Adnan Boynukara
Attitudes towards the genocide and occupation in Gaza, require a re-evaluation of international relations and the key dynamics that shape relations. There are a range of responses: countries unable to take a stance, those reluctant even to speak, those concealing their allegiances, shameful approaches from the governments of Muslim-majority countries, those who make noise but fail to act, those who surrender to positions dictated by the United States, and those who align themselves behind the U.S. One can categorize the stance of Muslim-majority nations as those who cannot go beyond wishing, those who focus on token diplomatic efforts, those who involved in counter collective activities, those who fail to go beyond rhetoric, or rely on the ineffective United Nations. On one hand, we have countries displaying such passive attitudes; on the other, we have an Israel advancing its genocidal policies with the military, economic, political, and religious support of the United States.
Capacity, Resources, Vision, and Willpower
When we analyze the current global situation, it’s appropriate to assess countries’ positions in international relations through the concepts of capacity, resources, vision, and willpower. Detailing these four concepts will help us to understand the situation comprehensively. Capacity is represented by skills, abilities, power, and ingenuity. Resources define the capabilities to carry out actions and activities that fall within the scope of capacity. Vision emphasizes the ability to predict the nature of the coming future, characteristics of the setted goals, farsightedness, and the breadth of perspective one possesses regarding to the future. Willpower is the determination to meet the needs related to expansion of the capacity and resources, to expand the vision, and to implement it. When we consider about abovementioned definitions, we can infer that the vision and the willpower are the main determining factors. However, vision and willpower only gain significance when supported by capacity and resources.
Countries possessing all four of these qualities at sufficient level are the ones which can achieve the best results in international relations. Many countries prefer to follow the positions of such nations. However, the number of countries that have the basic features we mentioned above is quite limited. In fact, countries that have these features for a while may soon become deprived of some of them. Because nations, like individuals, are also subject to periodic changes. Countries lacking capacity and resources may have vision and willpower, while those with resources and capacity may lack vision and willpower. At this point, expecting the simultaneous presence of capacity, resources, vision, and willpower is naturally challenging. However, much can be achieved with even a minimum level of consolidated capacity, resources, and vision. The essential question here is: is there a political perspective, a rational geopolitical projection, and a medium-term vision?
Turkiye’s Situation in the Context of These Four Basic Qualities
We cannot say that Türkiye possesses all four of these core qualities at the same level. Nor it is absolutely necessary. But what matters is that the direction is correctly, sustainably, and realistically defined. Occasionally, issues with vision and willpower arise, and at times vision is confused with rhetoric or reduced to slogans. For instance, some interpret the phrase “Peace at home, peace in the world,” stated after the War of Independence to protect the country, as a vision. In some cases, it has even been used as an argument to oppose efforts to develop any kind of international relations. Another problematic evaluation is to interpret international relations and Türkiye’s foreign policy perspective through the relations and positions established during the Cold War period. This evaluation, in fact, results from a mindset that reduces international relations to a “master-servant” level—a mindset that disregards or overlooks the progresses and developments that the country has achieved. Such perspectives lack the capacity to understand the present era and to plan for the future.
In certain periods, Türkiye has showed some short-term and functional visions. Examples include; alliances with the West, efforts to achieve EU membership, political initiative towards Central Asia, and relations with Turkic states. However, these political initiatives were either limited to periods of the initiating leaders/governments of the time or failed to yield the desired outcomes because sufficient resources and capacity were not allocated. During the AK Party era, despite varying intensity, a visionary outlook generally dominated foreign policy. Sometimes, capacity and resources were also allocated for this vision. Yet, frequently, the correct vision could not achieve the expected impact because of the sufficient capacity and resources were not assigned, and the bureaucratic apparatus blocked the leadership’s will.
Despite all negative evaluations and the absence of equal levels of the four qualities, Türkiye has the potential to overcome its existing deficiencies in four basic qualities. Factors such as Türkiye’s historical heritage, its skills rooted in an imperial tradition, its mobility, geographical position, and its diversity of relationships are sufficient to compensate for its deficiencies and these factors are of considerable value. In this sense, it is possible to argue that Türkiye holds a unique position. Therefore, the main question to discuss is whether Türkiye adequately utilizes its existing strengths and opportunities. Regularly engaging in such discussions and evaluations contributes to the development of capacity, resources, and vision, and allows willpower to emerge and be implemented.
