added a new dimension to these debates and brings about the fact that it should not be expected from Europe to play a significant role in the near future.[v]

The effort for the isolation of the US and the USSR from Europe seems to be less likely for various reasons. The most significant reason is that Europe still needs the US as a power of balance against the USSR. The stable states system had to survive many storms, such as the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. However, this basic structure has not changed because of the comfort and trust provided by the nuclear umbrella of the United States. As the former Foreign Minister of the USSR, Eduard Shevardnadze said, “Europe, divided by blocs and military alliances, is a region having realized the strongest political integration of the world.”[vi]

This political integration was realized with the European Community. However, this process of integration has not been completed yet. Indeed the targets for the unification of Europe in political, military, economic and cultural terms were determined in the Governmental Program declared on 30 January 1991 as such:

  1. Until 31 December 1992, a European Common Internal Market, from which 340 millions of people could benefit, should be established.
  2. A Europe having no borders from the Atlantic to the Ural Mountains should be created.
  3. Instead of a centralized Europe a pluralistic Europe should be created.
  4. A European Parliament whose competences have been enlarged should be established.
  5. European Common Foreign and Security Policy should be developed and this policy should include common defense of Europe.
  6. European Economic and Monetary Union should be established.
  7. Social security should be provided in Europe.
  8. A United States of Europe should be established.[vii]

As it can be seen the security problem of Europe preserves its significance. The leadership of the US in this respect has been accepted by Europe. The maintenance of NATO is the most important phenomenon for the maintenance of the US in Europe. In the eighteenth century America emerged as an independent state from Europe. On the eve of the twenty-first century, the question of the emergence of Europe as an independent political entity from the US is on the agenda. In other words, the child of Europe turned out to be the father of Europe and although sometimes the authority of the father has been challenged, the maintenance of its presence has been perceived as inevitable.[viii]

The US is necessary for the security of Europe as a power of balance against the Soviet Union. What is more, the US is also necessary for preserving a United Germany within the NATO alliance. Indeed, the collapse of bipolar system is not beneficial for Europeans, because the disintegration of the USSR will produce a world with many uncertainties. In this case, the USSR continues to be the nightmare of the European states. At one point, the political and military position of Europe has been experiencing a process of transformation. During the Cold War, Europe played a central role in the East-West contention. However, today, Europe has become a space used by the US soldiers for extra-territorial crises. This transformation brings Europe “from a crossroad of security to a garage of security.” The current reality is that Europe has to engage in a rivalry with the hierarchy of interests of the US in the Middle East and Asia in order not to lose its “central position.” While attempting to develop its own security identity, Europe has been trapped into a dilemma. If the realization of the idea of “More Europe” is necessary, then following less American policy in Europe is inevitable. This dilemma can be resolved with the re-determination of the “Europe policies” of the US and the USSR.[ix]


The Position of Europe in the New World Order and New Fears

We are in the beginning of a new era in the European history. As mentioned above briefly, this new period includes the differences between the official reorganization of the world and the realities of power and does not involve the similarities in any international system experienced in the past. This new period brings some contradictions and difficulties. “The New World Order” can be defined as Pax Americana and can be used to define the US’s desire to rule the world.[x]

The world order has multiple meanings. For example, there is an order of posts including a certain hierarchy. There is also an order (both material and moral) for self-discipline. An order emerged for completion of a process (like seasons) can be mentioned. There is an order in the chain of command. The money and the numbers had an order. In the simplest sense, order is the antonym of disorder.[xi]

The end of Cold War and the Gulf War brings about these debates of new order. Turkey has had to enter into new searches in this order and has experienced some deviations from its traditional policies.[xii]

This New World Order shows no similarity with any of the past world orders. In terms of distribution of capabilities, the most significant aspect of the New World Order is its multi-polarity. However, these poles include different aspects of power. It can be argued that in military terms the USSR, in financial and economic terms, Japan and the united Germany, in demographic terms China and India, and in military and economic terms, the US will form these poles. The “destiny” of this New World will be dependent on these poles’ capability of making enough cooperation to prevent and balance the contentions with each other. Besides, the relations of these poles will be shaped within the framework of domestic political developments, which are difficult to predict right now.[xiii]

Within this context, the mentioning about a “new world ethics” by the Norwegian Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, is quite appropriate. Because, the “ism”s produced during the nineteenth century, their ethical values and patterns of behavior have been transformed considerably. In the last century, the intentions might have changed from situation to situation, from region to region, from year to year. The famous statesman, Otto von Bismark’s concept of “Realpolitik” demonstrates this understanding and variability.[xiv] Besides, the British statesman, Lord Palmerston defined his perspective in 1848, which influenced Bismarck and became a principle of international relations, as such: “We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”[xv]

The US President, George Bush understands from the New World Order the new rules of international behavior and the mutual recognition of security as everyone’s concern and responsibility. In his speech delivered to the US Congress on 5 March 1991, President Bush emphasized that the Gulf War is the first test of the emerging “New World Order” and the post-War order would be a new world order. President Bush, who argued that unlike the last century, the US would not refrain from playing the sacred role of preservation of freedom, justice and peace in the coming century, repeated in a way, John F. Kennedy’s view in the 1960s about “the necessity of making any sacrifices and carrying the responsibility for freedom.” President Bush said in the speech that he delivered on the day of declaration of his candidacy: “We saved Europe, we cured poliomyelitis, we conquered the moon, and we enlightened the entire world. Now, we are at the beginning of a new century and which country’s name will this century carry? I say that this century will be marked by the US.”[xvi]

When the European statesmen are dealing with the concept of United States of Europe they are making declarations about the New World Order full of ambiguities. For example, when the Foreign Minister of the UK, Douglas Hurd, says that “We and the US have no future plans,”[xvii] the eminent German statesman Willy Brandt mentions that the West will be accuse by the Islamic world of determination of the Gulf Region as a region where the Western world aims to realize their intentions to establish their sovereignty and the US seems to be perceived as the “police of the world”, and emphasizes that the European community should pursue an active policy as soon as possible.[xviii]

The US and the Soviet Union had new position and interest in the post-war new order. Especially, new debates began concerning what would be national interests of the Soviet Union.[xix] Although the objectives of the President of the Soviet Union Mihael Gorbachev broke up with those of the US and realization of them necessitated a competition with the US, in essence they were not against the interests of the US. This situation should be the characteristic of Soviet-American interests in the post-Cold War era. In other words, Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev and Brezhnev identified Soviet interest as the interest aiming at forfeiture of the Western, particularly the US interests. Whereas, since coming to power in March 1985, Gorbachev was seeking for ways for achieving compromise with the US. This can be defined as new Soviet “Palmerstonism”. Thereby the tensions of the Cold War decreases and the possibility of wider cooperation emerges.[xx]

The “New Thinking” in the Soviet foreign policy is a policy which supports obviously this cooperation. Because of this, in order to understand the meaning of “New Thinking”, it is better to make an abstract definition of the concept.

