Turkey should be an element of stability, not an element of balance

Foreign policy is not conducted based on religion, sect, ethnicity, or ancestry. Those who claim otherwise cannot explain why four Turkic states in Central Asia have opened embassies in the Republic of Cyprus, nor can they explain Azerbaijan's close relations with Israel. Foreign policy is conducted with a focus on national interest, though whose interest that national interest truly represents is always a subject of debate. This is because it is a fact that the interests of the ruling classes are always presented and marketed as national interests. 

Let us give an immediate example: Turkey's Syria policy, which greatly pleases Europe; the refugee policy that keeps Syrian refugees who would otherwise go to Europe in Turkey, and which is recounted with pride and boasting; and the "Ansar-Muhajir" (helper-immigrant) rhetoric frequently used to ground, justify, and legitimize this policy, have also greatly pleased business circles that view refugees as cheap labor. Thanks to the refugees, the faces of bosses who tell Turkish workers, "Do not ask me for a raise, do not ask for overtime, do not ask for a union. Otherwise, I will put you out on the street and hire a Syrian for half the salary," have been beaming thanks to the government's refugee policy. Abroad, both the German chancellor and the Italian prime minister have thanked Turkey repeatedly for keeping the refugees and not sending them to Europe. 

We never forget these things. Let us come to other important criteria regarding foreign policy making. 

In order to speak of an order or a system in international relations, institutions are needed, rules are needed, and at least on a minimal scale, balance and stability are needed. Unfortunately, since international relations is by its nature a field dominated by chaos, turmoil, and sharp competition, it is not very possible to reach the desired stability and peace. 

There is no need to look far. It is enough to look at Turkey's surroundings. We certainly know Turkey's geopolitical importance and strategic value. We are aware that its position, which intersects and brings together the Middle East, the Caucasus, and the Balkans, is invaluable. 

However, Turkey being in a bridge position between these regions, between the east and the west, is not a healthy situation either. Because being a bridge means being in a passive position. Being a bridge means establishing connections. Being a bridge means hosting and witnessing those coming from one side and exiting to the other. What is important, what is correct, is to be a center. It is to be a regional power, a regional actor, by pursuing a region-centered foreign policy.

But there are many in our country who are satisfied with being a bridge and who defend being a bridge. 

A similar situation is seen in the discussions regarding being an element of balance. 

Being an element of balance means trying to establish a balance on behalf of one of the great powers or great alliances against another. Instead of being an element of balance, Turkey should be an element of stability. Because a state that tries to be an element of balance tries to balance others on behalf of others. A state that tries to be an element of stability, on the other hand, acts on its own behalf and for its own account. It does not act as a subcontractor for anyone.