Turkish Foreign Policy Vis-à-Vis 21^st Century Challenges

(The Oxbridge Lecture, October 26, 2007)

Mr. Secretary General,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is my distinct pleasure to be here with you today at this prestigious organization.

I feel privileged to have the opportunity to address such a distinguished audience.

The Oxbridge Lecture is a well-established tradition of the Islamabad and Northern Areas Chapter of Oxford and Cambridge Society. This gives Ambassadors a unique opportunity to explain the perception of their countries on major challenges of this era.

So, I thank you, Mr. Secretary General.

Before starting my remarks on Turkish Foreign Policy Vis-à-Vis 21^st Century Challenges, I have to confess that I would have liked to be graduated from one these two of world-known institutions.

A Turkish friend from Oxford presently working in a think tank in Washington D.C. was quite upset when he learned that I was appointed as Ambassador to Pakistan: “What the hell are you going to do with all those Oxford and Cambridge graduates? You speak English with a French accent and you even do not know how to play Cricket!” he told me and desperately offered me a book on Cricket.

I still did not open that book. And my French accent, on top my Turkish accent, is intact. That’s why I hesitated so much before accepting your kind invitation, Mr. Secretary General.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Being a Turkish diplomat in Pakistan is a privilege. You feel at home. There is sincerity and trust between Turks and Pakistanis.

Such is the brotherhood between our two people that the success of Turkey and Pakistan in their respective ambitious goals for their countries is in fact a common endeavor.

We feel happy when Pakistan is successful and share your sorrow when tragic events occur. This goes the same for Pakistanis.

So, our challenges can be seen as mutual challenges.

Turkey looks confidently to the future of Pakistan. And Pakistan does the same.

Sixty years of Pakistan is in fact sixty years of brotherhood between our two countries.

We both are critical actors in our regions, actors that have a global impact.

I believe on our complementary assets.

I also believe that we have to share our experiences in perspectives that could seem separate but are in fact similar in essence especially in today’s global scene.

Mr. Secretary General,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

A prominent expert on social sciences, Zaki Laidi, put it rightly when he affirmed and I quote “The last century was all about speed, and by its end the developed world seemed to have lost its ability to do anything slowly…if we are to avoid mistakes of the past in this new century, we will have to rediscover the importance of the long view, the ability to see ourselves as more than just the agents of the religion of urgency… Urgency constitutes a sort of cultural de-valorization of the future”. End of the quote.

Indeed, the international scene has changed drastically in these past decades. Uncertainty is the prevailing characteristic of today’s order or disorder to be more precise.

This is why it is becoming more important than ever to reduce uncertainty and for this you have to increase the islets of certainty.

Turkish foreign policy’s action is no exception to this.

Let me start with some fundamentals of the Republic of Turkey as we are about to celebrate the 84^th Anniversary of the Proclamation of the Republic of Turkey.

Atatürk’s motto on foreign policy was “Peace at Home, Peace in the World”. This is a simple but bold principle all Turkish Governments are following since the inception of the Republic.

Turkey is a country which chose its direction at its inception back in 1923. In line with the vision of our founder, our goal has always been and will continue to be to reach the contemporary level of modernity.

Thus, Atatürk’s legacy is one that needs to be interpreted not in a dogmatic and static understanding but in a pragmatic and dynamic approach.

The strength of the Republic lies in its capacity to adapt itself to new conditions and in its ability to look with confidence at the process of change in Turkey and all around the world.

Having a democratic, secular system governed by the rule of law where social harmony has been ensured; developing a robust and ever growing economy and maintaining a strong and modern military, coupled with pursuing a proactive, forward looking, credible and constructive foreign policy have been and still are instrumental in this regard.

The ongoing transformation in Turkey corresponds to the aspirations of the Turkish people. The cumulative impact of the democratic reforms is that Turkey today is more pluralistic, inclusive and tolerant.

Mr. Secretary General,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Turkish foreign policy is complex, fast-paced and demanding.

But Turkey’s geography is not an environment where- and I use here Pierre Bourdieu’s terminology- “fast thinkers” can find easy quick fixes.

Bordering on the Middle East, the Balkans and the Caucasus and straddling both Europe and Asia, Turkey stands at the epicenter of Eurasia.

Due to the prevailing circumstances of our geostrategic location, the choices we have to make are never easy and reconciling international imperatives with regional realities is always hard.

The vast majority of international problems of high priority on the agenda of the international community are taking place in our environment, the scene of important tensions and transformation.

We are exerting every effort to constructively contribute to the resolution of all disputes that directly impact Turkey although we are not part to any of them. In doing so, we seek to utilize the many possibilities offered by our strategic disposition, our accumulated knowledge and insight of the region, our cultural and historical ties as well as our vast experience in peacekeeping.