“New Thinking can be defined as set of measures which aim to prevent the Soviet Union to make the same mistakes once again in the economical, social, political and foreign and defence policy areas”.[xxi]

Today, it is impossible to isolate the crisis Soviet Union faced from ineffectiveness of Soviet policies in its international relations, its strategic mistakes and delay of the necessary domestic economic, social and political reforms. Gorbachev’s “New Thinking” does not indicate the abandonment of the Soviet Union’s status of being one of the super powers in the world, on the contrary it aims to redefine the Soviet Union’s status of super power. According to this, the role of the Soviet Union in the international area is as such: it displays a foreign policy which does not only rely on military force, but attaches less importance to the item of conflict and attaches high importance to cooperation and normalcy in foreign relations.[xxii]

The concept of New Thinking is not enough to wipe out traditional European “Russian phobia”. When we add the reunification of two Germanies, the fear of Europeans concentrated on these two countries. Europeans consider the Soviet Union or Russia as a potential threat to their security in the case of its break up, because of uncertainties in the Soviet Union. Reforms implemented within the framework of Glasnost and Perestroika, rise of Russian nationalism, the will of some republics to secede from the federation, power vacuum emerged following the abolishment of the Warsaw Pact, and the possibility of Soviet military operation towards this region constitutes factors which creates insecurity.

Concerning the United Germany, various opinions are put forward.[xxiii] Some put forward that pre-1914 and pre-1939 conditions come back. They claim that this results in fears because of superior Germany’s security fear due to its lack of nuclear weapons, Germany’s possible ambition to fill the power vacuum in  Central and Eastern Europe or to regain regions it lost after the Second World War. In addition to that, some fear that possible relations between new and powerful Germany and economically weak Soviet Union would result in the weakening of the military side of NATO and shifting of Germany’s foreign policy to the East. It is known that the main aim of the Soviet Union’s concept of “Common European House” is to create neutral Europe and to make US to withdraw from Europe in the future.[xxiv] Moreover, the survival of NATO is regarded as a buffer against German threat.

The logic of most European’s fear of the Soviet Union and Germany necessitates a cooperation among Central and Eastern European nations against German revanchism and re-emergence of Soviet aggression under Western (US) guarantee. In fact, there is a necessity to protect these countries from another Hitler-Stalin Pact. However, there is no suggestion for enlarging borders of NATO to the East. Because such an enlargement would be both not welcomed by the Soviet Union and prevented by France because of known reasons.

In addition to that, there are two important issues widely debated and feared of in Europe. First one is the fear of re-emergence of anarchic order in Eastern Europe. By the fear, we mean the re-emergence of the conditions of interwar period in this region and balkanization of the countries in the region. That is to say, unrest emerged in relations between states of the region which is created by nationalist movements, secessionist movements (Romania-Hungary, Yugoslavia-Czechoslovakia) prevents the emergence of democratic political systems and stabilization of economic structures in the region.[xxv]

As famous British specialist on Eastern Europe, Timothy Garton Ash argues “Transition from communist social value system to pluralist democratic system would not be easy”. The reason behind this is that most of basic elements of capitalist society lacked in these societies, which had been kept under pressure by totalitarian communist regime. Because of this, there is a danger of coming to power of authoritarian and anti-democratic regimes like the ones  observed once in Poland and Hungary. If democratic policies generally cannot meet the expectations of society and solve the discontent and the necessity of implementing tight economic policies emerges, this threat will further increase. However, nowadays it is obvious that Western Europe are taking intensive measures for political and economic integration with Central and Eastern European countries and trying not to repeat the past mistakes.[xxvi]

Secondly, there is a different fear. The fear of invasion by the foreigners, which is penetrating the whole European countries,  which is related with migration. Besides France and Germany, the situation of people migrating from Albania to Italy and measures taken to prevent such a migration constitutes first sign of a new social explosion. A new dimension of security emerges as a result of Islamic radicalists, terrorists, hungery Africans, the plight of less developed countries, people escaping from political conflicts and instability, the mass migration of Eastern Europeans to Western Europe in search for a job and social security.

Wealthy Europe is considered by most of West Europeans as a “Treasure Island” which is tried to be conquered and looted by pirates. Indeed, the demographic situation of Europe reinforces such a fear. Recently, in the expectation of mass migration from Eastern Europe, West Europe prefers to provide material assistance to these countries and try to postpone the membership of pro-Western countries such as Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia to the EC.

Besides the US and the Soviet Union, the United Germany is also one of the powers which will determine the developments in Europe.

Especially, after the reunification of Germany on 3 October 1990, Germany is a candidate to play a prominent role in a multi-polar world. Therefore, it is necessary to look at German foreign and security policies.

West Germany’s foreign and security policy will  originates from policies implemented by Federal Germany. However, these new policies will differentiate from previous ones. The reason for that is the change of East European geopolitical situation. As a result of this change, Poland became neighbour of Germany. Soviet Union enters into a close economical, political and technological cooperation with the United Germany. The United Germany’s responsibility in the process of modernization of Eastern Europe would increase due to its economic superiority and its position in the EC. In the same way, the problems caused by the economic integration of former Democratic Germany would bring various pressures on the United Germany.[xxvii]

The unchanging principle of  United Germany’s foreign policy is West European integration. This policy is based on the realization of interregional harmonization through various policies, amelioration of mechanisms of interregional coordination and orientation – this includes loyalty to World politics and economics – and protection against threat to external security provided by NATO’s joint position. These constitute a stable basis for the United Germany’s policy of Europe. This is valid for both political and economic integration process in Europe and cooperation going beyond borders of Europe.

There will be a need for rearrangement in German security policy. This arrangement is for finding solutions for the near future. However, necessary process for this kind of short-term solutions, such as the integration of the United Germany to NATO and special situation of old Democratic Germany’s land and withdrawal of Soviet troops, should not be perceived as a very simple event, because these are such events which will be happened within next 4 or 10 years. [xxviii]

Foreign policies which will be pursued are in essence the same as those of Federal Germany, the emergence of new problem areas will be expected. By saying that, we acknowledge that the United Germany has not yet developed new foreign and security policy definitions. In other words, new problem areas may lead to new conflicts and tensions in international arena for the United Germany. Problems which may gain priority are listed as:

  1. The persistence of dependence on the US security policy
  2. The status discrepancy created by the United Germany’s inability to use its military force despite its economic impact.
  3. The fear of the “4th Reich” resulted from the United Germany’s achievement of domination in foreign policy.

The dependence of West European countries on the US in the area of security differs from those of the United Germany. France and the UK have their own nuclear arsenal. Despite France and the UK’s such advantage, Federal Germany and Italy remained dependent on the US’ policies of deterrence and disarmament. Especially Federal Germany as a “front state” has experienced different dimensions of ideological confrontation between East and West for 45 years.

The United Germany seems not to discard this security policy dependence in the near future. The most important reason for this is the Soviet Union’s failure to pursue a policy of getting rid of its nuclear weapons. Under this condition, the only power in Europe which is able to counterbalance this nuclear power is the US, the only country leading NATO, and its nuclear potential. Under this condition, new post-Cold War disputes began to emerge, because it becomes necessary to maintain US’ such “deterrence service” for Western Europe in the post-Cold War era. This condition necessitates the pursuance of competitive policies by the US and Western Europe against the Soviet Union despite CSCE process.


