Atatürk's foreign policy

The drift, loss of direction, and sharp turns that Turkey has experienced in its foreign policy are well-known. The pressures from the US and the EU on Turkey never cease. The government's policy on Cyprus, which it once frequently touted as “being one step ahead of everyone,” has collapsed. The government, which sidelined and publicly criticized the founding president of the TRNC and national hero Rauf Denktaş while supporting the Annan Plan, no longer mentions those days at all. The strategy of “we are pursuing a proactive, not reactive, foreign policy,” which was once a buzzword regarding the EU, has long since failed.

The “co-chairmanship of the Greater Middle East Project,” which was once highly boasted about regarding the Middle East, faded into history a long time ago. The Alliance of Civilizations, which Turkey co-chaired with great enthusiasm, is a thing of the past. No one believes the lie that the US is Turkey's “strategic partner.” The government does not even want to remember the “Armenian opening” it launched with great ambition. There is no one left saying that “Turkey is the spokesperson for the Islamic world and the leader of the Arab world.” “Strategic depth” has hit rock bottom. What remained was “precious loneliness.” Even that has been abandoned. Recently, steps have been taken to escape loneliness and normalize relations. After Arab countries, the latest example of this has been Greece.

WHAT SHOULD FOREIGN POLICY NOT BE CONDUCTED DESPITE?

It is worth emphasizing persistently. Foreign policy cannot be conducted despite these four elements: First, geography. Second, state capacity. Third, commercial relations. Fourth, energy dependency. Rationality, realism, and pragmatism are essential in foreign policy. This field does not tolerate personalizing problems or viewing relationships emotionally. There are no eternal friendships or eternal enmities. Interests are the deciding factor. When needs change, alliances change as well. Every alliance gives birth to a new alliance in response.

The foreign policy that Turkey followed during the Atatürk era, starting from the National Struggle, has gone down in history as Atatürk's Foreign Policy. It is region-centered. It is realistic. It has increased Turkey's reputation not only in the region we live in, the Turkic world, the Islamic world, and among oppressed nations, but also in the West. It is against colonialism and imperialism. It is consistent. It prioritizes respect for internal affairs. It does not compromise on the principle of reciprocity. It is peaceful. It is not ambitious, vengeful, or aggressive. It has no expansionist or racist ambitions. It values stability. It is not idealistic. The following three pieces of advice that Atatürk gave to young diplomats and young Mülkiye graduates are full of lessons: First, keep your distance from imperialist states. Do not get too close to them. Second, definitely value relations with Moscow. Third, do not interfere in the problems between Arab countries or in the internal affairs of Arab states.

REGION-CENTEREDNESS AND ANTI-IMPERIALISM

The fundamental approaches listed above have their roots and strength in the National Struggle. They have drawn the necessary lessons from history. They have been matured by the knowledge and vast experience of the founding cadres of our Republic, especially Atatürk.

Let us state; Atatürk is not a Westernist. He is a proponent of full independence. He is in favor of national sovereignty, enlightenment, and modernization. He is a revolutionary who led the War of Independence against Western imperialism. In this respect, and with the Republic he founded, he has been an example to oppressed nations, downtrodden peoples, and the third world. He never said “Westernization,” he always said “contemporary civilization,” charting our course and showing our direction.

Those who are openly or secretly against Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, as well as those who remember Atatürk only when they are in a tight spot, must know well: Looking askance at Atatürk, disregarding the National Struggle, and calling the Republic a “parenthesis, a commercial break, a trauma, or a wreck left behind” does not make anyone more Muslim, more nationalist, or more leftist. It makes them an extension, a satellite, or a collaborator of imperialism.

One cannot be a Kemalist without being in favor of full independence and national sovereignty; without fighting against imperialism; and without defending populist, public-oriented, and collectivist policies.