Mr. Secretary General,

Our highest priority is to restore stability in our region.

In this connection, Turkey will resolutely pursue its efforts to serve as an important component of peace and stability as well as to promote multi-dimensional relations with all its neighbors. The encouraging level we have reached in our relations with Greece today as a result of the process of rapprochement we have been pursuing for nearly 10 years is the tangible outcome of this resolve.

Likewise ensuring a dignified place with the international community for a territorially intact, nationally unified and democratic Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors is at the top of our endeavors to restore stability in our region.

In line with our desire to realize this common vision, we continue to diversify our cooperation with the Iraqi Government and support the process of political dialogue and national reconciliation in this country.

The Neighboring Countries of Iraq platform launched upon Turkey’s initiative and later expanded at the meeting held in Sharm-El Sheikh to also include the P5 and G8 is similarly intended to serve such a purpose. The next Ministerial meeting of the Expanded Neighboring Countries will be hosted by Turkey at the beginning of November.

The situation in Iraq is also of direct relevance for Turkey’s security due to the challenges it poses in combating terrorism. The terrorist organization PKK continues to use the north of Iraq as a safe haven and perpetrate violent acts across the border.

Another major source of instability in our region is the Israeli-Palestine dispute. We regard the question of Palestine, with wide repercussions both in and beyond the region, as the crux of all ills in the Middle East. The political rift within Palestine has further complicated the situation. A lasting political solution to the question of Palestine and a peace with Israel on the basis of a two-state solution will have important implications for regional as well as global stability. We believe that a negotiated settlement to this long standing dispute will also reflect positively on the resolution of other problems beleaguering the region.

On another topic of high importance for the international community which is Iran; Turkey and Iran have been neighbors for centuries. We share a long history with Iran and have bonds with the Iranian people based on mutual respect. We enjoy mutually beneficial relations with Iran with particular focus on trade and energy. We firmly believe that every country has the right to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. However, we are, for overriding national, regional and global concerns opposed to the development of new nuclear weapons. The international community must be able to put together the right incentives to bring about a diplomatic solution to the current stalemate.

One major challenge for the international community remains Afghanistan.

Turkey will continue to invest in the democratic, free and prosperous future of friendly people of Afghanistan. Our commitment to the security of the country by assuming the command of ISAF twice since its inception and the Regional Command of Kabul, together with our contributions to the reconstruction effort through significant infrastructure projects are the concrete expression of the challenging mission which have been undertaken in Afghanistan. The activities of the Turkish Provincial Reconstruction Team in the province of Wardak carrying out its function under dangerous security conditions are also part of this effort.

I haven’t mentioned the Balkans and South Caucasus where critical issues still remained to be resolved.

As far as the Cyprus issue is concerned, Turkey and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus have been supporting the efforts to find a comprehensive settlement to the Cyprus problem under the Good-Offices Mission of UN Secretary General on the basis of the well established UN parameters. The UN remains the sole platform for a solution. It should be recalled that the Comprehensive Settlement Plan of the former UN Secretary General emerged in 2004 as a result of extensive negotiations between the parties and was submitted to a simultaneous referendum on both sides of the Island. The Turkish side overwhelmingly voted in favor of the Secretary General’s Plan, whose impartiality cannot in any way be called into question. The Greek Cypriots, however, were misled by their leadership to reject the Plan.

Mr. Secretary General,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

After this brief “tour d’horizon” of our wider region, let me say a few words on our views on certain aspects of the fight against terrorism.

Terrorism is a crime against humanity, which cannot be justified under any reason or pretext. No consideration whatsoever can be invoked to justify terrorist acts. In this regard, there is also no room for selective approaches tantamount almost to double standards. Regardless of their motivation, all acts, methods and practices of terrorism should be unconditionally condemned. Given the gravity of the situation, we can no longer confine ourselves to expressing our resolve solely by words. It is indeed high time for the international community to translate its commitments into concrete actions.

We must be able to take a firm stance against all forms and manifestations of terrorism, no matter what lies behind it. Indeed, if we start differentiating between terrorists targeting us or the others, or between military or civilian casualties, then sooner or later, there will be no escape from falling prey to this scourge.

Today, one of the major global challenges is the growing polarization of the international community along cultural and religious fault-lines. Extremists on both sides exploit this all over the world.

As President Abdullah Gül has underlined in his speech at the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly on 3^rd October 2007, and I quote “…it is time for moderates to be as daring and courageous as extremists”. End of the quote.

Migrant communities all over the world, in particular Muslims, are specifically vulnerable to acts of prejudice, hatred and intolerance in the post September 11 period.