The Balkans and the Role of Turkey

In Turkey’s relations with Europe, the Balkans is one of the focal points. As one of the regions in which impacts of the Cold War has been most felt, Balkan Peninsula is defined as Europe’s “powder barrel”, because it is filled with unrest. Balkan Peninsula, which harbors various minority problems, ethnic and religious disputes and adventurist policies of some countries, remains as a politically and economically unstable region.

Power loss of the Soviet Union and other communist regimes in the region lays the ground for the creation of a dangerous environment in which both independence struggles of countries in the region are reinforced and the parochial nationalism and authoritarian trends emerge and prevail.

To cooperate with Balkan countries and thereby securing the borders in the region has been one of the aims of Turkish foreign policy since the foundation of the Turkish Republic. Beginning from the 1920s Turkey tried to establish “Chain of Security” and participate in all of the conferences related to solution of regional problems. Under the leadership of Turkey, Balkan Entente was established in 1934 with the participation of the Greece, Romania and Yugoslavia. Bulgaria participated in this Entente just before the Second World War in 1938.

Within the framework of the new order and state system emerging after end of the Second World War, Turkey took initiatives to revive the Balkan Entente especially during the Adnan Menderes era (1950-1960). However, Turkey’s initiatives failed due to the polarization of the Cold War era and the involvement of Balkan counties into these polarization during the 1945-1954 period. In 1954, the Balkan Alliance was signed between Turkey, Greece and Yugoslavia in Bled, but this alliance did not progress due to the failure to solve disputes among the participating countries. The Cold War was another factor that contributed to the failure of this alliance.[xxix]

After the end of the Cold War, Balkan countries gave up their ideological obsessions and entered into the democratization process and were closely interested in European integration, because Europe, with all its institutions, became attractive for the Balkan countries. Especially, it seems difficult to establish sustainable security framework without taking into account of the Balkan countries. For this reason, cooperation among Balkan countries should be analyzed within the framework of the new European order. This cooperation’s aim of providing security for Europe is obvious in these countries’ state leaders’ statements and steps towards this end. Just like in the previous eras, Turkey has the opportunity of playing a constructive role for the realization of the cooperation among Balkan countries. The major factors that create this opportunity can be stated as follows:

  1. Turkey’s Ottoman heritage in this region
  2. Multi-ethnic structure of the region
  3. The presence of transit roads that links Turkey to Europe
  4. Common economical and security problems shared by Turkey with other countries of the region.[xxx]

The Balkan Conference which was held with the proposal of Yugoslavia in 1988 was very important in the sense that it brought all Balkan countries together for the first time after the end of the Cold War. This conference emphasized inevitability of the political and economical cooperation despite problems among the Balkan countries. Beside Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and Turkey, Albania also participated in this conference unexpectedly. In negotiations, the ethnic problems among Balkan countries were left outside meticulously and cooperation in the fields of agriculture, industry, commerce, energy, tourism, the protection of environment and health was discussed and important forward looking decisions were taken.[xxxi]

The leading role Turkey played by proposing the Black Sea Cooperation scheme can be seen as the implementation of the decisions taken at the Belgrade Conference. In recent times, increasing diplomatic visits prove firm political will of Balkan States for realizing this cooperation. Turkey’s political aim was to improve economic cooperation among Balkan countries and to provide stability to this part of Europe that was conventionally characterized by unstable political and economic structures.[xxxii] This region not only in physical terms but also in cultural terms constitutes the bridge and the transit road from Turkey to Central and Western Europe.[xxxiii]

In coming years, Turkey as a prominent country in terms of politics, economics and military has the opportunity to shape developments in the region with the use of both bilateral and multilateral cooperation methods. Thus, it can be considered that the statements of the Balkan delegations visiting Turkey that their aim is to make use of Turkey’s experience prove that this opportunity is feasible.



  • The nature of political change in Turkey and the world
  • The political party in power
  • The position of the international economic relations which will be shaped by the desire and interest of the Turkish economy
  • Kurdish separatism[xxxiv]

Despite from the fact that Turkey will play an effective role in European security in the future, it can be stated that Turkey may play an important role in the European integration. Furthermore, the integrated Europe will have to develop strategies for Turkey and take into account of Turkey more than ever. In other words, Europe cannot disregard Turkey within the framework of the new world order. The important issue is not Turkey’s attempt to explain this just like it has done until now, but Europe’s imperative to understand this. Former Secretary of Defence Ercan Vuralhan emphasized this as such:

“Always we should give this message to the West. Yes, important changes took place in East-West line. In line with these changes, arms reductions took place in the West. However, most of the countries in the West have a threat perception of one bloc. Turkey is under multi-dimensional threat. For this reason, the relegation of Turkey’s demands in the field of defence in parallel with reductions in the West means leaving Turkey by itself in the region where the West has vital interests. Turkey always declares that it was not a guardian of Western interest in this region. Turkey proved this. Turkey’s policy towards the Gulf War was the most concrete example of this. However, the West should not forget that Turkey is the representative of stability and democracy in this region. Turkey has been an effective country with a leadership position in the region. The West should bear in mind that a threat towards Turkey should be taken into account by the West.”[xxxv]

Thus, after the end of the Gulf War, Turkey’s increasing importance was started to be emphasized and the ideas suggesting that Turkey would become one of the countries that would provide stability in integrated Europe gained prominence. Europe is no more the only alternative for Turkey. There have been always problems in Turkey’s relations with Europe and smooth relationship cannot be expected. However, Turkey is an important alternative for Europe. Europe is aware of this fact and thus shapes its policies on the basis of this awareness.[xxxvi]


End Notes

(1)   1815 sonrası Avrupa’da çıkan “Yeni Düzen” ve
güçlerin konumu ile ilgili olarak bkz;Henry Kissinger,
Das Gleichgewich der Machte, Metternich, Castlereagh
und die Neuordnung Europas 1821-1822

(2)  İki kutuplu dünya ve değişimler için bkz; Paul Kennedy,
Büyük Güçlerin Yükseliş ve Çöküşleri, İş bankası Yayınları,
Ankara 1980 Aynı şekilde ideolojik çöküş için bkz; ZibignievBrzezinski, Büyük çöküş, İş Bankası Yayınları, Ankara 1990 ve Francis Fukuyama; The End of History;in  National Interest Summer 1990 ve Uwe Nechrlich; Europa zwischen alten Angsten und neunen Hoffnungen, in: Europa Archiv Nummer 16,25.5.1990,3.481-493