The Bureaucracy, Superstitious Religious Understanding, and Nationalistic Constraints
One of Türkiye’s main issues in this regard is the attempted constraints produced with insincere justifications.
There are many entities that limit taking steps or taking new positions in foreign policy. The most obvious and influential of them are the bureaucracy, the groups that adopted superstitious understanding of religion, narrow-minded nationalists, groups trapped in a Cold War mentality, and Westernists. Although these groups and perspectives each have different priorities, they share the common goal of preventing the country from making strides in foreign policy, solving the existing issues, and developing new relationships and initiatives.
The primary harm comes from the bureaucracy. When it finds its efforts unsuccessful, it even directs other groups into action. The main reason why some close and quite simple problems have not been solved for so long is the undefined blockage of the bureaucracy. Bureaucracy develops barriers in terms of using the existing capacity and resources to prevent the implementation of a vision it finds unappealing or ideologically problematic for itself. The blockage can occur even against the ruling party that appointed obstructive bureaucrats. If necessary, they attempt to influence and shape the will itself.
Circles such as representatives of superstitious religious understanding, nationalism, Cold War mentality and Westernism make judgments on behalf of the nation with an approach that sees themselves as masters. Although these groups appear contradictory, they show similar obstructive behaviors in certain foreign policy topics to gain the same results. Whether these attitudes stem from group that adopted superstitious religious understanding, a nationalist group that failed to overcome the chaos of recent history, a Westernist group or elements unable to break free from a Cold War mentality does not make a difference. Some harm relations with the West, while others infect relations with neighboring regions. A correct vision and willpower require identifying, limiting, and counteracting their influences.
Four Basic Issues and What To Do?
Four core issues are worth to mention here. First is the necessity of a perspective that incorporates the qualities we have discussed for a dynamic, multifaceted, and optional foreign policy. The important elements here are vision and willpower. The vision and the willpower aim to realize ideals and make impossibilities feasible and practical. The point that should not be forgotten is that increasing capacity and diversifying resources can only be possible with the vision and the willpower to read a dynamic world. In the absence of vision and willpower, expanding capacity and resources will yield little meaningful impact. Related to the vision and the willpower is the ability to analyze and evaluate threats and opportunities together. A singular focus on threats leads to missed opportunities. The path to establishing a reasonable political course through rational power analysis involves self-improvement, expanding options, and accurately assessing opportunities—in other words, not losing motivation. Otherwise, each external factor may lead to a misuse of power and result in political stagnation. This is the problem many countries experience regarding the Gaza occupation and genocide.
Secondly, it is becoming increasingly clear that a new world order is taking shape. The most fundamental feature of the new situation is that we are entering a period in which power rivalries, wars, and efforts to design through proxy organizations will define the global system. For a long time, struggles between major powers were forgotten. However, the new era shows that these kinds of confrontations are becoming relevant again. The fundamental question then becomes what Türkiye needs to do to be prepared for such a possibility and how it can be more effective in such a world. The primary answer is that for Türkiye to be effective in foreign policy in this kind of world, it must strengthen its internal structure. This means focusing on and swiftly eliminating any activities and risks aimed at dividing Türkiye through its existing diversity, weakening its internal structure, and making it vulnerable to external operations.
What we must remember is that when the internal structure is not fortified, both existing social differences become vulnerable to external manipulation, and a fragile position arises on the global stage during periods of major confrontations. Since such positions are difficult to manage, differences should not turn into vulnerabilities that will create risks. Because in such times, the wealth and opportunities that differences offer are neither appreciated nor seen but instead perceived as threats. The anxiety of facing external threats leads to an exaggeration of simple, non-threatening internal fragilities, and this strains internal cohesion. This of course weakens the country even further. The only way out of this negative cycle, which has been tried repeatedly with the same stagnant results, is to urgently abandon every approach, attitude, behavior, and practice that creates distinctions between “acceptable” and “unacceptable” citizens, eliminating both public and private discriminatory definitions of “us.”
