Atatürk’s definition of nation and foreign policy

Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk viewed domestic and foreign policy as a whole, treating them as complementary to one another. According to Atatürk, national sovereignty and full independence are the foundations of the War of Independence and the Republic. As a natural consequence of this, foreign policy must be built on the basis of anti-imperialism, regional-centricity, mutual benefit, common interest, and respect for internal affairs. Atatürk’s principle of “Peace at home, peace in the world” is the summary and formula for this. A foreign policy that is not ambitious, resentful, or aggressive, and is far from expansionism, adventurism, and idealism, is the ideal foreign policy not only for our country but also for our neighbors and the countries of the region.

Atatürk is not a Westernist. On the contrary, he is a leader who fought against the West. At the same time, he is a warrior for modernization and enlightenment, aiming to catch up with and surpass contemporary civilization. He is respectful toward other countries and nations. He is sensitive regarding the principle of reciprocity in bilateral relations.

In foreign policy, he is never passive, cowardly, or timid. On the contrary, he is proactive, pioneering, and courageous when the country's interests require it. The Balkan Entente (1934), the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits (1936), the Saadabad Pact (1937), and the incorporation of Hatay into the motherland (1939) are examples of this.

Immediately after the opening of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) on April 23, 1920, Mustafa Kemal Pasha’s letter to Lenin, the leader of the Soviet Revolution, on April 26, 1920, proposing solidarity and cooperation on the common ground of anti-imperialism, is very important in terms of its historical, political, strategic, geopolitical, and military consequences.

This letter would pave the way for the military, economic, and political aid that Moscow would later provide to Ankara and would greatly relieve the TBMM Government. While Afghanistan became the first state to recognize the TBMM, Soviet Russia would stand out as the first major power to recognize the TBMM.

In Atatürk’s definition, “The people of Turkey who founded the Republic of Turkey are called the Turkish nation.” In other words, the Turkish people became a nation by fighting and establishing a Republic. They became a nation while becoming a state, and became a state while becoming a nation. Therefore, our Republic is a republic that emerged at a historical breaking point and seeks to rely not on ethnic origin, sect, blood ties, race, or place of birth, but on political consciousness, common longing, desire, grief, sorrow, destiny, fate, expectations, and a bond for the future.

Atatürk’s definition of nation is also based on this. This definition carries the claim of a Republic and a nation that is generous, just like the concept of Anatolia and the geography of Anatolia, wrapping, enveloping, and embracing with the warmth and devotion of a mother. The definition of nation is directly related to the bond of citizenship, national consciousness, and historical, cultural, and social sensitivity and solidarity. Language, history, and geography are important. These three concepts are not just the names of a faculty affiliated with Ankara University. They are decisive in terms of the formation of national identity.

In Atatürk’s definition of nation, the elements of land and culture come to the fore. Unity of history, unity of culture, and unity of destiny, future, and ideals are essential. This is a synthesis of common history, common language, and common culture. Atatürk also made a revolution in the Turkish History Thesis. He opposed the view that started the history of the Turks with the Seljuks and the Ottomans, and emphasized that this history should be based on a holistic understanding starting from the Orkhon inscriptions, and even before.

Atatürk viewed Turks outside of Turkey as part of both the Turkic world and, on a broader scale, the oppressed nations. He did not make religious or sectarian distinctions when approaching them.

The Republic values the identity of the citizen and the identity of the nation. The goal of the Republic is to create the citizen of a secular, democratic republic from the subject of a theocratic, monarchical empire. Citizenship gained meaning with the nation-state. It came to life with the Republic. Because the Republic has no subjects or disciples, it has citizens. For this reason, the Republic is distant from sub-identities, religious orders, communities, and remnants of medieval or feudal affiliations. It does not engage with them. It only and exclusively engages with the citizen.

The public sphere of the Republic is the sphere of citizens who have equal rights and freedoms, and equal duties and responsibilities. In the public sphere of the Republic, the citizen has no religion, language, color, gender, or race. They are a citizen. The desire of sub-identities or other identities to enter the public sphere and become influential there is incompatible with the Republic. The Republic is respectful of private sphere preferences, provided they remain in the private sphere. It is indifferent, unconcerned, and insensitive to these. Because its interlocutor is the citizen. The Republic does not engage with communities, religious orders, or structures based on religious, sectarian, ethnic, or regional foundations.

In the Republic, human rights are not for clusters, groups, or communities, but for individuals and citizens. Allowing any group to highlight its sub-identity in politics, bureaucracy, trade, or the public sphere is not democracy, nor is it the exercise of human rights. It is a privilege granted to that group. Granting this privilege also means a violation of rights for other groups. However, the Republic does not grant anyone privileges, exemptions, or superiority. That is why the public sphere is very important and indispensable for the Republic.

The citizens who make up the nation may not always resemble each other in terms of religion, language, race, or sect. But as part of the nation, they are equal. Therefore, the nation is a political concept. This is why the foundation of the Republic is not ethnic, religious, or sectarian similarity, but a political consciousness and a national virtue. This is the virtue of citizenship.

The Republic has such consciousness and virtue at its foundation.