  • İstikrarlı devletler sistemi için bkz. Kari Dietrich Bracher, Europa in der Krise, Frankfurt Yeni kon-sept arayışlar için bkz. Dieter Senghaas, Europa 2000-Ein Friedensplan-Frankfurt am Main 1990 ve Stanley Hoffmann; Abschied von der Vergangenheit, Politik und Sicherheit im Künftigen Europa, Europa Archiv, Nummer 20 25.10.1990, S.595-607
  • Peter Glotz, Gesamteuropa, Skizze für einen schwierigen Weg, Europa Archiv, 1.1990 ve Hüseyin Bağcı, Avrupa Tarihinde Yeni bir Dönem, Dış Politika Bülteni, Mart-Nisan-Mayıs 1990, Ankara
  • William Pfaff; Don’t expect a Big European Role Anytime Soon, International Herald Tribune, January, 21, 1991.R6
  • Uwe Nehrlich a.g.e.S.481
  • Programın tamalanması için bkz. Europa Archiv, Num­mer 5,30 January 1991, S.126-140
  • NATO Genei sekreteri Manfred Wörner ile yapılan röportaj; “We Need Each Other Badly”, 77me,25.2,11991 ve Dominique Moisi;”The US’s Role is Central”, Time, 4.1991
  • Dominique Moisi, A.G.E. Avrupa Güvenlik kişiliği ile ilgili olarak bkz. Interview with Jacques Delors; Towards a working Model, Time, 22.4.1991. Ayrıca ABD’nin Avrupa politikası için Manfred Stinnes; Die Amerikannische Europe-politik und die Ost-West Beziehungen, in: Aus politik und Zeitgeschichte, 8 45\89, 3 November 1989. S.14-24


  • Bu tanımlardan bir kaçı için bkz. Flora Lewis; “A more orderly World, Not a New World Order”, IHT, 18 February 1991.P.6, Noam Chumsky, The weak shall inherit nothing, in : Guardian Weekly, April 7.1991, R8 ve Stanley Hoffman;A New World and Its Troubles, in; Foreign Affairs, Fall 1990, Richard Brookhiser; Two Centuries of New World Orders, Time May 6, 1991
  • Flora Lewis, A more Orderly World,
  • Geleneksel politikalardan sapma ile ilgili olarak bkz. Hüseyin Bağcı; Demokrat Parti Dönemi Türk Dış Politikası, Ankara 1990 ve Ali Karaosmanoğlu; Die Türkei, die europaische Sicherheit und Wandel der internationalen Beziehungen, in; Europa Archiv, Nummer 5, 10.3.1991. 143-153 ve Towards a New World Order? in; Briefing April 29.1991, Issue 835 S.6-8 Ankara
  • Stanley Hoffmann The new World and Its troubles ve Paul Kennedy, Büyük Güçlerin Yükseliş ve Çöküşleri
  • Otto von Bismark ve onun politikası için bkz. Lothar Gali, Bismarck, der weisse Revolutionar, Frankfurt 1983
  • Strobe Talbott, “No its not a New Cold War”, Time, March 4, 1991
  • James Walsh, Global Beat, Time, April 1, 1991

17)  James Walsh Global Beat, Time, April 1, 1991

  • Willy Brant, Eine neue Friedensordnung für den Nanen Osten, Europa Archiv, 3.1991, Nummer 5.
  • Suzanne Crow; The Gulf Conflict and debate over Soviet “National Interests”, in; Report on the USSR, 3, Number 6, February 1991

20) Strobe Talbott, No its not a New Cold War

21)  Ailen Lynch; Gorbachev Synthesis Elements of the
“New Thinking” East-West Security Studies, Occasional
Paper Series,
New York, 1989, P.29

  • David Holloway; Gorbachev’s New Thinking , in: Foreign Affairs America and the World (1988-89), 71 ve Time “Gorbachev Interview” June 1990, P.13-20 ve Hüseyin Bağcı; Sovyet Dış Politikasında Yeni Düşünce, Dış Politika Bülteni, Haziran-Temmuz-Ağustos, Dış Politika Enstitüsü yayınları, Ankara , 1990,S.34-39
  • Bu görüşler için bkz. Stanley Hoffmann, dip not 3, Uwe Nehrlich dipnot 2 ve Kari Kaiser; Deutschlands Vereinigung, Die internationalen aspekte, Bergisch Gladbach, Mai 1991
  • Ortak Avrupa Evi (Common European House) kon-septine üç değişik yaklaşım için bkz. Wladimir B. Lomej-ko; “Das Haus Europa” aus sowjetischer Sicht, Wichard Woyke; “Das Haus Europa” aus westeuropatischer Sicht ve Paul E.Zinner; “Das gemeinsame Haus Europa” aus amerikanischer Sicht. in: Prespektiven für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa, Herausgegeben von Hans-D. Jacobsen, Heinrich Machoski, Dirk Sager, Bundes-zentrale für politische Bildung, Band 268, Bonn 1988
  • Bu görüşü oluştururken TIME dergisi tarafından or­ganize edilen ve Avrupa’nın siyasi ve ekonomik gelişmeleri konusunda uzman 5 bilim adamının Brüksel’de bir araya geldikleri ve Doğu Avrupa’da istikrarsızlıkların beklenmesi gerektiği ve Almanya’ların birleşmesinin kaçınılmaz olduğunu vurguladıkları “What the Future Holds” konulu konferans notları baz olarak alınmıştır. Geniş bilgi için bkz. Frederick Painton, What the future Holds, Time, 18 December 1988
  • Stanley Hoffmann, dipnot 3 ve Timoty Garton Ash; Mitteleuropa; in: Daedalus, Winter 1990
  • Frederick Swyle, Die erhöhte Verantwortung der Deutschen, in: Europa Archiv, Nummer 24, 25,12.1990, Günter Van Well, Zur Europa Politik eines vereinigten Deutschland, in: Europa Archiv, Nummer 9, 10.5.1990, Bernd von Staden, Das vereinigte Deutschland in Europa, Europa Archiv, Nummer 23, 10.12.1990.
  • Detaylı bir araştırma için bkz Kari Kaiser; Germany’s unification, in: Foreign Affairs Winter 1990-91, No: 1 P.197


  • Bu konuda bkz. Hüseyin Bağcı, Demokrat Parti Dönemi Dış Politikası.
  • Seyfi Taşhan; Some Factors Influencing Turkey’s Foreign and Security Policy. in: Beyond East-West Confrontation, searching for a New Security Structure in Europe, Edt. by Armand Clesse and Lothar Rühl P.351-356. Bonn 1991.

31)Ali L. Karaosmanoğlu , dipnot 12 ve Ali Arsın; Das neue Ost-west-Verhalthis, Ein Blink aus Ankara in: NATO Brief, Nr. 6\1990-November\December S.16-20.

32)Bkz. Seyfi Taşhan, Dipnot 30 ve Türkkaya Ataöv, Balkan Initiatives, Turkish Daily News, 13-14 April 1991, P.7.

33)Konferans hakkında geniş bilgi için bkz. The Military Balance 1987-1988 Londra, 1988.

34)   Duygu Sezer, Turkish Foreign Policy in the year
2000, in: Association Ankara 1989, R61,113

35)  “Savunmada Modernleşme “, Güneş, 25.12.1989.