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In the multifaceted and complicated amalgam characterizing Turkish Foreign Policy, our strategic partnership with the US is of paramount importance. The value we attribute to this alliance cannot be overstated. We have together been able to weather many storms and all the while ensure that these bonds stay relevant to the changing times. It is the very quality of Turkey-US Alliance – the ability to adapt and stay ahead of the curve- that has ensured its long term importance for both our nations.

The Armenian allegations of genocide to this day have not been legally or historically substantiated and this is why the efforts to defame Turkey have always played out in the political arena. Our proposal made in 2005 to establish a Joint Historical Commission to examine the events of 1915 in an objective manner has been left unanswered by Armenia to this date.

We do hope that common sense will soon prevail and Congress will not become a party to this episode of Ottoman history. This is an issue between Turks and Armenians and that’s ultimately where it can be resolved, not through outside tampering or legislative fiat but by an open, sincere and result- oriented dialogue that aims to reconcile the competing narratives in a mutually acceptable manner.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have started my presentation by referring to “urgency as Sacred present”.

One can ask nowadays “What is the urgency for Europe?” “What is the justification of the European integration?”

In answering these questions one has definitely to be conscious of the two main concerns of the citizens of the European Union, that are the fear of losing their “identity” and the growing feeling of a lack of “security”.

Thus, urgency for Europe is to put into confidence the EU citizens about the future of the Project and the pace of integration.

In fact, the history of the European Union has been described as a tale of pendulum swings (Wallace).

After the negative referendums in spring 2005 in France and in the Netherlands on the European Constitution the pendulum has swung back to pessimism. Vision and pragmatism can ensure the pendulum to swing back to optimism.

In our relations with the EU, we have also witnessed up and downs.

Turkey’s bid to join the EU is not a new objective.

The Turkish Parliament did made the choice to join the Europe of Six in 1959, at a time when many European countries were not sure of the fate of an integration process just started and preferred to opt for a free trade area.

The ultimate goal of our Association Agreement of 1963 is membership of Turkey and that was explicit in the agreement.

Turkey has become part of the Customs Union in 1995.

We have been granted a candidate country status in 1999 at the EU Helsinki Summit.

The decision to open accession negotiations have been taken on 3^rd October 2005 at another EU Summit.

Those skeptical of this process find easily concrete arguments to defend themselves. Turkey is indeed a large country. The integration of Turkey to EU poses many challenges both for the EU and Turkey.

But what matters is not to be pessimistic or optimistic about Turkey’s chances of joining the EU.

It has more to do with your determination.

The founding father of the “Europe Communautaire”, Jean Monnet was right in stating that the more you come close to the final goal of an ever closer union the more obstacles will become greater.

A still enlarging Europe in the 21^st Century have its own paradigm as did have rach vague of enlargement/deepening.

The enlargement to central and east European countries was largely perceived as the coming together of Europe’s history and geography.

Turkey for centuries has been considered as “the Other”.

Enlargement to Turkey is an even more challenging task because for Europe and Turkey “it is as if the recesses of the being were attempting to communicate with the outer layers” (Michaux).

I believe “communication” will thus be the major instrument in the years ahead to explain the benefit of having Turkey as a member of the EU. Communication is in fact on of the three “C”s of the strategy devised by the European Commission. The other two are “commitment” and “conditionality”.

Europe is a political space in the making.

All questions pertaining to the future of Europe are somehow linked to the debate around Turkey. How you define Europe’s identity? Will Europe has to be introverted or play a global role in a challenging environment? Does EU takes its strength from its past that contradicts it or from the will to forge a common destiny?

I like the definition of Europe as the “Continent of the interrogated life” as was described by one great Czech philosopher Jan Patocka.

For Patocka, Europe is also a fragile project which can never be finalized but is ever to come and the formation of this coming is precisely our responsibility.

I believe the debate on Turkey’s place in the EU is closely related to this sense of responsibility.

This is why as much as the process, we have to be focused on the Project, the future of Europe.

In fact, the principle of responsibility is not exclusive to Europe.

That’s why Europe can never be seen as a distant project by individuals from wherever they may be. You are always at the proximity of the European project.

I truly believe that Turkey is, in a tocquevillian reading of its history, a valuable asset in the revitalization of the European idea.

Seven hundred years of Ottoman period and more than eighty years of Republic are integral part of the construction of a space where Europe and Asia give a significant shape to the actual “géopolitique du sens”.

In other terms what we can qualify as “geopolitics of the meaning” which is so crucial to furthering dialogue and tolerance in this century.

A Sisyphean task, one can tell you. Why not I’ll answer?

Sisyphus is well alive for everyone. And this is always good news. Furthermore, it is a symbol of hope and determination.

Thank You for your attention and patience.