Thirdly, the old bipolar world has changed, and for some time now, global and regional powers have been rising in opposition to the dominant unipolar world. We are thus entering a period marked by competitions, struggles, and conflicts at various levels. This change makes it no longer appropriate to define foreign policy through two axes and to align solely with one. Instead, the current dominant approach is to establishing balanced relations with various axes and relying on the dynamic interplay between multiple axes rather than identifying with any one of them. The primary power and value relations of the old bipolar world have not, of course, vanished overnight. In this sense, Türkiye is certainly within the Western alliance. However, Türkiye must carefully balance this position with other axes and move with sensitivity in shaping this balance. The picture that has emerged in the field of foreign policy in recent years is an indication of this reality. The approach of diversifying relationships is the correct stance for the new era that has began.
Fourthly, Türkiye needs to re-analyze its foreign policy axis, self-perception, and power parameters with an authentic perspective and update its definitions accordingly. No country can have a static definition of power. Power is something that constantly changes according to time and opportunities. This concept of power extends beyond traditional security elements and requires a broader definition. Thus, power encompasses the economy, geography, demographics, the capacity to foster unity amidst diversity, historical heritage, and the ability to reach different societal groups equally.
It’s possible to define each component included within the concept of power separately. For example, geography provides Türkiye with the capacity and opportunity to be part of multiple regions simultaneously. It is possible to define Türkiye with many geographical titles: Middle Eastern, Caucasian, Black Sea country, Mediterranean, European, Asian, Western, and Eastern. Consequently, evaluating both the tangible and intangible assets mentioned above and updating the foreign policy vision accordingly is essential. There are four factors to consider when updating the foreign policy vision. The first is a vision that recognizes, does not miss, and prepares for a world where major power struggles are central. The second is an approach that increases relationship diversity. The third is the creation of a new and broad identity framework where the internal social structure is free from constraints, where the internal body is strengthened, and where different identities can find themselves. The fourth is a foreign policy that contributes to the construction of a robust economic system that reinforces all these elements.
A ‘Small’ Example
To understand the potential outcomes when the relationship between capacity, resources, vision, and willpower is not functioning properly, a small example can be helpful. In recent years, the impact of the movement called xenophobia, which is essentially anti-Muslim, on the economy and foreign policy is an example that should be emphasized. Hostility towards Syrians escalated into lynching attempts directed at Arabs, Middle Easterners, and Africans because this hostility was not managed well and provocateurs were not punished appropriately. Hate crimes became widespread, foreigners’ properties were plundered, their homes/workplaces/vehicles were set on fire, and innocent people were killed. Those responsible continue to negatively affect the country. Officials who neglected their duties in the mildest sense were not held accountable and remain in their positions. The impact of this situation on the economy and foreign policy, however, was never discussed. This lynching attempts, disguised as xenophobia but taking the form of anti-Islam and anti-Muslim sentiment, has caused a decline in the respect and interest toward Türkiye among other nations.
The economy has also been affected by this situation. There are assessments that the economic loss from this picture exceeds $6 billion. The only solution found by the bureaucracy in this scenario was to deport people by canceling their residence permits, or in some cases, their citizenship, without investigating their alleged crimes. Another solution they found was to generally deny visas to citizens from non-Western countries. This is not the vision or willpower that the current government has, but it is the solution created by the existing capacity and resources. Business owners who depend on exports, tourism-focused operators, and their umbrella organizations did not say a word about problems created by xenophobics and implemented solutions by the current bureaucracy. Business associations played the three monkeys. Apart from the President Erdoğan, the Foreign Minister, and the party spokesperson, there were no statements from the ruling party also. This issue is significant because in our country, people are reacting on a racist basis toward individuals who are the targets of the problems we criticize in the Arab world. This issue could be discussed in much more detail, and concrete policy suggestions could be developed. However, even this short statement is enough to understand the importance of the focusing on the vision and sensitively applying the willpower.