36)     Edward Mortimer, “Problem awaiting a solution”
Financial Times, 8.5.1991, Chistopher Ogden “How
Does Turkey Fit?,Tıme, October 22,1990, Robert T.Zintl;
“Missing Dividend” Time, May 13,1991 ve Yunanistan
Başbakanı Miçotakis’in demeci “Türkiye İslamın Et­
kisinde Kalmamalı” Zaman, 27 Mayıs 1991. Türkiye Av-­
rupa ilişkilerini eleştirel açıdan değerlendiren üç görüş
için bkz. İsmail Cem “Bizi Kim Savunacak” Sabah 13
Mayıs 1991, Ahmet Cemal “Avrupa Düşüncesi ve
Türkiye” Cumhuriyet 26 Nisan 1991 ve Hüseyin Bağcı,
The Spread of Democracy has reached epidemic
proportions in Europe, Turkish Daily News, 3.4.1990.


(*) Translation of the article which appeared in the fpi publication in Turkish “Dış Politika Bülteni”,  July-August-September 1991  issue


[i] For the “New Order” in post-1815 Europe and the positioning of Great Powers see Henry Kissinger, Das Gleichgewich der Machte, Metternich, Castlereagh und die Neuordnung Europas 1821-1822, Zürich, 1986.

[ii] For the bipolar world and transformations see Paul Kennedy, Büyük Güçlerin Yükseliş ve Çöküşleri, İş Bankası Yayınları, Ankara, 1980. For the ideological collapse see Zbigniev Brzezinski, Büyük Çöküş, İş Bankası Yayınları, Ankara, 1990 and Francis Fukuyama, “The End of History”, National Interest, Summer 1990, and Uwe Nechrlich, “Europa zwichsen alten Angsten und neuen Hoffnungen,” Europa Archiv, No. 16, 25 May 1990, pp. 481-493.

[iii] For stable state system see Karl Dietrich Bracher, Europa in der Krise, Frankfurt, 1979. For the search of new concepts see Dieter Senghaas, Europa 2000 – Ein Friedendsplan, Frankfurt am Main, 1990, and Stanley Hoffman, “Abschied von der Vergangenheit, Politik und Sicherheit im Künftigen Europa,” Europa Archiv, No. 20, 25 October 1990, pp. 595-607.

[iv] Peter Glotz, “Gesamteuropa, Skizze für einen schwierigen Weg,” Europa Archiv, 25 January 1990, and Hüseyin Bağcı, “Avrupa Tarihinde Yeni Bir Dönem, Dış Politika Bülteni, March-April-May 1990, Ankara.

[v] William Pfaff, “Don’t Expect a Big European Role Anytime Soon,” International Herald Tribune, 21 January 1991, p. 6.

[vi] Uwe Nehlich, p. 481.

[vii] For the full text of the program, see Europa Archiv, No. 5, 30 January 1991, pp. 126-140.

[viii] The interview made by NATO Secretary General Manfred Wörner, “We Need Each Other Badly,” Time, 25 February 1991, and Dominique Moisi, “The US’s Role is Central,” Time, 22 April 1991.

[ix] See, Dominique Moisi, a.g.e. Fort he European security personality see the interview with Jacques Delors, “Towards a Working Model,” Time, 22 April 1991. For the US’ Europe policy see Manfred Stinnes, “Die Amerikannische Europe-politik und die Ost-West Beziehungen,” in Aus politik und Zeitgeschichte, Vol. 8, No. 45/89, 3 November 1989, pp. 14-24.

[x] For some of these definitions see Flora Lewis, “A More Orderly World, Not A New World Order,” International Herald Tribune, 18 February 1991, p. 6; Noam Chomsky, “The Weak Shall Inherit Nothing,” Guardian Weekly, 7 April 1991, p. 8 and Stanley Hoffman, “A New World and Its Troubles,” Foreign Affairs Fall 1990, Richard Brookhiser, “Two Centuries of New World Orders,” Time, 6 May 1991.

[xi] Flora Lewis, “A More Orderly World, Not A New World Order.”

[xii] Fort he deviations from traditional policies, see Hüseyin Bağcı, Demokrat Parti Dönemi Türk Dış Politikası, Ankara, 1990 ve Ali Karaosmanoğlu, “Die Türkei, die europaische Sciherheit und Wandel der internationalen Beziehungen,” Europa Archiv, No. 5, 10 March 1991, pp. 143-153 and “Towards a New World Order?,” Briefing, 29 April 1991, No. 835, pp. 6-8.

[xiii] Stanley Hoffman, A New World and Its Troubles ve Paul Kennedy, Büyük Güçlerin Yükseliş ve Çöküşleri.

[xiv] For Otto von Bismark and his policies, see Lothar Gall, Bismarck, der weisse Revolutionar, Frankfurt, 1983.

[xv] Strobe Talbott, “Not It is Not A New Cold War,” Time, 4 March 1991.

[xvi] James Walsh, “Global Beat,” Time, 1 April 1991.

[xvii] James Walsh, “Global Beat,” Time, 1 April 1991.

[xviii] Willy Brandt, “Eine neue Friedensordnung für den Nahen Osten,”, Europe Archiv, 10 March 1991, No. 5

[xix] Suzanne Crow, “The Gulf Conflict and Debate over Soviet ‘National Interests’,” in Report on  the USSR, Vol. 3, No. 6, February 1991.

[xx] Strobe Talbott, “Not It is Not A New Cold War,” Time, 4 March 1991.

[xxi] Allen Lynch, “Gorbachev Synthesis Elements of the ‘New Thinking’,” East-West Security Studies, Occasional Paper Series, New York, 1989, p. 29.

[xxii] David Holloway, “Gorbachev’s New Thinking,” in Foreign Affairs America and the World (1988-1989), p. 71 and Time, Gorbachev Interview,” June 1990, pp. 13-20 and Hüseyin Bağcı, “Sovyet Dış Politikasında Yeni Düşünce,” Dış Politika Bülteni, Haziran Temmuz Ağustos 1991, pp. 34-39.

[xxiii] Fort his opinions see Stanley Hoffman, footnote 3, Uwe Nehrlich, footnote 2, and Karl Kaiser, Deutschlands Vereinigung, Die Internationalen Aspekte, Bergisch Gladbach, May 1991.

[xxiv] For three different approaches to the concept of Common European House see, Vladimir B. Lomejko, “Das Haus Europa” aus sowjetischer Sicht, Wichard Woyke, “Das Haus Europa” aus amerikanischer Sicht in Perspektiven für Sicherheir und Zusammenarbeit in Europa, Herausgegeben von Hans D. Jacobson, Heinrich Machoski, Dirk Sager, Bundeszentraie für politische Bildung, Band 268, Bonn, 1988.

[xxv] In constructing this opinion, the notes of the conference organized by Time Magazine and  entitled “What the Future Holds” in which 5 scholars, being experts on the issues of European political and economic developments emphasized that in Eastern Europe there would be insatibilities and the unification of Germany is inevitable. For a detailed information, see Frederick Painton, “What the Future Holds,” Time, 18 December 1988.

