What is scale in foreign policy? How is success measured in foreign policy?

Foreign policy, by its very nature, feeds into and is fed by many, very different, and highly diverse fields. It is an area with many and varied inputs. This is because foreign policy is examined alongside numerous topics, from geography to history, from economics to intelligence, and from military power to public diplomacy—commonly referred to as soft power elements.

The capacity of the state, meaning the scale of the state, or in other words, the sum of its power elements (these being political, economic, military, and soft power elements), is decisive in foreign policy. Geography is decisive in foreign policy. Commercial relations are decisive in foreign policy. If it exists, energy dependence on another country or countries is decisive in foreign policy. Foreign policy cannot be conducted in defiance of these four elements. 

There is more. A country's capacity and scale do not increase overnight. Planning is required. National consensus is required. Time is required. Preparation is required. And even these are not enough. The regional and global environment, the conjuncture, and the international plane must also be conducive to this. The attitudes of allies and adversaries are, of course, also important. 

Because the international environment is complex by nature. It is an environment where contradiction, chaos, conflict, and tension are intense. To use an analogy, the person in the driver's seat of foreign policy is not a driver who can speed as they please on the road. There are things they must not forget, rules they must obey, red lights, vehicles approaching rapidly from behind, a truck driving ahead, and a heavy vehicle coming rapidly from the opposite direction. 

Success in foreign policy does not come just because a politician we like becomes the minister of foreign affairs. Because a foreign minister is only as effective as the power, capacity, and weight of their country. This simple truth must be accepted. 

Moreover, there are simple, easy questions that show whether foreign policy—which some find very complex and incomprehensible—is successful or not. 

There are undoubtedly ways to measure the effectiveness, prestige, influence, and success of foreign policy. 

For example, how many countries respect a passport, how many countries can be visited without a visa, and how many countries require a visa for the passport and make it very difficult to obtain, are important in terms of showing the country's prestige. 

Let us give an example from ourselves. I wonder which countries require a visa for the Turkish passport? Which ones do not? Is it easy for our citizens to get visas for the countries they primarily want to visit? 

Let us give another example from the Turkic world. 

In the Cyprus issue, which we see as a national cause—with the ruling party and the opposition, rightists and leftists, Kemalists and Milli Görüş supporters—how many countries have we managed to get to recognize the TRNC? Why do the Turkic states (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan) not recognize the TRNC? Let alone recognizing the TRNC, how do the Turkic states in Central Asia (Turkestan) explain to Ankara their developing relations with the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus, which Turkey does not recognize, their ambassadorial appointments, and their recognition of Southern Cyprus as the sole legitimate government of the island? 

We must also ask this question, of course: What is the state of Turkey's mutual trade with the Turkic states? 

Let us give an example from the relationship between foreign policy and big capital. 

In which countries and which major tenders are the big capital circles, who are among the biggest supporters of the ruling bloc, winning?  

We have a political party system in our country that supports Turkey's EU membership, with both the ruling party and the opposition. Well, how much progress has been made regarding EU membership? 

Why is US President Trump not keeping the promises he made to Turkey at the NATO summit held in Ankara a few months ago? 

How many tenders has the new regime in Syria, the Al-Sharaa administration, awarded to Turkish companies for the reconstruction of its country? 

Has the government in Libya, which Turkey supports, paid the money owed to Turkish construction companies that has gone unpaid for years? 

How does Qatar, with whom we are on very good terms, explain the relations it has developed, the energy agreements it has made, and the joint military exercises it has conducted with Greece and the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus, ignoring our sensitivities? 

Who is the addressee of the harsh expressions used in recent weeks by Azerbaijan, which we see as two states, one nation? How much does Azerbaijan share Turkey's Israel policy? What does Turkey think about the scale, depth, and closeness of Azerbaijan–Israel relations? 

The questions can certainly be multiplied. 

But without taking the scale of the state into account and without considering the criteria for measuring foreign policy, a sound interpretation cannot be made.