[xxvi] Stanley Hoffman, footnote 3, and Timothy Garton Ash, “Mitteleuropa,” Daedalus, Winter 1990.

[xxvii] Frederick S. Wyle, “Die erhmhte Verantwortung der Deutschen,” Europa Archiv, No. 24, 25 December 1990; Günter Van Well, “Zur Europa Politik eines vereinigten Deutschland,” Europa Archiv, No. 9, 10 May 1990; Bernd von Staden, “Das vereinigte Deutschland in Europa,” Europa Archiv, No. 23, 10 December 1990;

[xxviii] For a detailed survey, see Karl Kaiser, “Germany’s Unification,” in Foreign Affairs, Winter 1990-91, No. 1, p. 197.

[xxix] See Hüseyin Bağcı, Demokrat Parti Dönemi Dış Politikası

[xxx] See Seyfi Taşhan, “Some Factors Influencing Turkey’s Foreign and Security Policy, in Armand Classie and Lothar Rühl (eds.), Beyond East-West Confrontation: Searching for a New Security Structure in Europe, Bonn, 1991, pp. 351-356.

[xxxi] For a detailed review of this conference see, The Military Balance 1987-1988, London, 1988.

[xxxii] Ali L. Karaosmanoğlu, footnote 12 ve Ali Arsın, “Das Neue Ost-West Verhathis, Ein Blink aus Ankara,” in NATO Brief No. 6/1990, November/December, pp. 16-20.

[xxxiii] See Seyfi Taşhan, footnote 30, and Türkkaya Ataöv, “Balkan Initiatives,” Turkish Daily News, 13-14 April 1991, p. 7.

[xxxiv] Duygu Sezer, “Turkish Foreign Policy in the Year 2000,” Association Ankara, 1989, p. 61, 113.

[xxxv] “Savunmada Modernleşme,” Güneş, 25 December 1990.

[xxxvi] Edward Mortimer, “Problem Awaiting a Solution,” Financial Times 8 May 1991; Christopher Ogden, “How Does Turkey Fit,” Time, 22 October 1990; Robert T. Zinti, “Missing Dividend”, Time, 13 May 1991. For the speech of Greek Prime Minister Mitsotakis, see “Türkiye İslamın Etkisinde Kalmamalı, Zaman, 27 May 1991. For three opinions critically evaluating Turkish-European Relations, see İsmail Cem, “Bizi Kim Savunacak,” Sabah, 13 May 1991; Ahmet Cemal, “Avrupa Düşüncesi ve Türkiye”, Cumhuriyet, 26 April 1991 and Hüseyin Bağcı, “The Spread of Democracy Has Reached Epidemic Proportions in Europe,” Turkish Daily News, 3 April 1990.

Visits: 249

Dış Politika – Foreıgn Polıcy (Vol. XXXXIII- No.1, 2016) Notes on Recent Events and Thıs Issue – Oktay Aksoy

This issue of the Turkish Foreign Policy Institute journal was in the process of preparation when many challenges in the international scene and more so in the region increased as well as ambiguities remained. Furthermore, forthcoming Presidential elections in the US keep on hold many important decisions needed for an alliance in which Turkey is a staunch member struggling with many threats from the South and East.

Future of EU

The future of EU-UK relations after the referendum in the UK resulting in favour of UK leaving the Union is a complex process the results of which will have  ramifications not only for countries already members but also for those like Turkey seeking membership. The result will also be indicative on how far the members are prepared to compromise on their sovereign rights for a presumably value based but uncertain future, how far they are prepared to realize the European project of working together for peace and prosperity where many cultures, traditions, languages in Europe are a possible asset for the continuation of a “unified in diversity” Europe.

The Turkish Prime Minister Prof. Davutoğlu had concluded an agreement with EU in March 2016 on curbing the flow of illegal immigrants and  regularizing Syrian refugees aiming to reach Europe and on receiving financial assistance to meet part of the burden on Turkey of the close to 3 million refugees Turkey had been hosting. This was regarded as a positive development in Turkey’s relations with EU. The conclusion of this agreement facilitated the opening to negotiations on June 30, 2016 of a new Chapter, Chapter 33 on financial and budgetary provisions and re-energizing the accession process in line with the outcome of the EU-Turkey Leaders’ meeting on November 29, 2015 and EU-Turkey Statement of March 18, 2016.


Change of Government in Turkey

Meanwhile, in Turkey we had a change of Government after Prof. Ahmet Davutoğlu resigned in May 2016 and Mr. Binali Yıldırım replaced him as AKP  (Justice and Development Party) leader and was assigned as the Prime Minister. However, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu remained in his office in the new government. Since the Party in power remains the same, it was more of a change of leadership. However, change of government has provided the opportunity to revise the Turkish foreign policy practices and to accommodate it to the realities of its region. As the new Prime Minister emphasizes his government will make every effort to reduce the number of enemies and increase the number of friends, it is expected that the foreign policy pursued will be based on realpolitik and Turkish interests, rather than on an ideological factors.

Amelioration of Turkish-Israeli Relations

Signs of change in approach to problem issues in foreign policy were imminent. An agreement was reached with Israel to normalize diplomatic relations strained since a Turkish ship “Mavi Marmara” carrying humanitarian assistance heading to the Israeli blockaded Gaza Strip was raided by Israeli navy commandos in international waters killing 9 Turkish citizens in 2010. The memorandum of understanding signed on June 28, 2016 by the Undersecretary of the Foreign Ministry of Turkey, Ambassador Feridun Sinirlioğlu and Israeli Prime Minister’s  Special Representative Joseph Ciechanover did not only aim at reviving bilateral relations but also emphasizing the importance of cooperation on regional political, economic and humanitarian crisis and fight against terrorism.

Overcoming Tension in Turkish-Russian Relations

Coinciding more or less with this development was the normalization of relations with Russia which had been strained after the downing of a Russian bomber by a Turkish Air Force fighter jet near the Turkish-Syrian border on November 24, 2015 whose nationality was unknown at the time of the violation of Turkish air space several times despite several warnings. Since the military engagement rules on that frontier had been changed and very strictly implemented after a Turkish plane was shot down by the Syrian Air Force earlier in 2012. The downing of the Russian plane was hoped not to negatively affect its bilateral relations. However, Russia immediately imposed economic sanctions restricting imports from Turkey, making difficulties for Turkish business active in Russia and prohibiting tour operators organizing touristic visits to Turkey.

While the Turkish Foreign Minister right after the incident had expressed regrets to the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs when they briefly met on the sidelines of an OSCE meeting in Belgrade, this was not deemed satisfactory at that time. However, 6 months later, when Turkey had suffered enough economically, a letter sent by the Turkish President Erdoğan to his Russian counterpart President Putin expressing regret and sorrow over the downing of the Russian war plane created the conditions for the resumption of cooperation and bringing end to tension.

Russia had immediately imposed sanctions, in particular restrictions on touristic visits to Turkey, on Turkish business active in Russia and on importation of fresh fruits and vegetables, as well as some products from Turkey. Russia must have realized that the strain in relations was disadvantageous for both countries and preferred opening of a new page in relations which Turkey was prepared to respond. Earlier, after the Second World War, when relations with the Soviets had soured, it had taken much longer to return to the initial warm days in their relations.

Warsaw Summit of NATO

NATO held a Summit meeting in Warsaw, Poland on July 8-9, 2016. The focus was still on Russia as the threat on Eastern members of the Alliance. Russian illegal annexation of Crimea and aggressive policies it pursued over the Ukraine have prioritized the Alliance to shift its strategy from small mobile reinforcements as decided at the Wales Summit in 2014 to more autonomous formal presence and deployment of four battalion sized battle groups that can operate in concert with national forces in the Baltic States and Poland in order to meet Russian military capabilities. While augmentation of Turkey’s air defense capabilities was considered and it was decided to make available AWACS surveillance aircrafts to monitor also the Turkish skies to support the counter ISIL Coalition, many people in Turkey argued that the Alliance was a bit shy to sufficiently consider the many threats Turkey was facing and fighting 3 different types of terrorist organizations, ethnic, sectarian and ideologically oriented.


Two Important International Meetings

While the attention was focused more on these issues two important international meetings were held in Turkey. One was First World Humanitarian Summit held in Istanbul on May 23-24, 2016. The other was the high level mid-term review of Istanbul Program of Action for the Least Developed Countries held in Antalya on May 27-29, 2016.

Contents of This Issue

            In this issue of our journal we have articles on these two important international meetings. The one on the First World Humanitarian Summit is written by Ambassador Hasan Ulusoy, Director General for Multilateral Political Affairs at the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs entitled “Embarking on a Historic Journey for the Future of Humanity”. The other one is by Ambassador Emre Yunt, Director General for Multilateral Economic Affairs at the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs entitled “UN Least Developed Countries Mid-Term Review”. We have also included in our “Documents” section Chairs’s summary of the First World Humanitarian Summit “Standing up for Humanity: Committing to Action”. As well as the Political Declaration submitted by the President of the mid-term review.

We have an essay by Seyfi Taşhan, President of the Foreign Policy Institute on factors impacting Turkish foreign policy. He discusses how these factors, international conditions and conjuncture, as well as major power policies influence the formation and execution of Turkey’s foreign policy.

An article by Ambassador (Ret.) Numan Hazar entitled “From Clash of Civilizations to Dialogue among Nations and Cultures”. At a time when we witness tensions not only between different cultures but also within cultures, you will find it interesting to read how Ambassador Hazar foresees amelioration of relations through dialogue.

At a time when private security companies are widely utilized there has not been sufficient debate on what kind of national and international legal infrastructure is needed. In the article “Privatization of Security and Its Impact on National and International Security” Prof. Hüseyin Bağcı from the Middle East Technical University and PhD Candidate Mr. Murat Kaymakçılar               focus on this important subject.

Followers of our journal know well that we have been interested in Turkey’s opening to Africa and many articles have appeared in our previous issues on this subject. This time the Turkish Ambassador to Moputo, Mozambique, Ms. Aylin Taşhan has contributed an article on Turkey’s emergence as a global actor in Africa with a special focus on its relations with Mozambique. This will provide an insight on how  Turkey perceives its relations and  what it has achieved so far.

Visits: 194

US Policy and the Iraq Time Bomb Prof. Dr. Hüseyin BAĞCI – 25 March 2002, Turkish News

US Policy and the Iraq Time Bomb

Prof. Dr. Hüseyin BAĞCI – 25 March 2002, Turkish News

When Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote his three consecutive articles in the National Interest in 2000 under the titles ‘Living with a New Russia,’ ‘Living with a New China,’ and ‘Living with a New Europa’ he was actually setting the new imperatives for U.S. foreign policy on how to deal with ‘those NEW power centers’ in a new security environment.

As one of the most well known and influential strategists in the United States together with Henry Kissinger during the Cold War years and in the post-Cold War period, Zbigniew Brzezinski appears now right in his definition of the hegemon United States, the likes of which history has never before experienced. Indeed, when Henry Kissinger published an article just a few months before Sept. 11, 2001, with the title ‘Does America need a Foreign Policy,’ he created many discussions as to the first signs of an anti-American coalition of some of the great powers starting to emerge. China, Russia, the European Union and India seem not to be very happy with U.S. conduct of international politics.

As the ‘exceptional hegemon’ in the new world order, the United States is recognizing terrorism as a global threat and finds it necessary to fight it with every means. It believes that liberal democracies are challenged by terrorism and terrorism must be fought on a global scale alone or with an ‘international coalition.’ Of course, the United States needs a global coalition to fight terrorism and this is why President Bush is sending Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to different parts of the globe to seek allies. It is not the year 1945 or 1989, or even 1991; Sept. 11 was a turning point where Henry Kissinger’s question can be answered. The United States needs a foreign policy, and this will be not easy.

Euroasia is the future of international politics. The security of the Eurasian landmass is solely America’s responsibility according to the U.S. administration. Indeed, Eurasia is the future, but poverty in Asia is the biggest challenge for all international actors. Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida is only one among the expected challenges to the international and global order. To define some countries as ‘the axis of evil’ does not solve the problem. Look at what Russia, China and India have done following Sept. 11. None of them can openly take an anti-American position, therefore, they do not stress that the United States is doing wrong. China in particular is on good terms with the United States because China is bowling from inside [sic]. Unemployment is a big problem for all the countries in Asia and if China has bad news to spread that means it is bad for all the others too. How to contain China is indeed an ‘American problem’ now. Russia is also unhappy with the American presence in Central Asia and the Caucasus but has to appease the United States, like Britain and France did to Germany before World War II. Russia’s new alliance with China and India is a tactical one and Russia will further impose its policies over Eurasian just as before, though it will be not so easy.

Russia’s view that ‘failed states are not necessarily rouge states’ is important because Russia supports Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Therefore, Russia is not alone in this case. The EU is also having similar views and in particular in the last few years EU countries follow more and more ‘pro-Arab policies.’ The result is that Russia is more and more a reliable partner for the EU in global politics and no doubt the U.S. administration is not happy with this. In particular, French Foreign Minister Huber Vedrin leads this view and the gap between the United States and the EU on the definition of the meaning of international terrorism is widening and NATO has already been declared a ‘corpse.’ NATO enlargement has also lost speed and this will create some new discussions in Europe in November when NATO enlargement will be the main issue at the Prague summit.

Within this global context, discussions in Turkey on EU membership and the U.S. search for an international coalition dominated the political agenda over the last few weeks. Indeed, the ‘anti-EU block’ in Turkey gets intellectual support from former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, whose book will be published in April. In her book, as some excerpts were published in several newspapers, she favors more U.S.-oriented policy than the EU and sees the EU as a ‘vanity of intellectuals.’ In her words, the EU is finished and will not be successful. No doubt, this view will be very much used in Turkey for domestic consumption and Deputy Prime Minister Mesut Yılmaz will face stronger opposition. The different views of the Motherland Party (ANAP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) also prove that the coalition is still not harmonious and Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit is barely managing the existence of the coalition. The good old days for the coalition are over.

The visit of U.S. Vice President Cheney also showed that Turkey is part of U.S. global politics and the United States in security issues is more reliable than the EU. The meeting between Cheney and the Turkish Chief of General Staff Gen. Kıvrıkoğlu with Foreign Minister İsmail Cem and State Undersecretary Uğur Ziyal is a unique one and it shows what the United States is interested in.

Turkey is a key country for any U.S. intervention in Iraq and Turkey’s many interests are at stake and Turkey cannot remain indifferent to regional developments. Cheney left Turkey with a positive view, leaving behind it ‘a reliable ally’ in regional and global politics. The Turkish government’s view that it is against U.S. intervention in Iraq is not so important! None of the 11 other countries that Cheney visited also said yes but this ‘no’ means yes if the United States intervenes. Which country or countries can prevent it? Obviously none.

It was a fact-finding tour to tell countries what the United States is intending to do. It was not asking for their permission for such an operation. Next week, the conference in Lebanon of the Arab League will take place and let’s see what will come out of it. U.S. policy is this time very different from the Cold War and Iraq has limited time to meet the expectations of the United Nations. Saddam Hussein and Iraq have gained time, but how long it can go on like this an open question. There is a time bomb in the Middle East and it is ticking faster than ever.

Visits: 275

Balkans: Heavensgate for the EU stability Prof. Dr. Hüseyin BAĞCI – 17 February 2001, Turkish Daily News

Balkans: Heavensgate for the EU stability

Prof. Dr. Hüseyin BAĞCI – 17 February 2001, Turkish Daily News

The meeting of the three Balkan states presidents in Plovdiv (Bulgaria) is concerned mainly with soft security issues like illegal drug traffic, preventing illegal migration and enhancing the security cooperation among the police forces. Therefore, the main idea of  this regular meeting since 1997, initiated by the Bulgarian President Stayanov, serves  other purposes among many common problems between Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey.

Indeed, Bulgaria is one of the key countries in the Balkans and its orientation since early 90’s towards the European Union is remarkable. What’s even more remarkable is that the EU is considering Bulgaria a “corner stone” in its Balkan Policy. It pays great attention to its political developments and supports it financially in order to speed up its membership negotiations. It is also expected that Bulgaria, despite some major shortcomings in the economic field, does not have “political or social obstacles” for EU membership, i.e. no public opposition to the EU, as it is not the case in Romania and now increasingly in Turkey. The Bulgarian president is widely respected in European circles and his constructive approach, not only towards Turkey but also to the Turkish minority in Bulgaria, is a positive step for his country which was harshly criticized in the 80’s under Todor Jivkov’s repressive policies.

On the other hand, Turkish-Bulgarian relations are a success story in international relations of how two neighbors can change the political atmosphere from tense to relaxed within one decade. No doubt, the Bulgarian politicians since early 90’s changed their attitude towards Turkey in so sincere a way that this new orientation could only be welcomed by recent Turkish governments.

In his detailed account on Bulgarian-Turkish relations, (Turk -Bulgar Iliskileri, 1983-1989, Cilt 1, [1983-1985,] Avrasya Stratejik Arastirmalar Merkezi Yayinlari, Balkan Arastirmalari Dizisi. No.2, Ankara 2000) former Turkish Ambassador to Sofia Omer E. Lutem explains how Bulgarian governments repressive policies had been implemented during the Cold War Years and how the Turkish government, under Turgut Ozal, tried to prevent it, using all instruments of international politics and diplomacy. Therefore, the fact remains that thousands of families suffered under this and a wave of forced migration was a result in the Summer of 1989, where also the revolutions in eastern Europe has started. The fall of the Iron Curtain and a reduced influence of the Russian Federation over the Balkans countries during the time of Boris Yeltsin’s leadership, in particular Bulgaria, was among the most successful countries of former “Soviet Satellites” to transform itself into a democratic and functioning market system despite the fact that the change of constitution was not so difficult than in many other former communist states, when compared.

One should also take notice that despite the fact that Turkey was nearly declaring war in the summer 1989 because of forced migration of more than 350,000 Turks from Bulgaria, all the Turkish presidents since then, Turgut Ozal, Suleyman Demirel and now Ahmet Necdet Sezer, show a continuity for improving relations and currently there are no big controversial issues between Turkey and Bulgaria. On the contrary, these regular meetings serve to increase the trust and fight against common danger in and outside the region.

Turkey’s support for Bulgaria’s membership into NATO is interesting because in the early 1950’s Bulgaria closed its border to Turkey as a result of Soviet pressure so it’s now a surprise that Turkey has become part of the capitalistic world and imperialism. Today, it is the irony of history that Turkey supports Bulgaria’s candidacy and most importantly, how it was a wise and long fetched policy of Turkish government then to join NATO. If Turkey was not in NATO today, most likely, the membership would be not so easy. Example, ESDP of the EU!!

Romania’s President Iliescu is the most experienced president among these three because he is a “survivor” in both systems. No doubt, Romania is also on the way to the EU with great French support but, concerning the NATO membership, it will be a little bit difficult. The main reason for this is that Romania experiences increasing anti-EU and anti-NATO opposition. Also Romania was proud to be in a “non-nuclear free zone” during the Cold War years and opposed again the Soviet system under Chaucesku as far as it could. Romania today on the other hand is one the best trade partners of Turkey and is the most cooperative one also within the Black Sea Economic Cooperation. Turkey’s policy towards Romania has been traditionally very good and no major conflict does exist between the two countries.

President Sezer is well aware how important is it to increase relations with Bulgaria and Romania and continue the cooperation also as the candidate countries for the EU membership. Steyanov, Iliescu and Sezer as the “Trioka of the Balkans” give a positive image to every direction of dialogue that is important for the Balkans. In 1988, there was the idea of “Balkan Helsinki” including Yugoslavia at that time. Today, Yugoslavia has also “returned to the Balkan politics” and no doubt, without Yugoslavia, the Balkan stability and cooperation will be less effective. In other words, Yugoslavia should be taken in to the process, despite the remaining facts and problems of the “post-Milosevic Yugoslavia.”

The stability and security of southeast Europe, or in classical terms Balkans, can only be guaranteed by a strong dialogue and cooperation where all the countries are present. Historically, Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania have always been in the forefront like today. Not only the EU, but also Russia follows the Balkan developments very closely and let’s not forget, of course, the new American administration. Turkey as a NATO country should support further the Bulgarian and Romanian membership into NATO. As in the Vilnius Declaration of May 2000, NATO should extend its invitation to Bulgaria and Romania to join NATO. It is very clear that all the three countries will not join the ESDP in the foreseeable future.

The meeting in Plovdiv was good one. A stable and economically active Balkans is in Turkey’s best interest. The Balkan’s have always been a gateaway for nations and people and it seems that it will remain so. In particular for Turkey, it is also a “heavensgate to Europe,” in the sense of the EU membership, well remarked.

Visits: 167