The big excursion of Bulgarian Turks November 11, 2009
Posted by Yilan in Human rights abuses, Turkey, Turkish minority of Bularia.Tags: Bulgaria, Bulgaristan, EU, Turkce, Turkey, Turkish, Turkish Cypriot, Turkish minority, Turkish population, Turkiye, turks
add a comment

In Bulgaria, a few months after the fall of the Wall in 1989, the Communist regime triggered the exodus towards Turkey of 360,000 Bulgarian citizens of Turkish ethnicity. The mass exodus, gone down in history as the “big excursion”, has left deep scars on the people who lived it.
“I was beaten twice until I bled and lost consciousness. It was early May of 1989. The men from the ‘milicija’ told me that if they saw me talking to ‘reported’ people , they would kill me. Then one day they told me: ‘you’re about to emigrate. You choose: Austria or Sweden’. I got ready. I had no choice. On the 29th, though, Zhivkov announced that the borders with Turkey would be opened. I packed and left with my family. A week later I crossed the border, right here, in Edirne”.
Rasim Ozgur’s eyes, framed by deep wrinkles, sparkle of an intense black. His is one of the hundreds of thousands of stories linked to what is probably the least known collective tragedy of the European twentieth century: the “big excursion” of 360,000 Bulgarian Turks who, from May to August of 1989, abandoned their homes to seek refuge in Turkey.

“Ozgur means ‘free’, I chose this name once I crossed the border”, Rasim tells in Bulgarian, a language he has not spoken in years, but still masters in all its rich nuances. “After struggling against those who were trying to force me to change my name, being able to choose it was my taking back”.
We are in the center of Edirne, the ancient Adrianopolis. For centuries, the city, laid down on a hill overlooking the Thrace plain, was the door from the Balkans on the road of the imperial capital (first Constantinople, then Istanbul) and itself the Ottoman capital from 1365 to 1453. What mostly bears witness to its greatness is the elegant figure of the four minarets at the Syleiman mosque, an unequalled masterpiece of the great architect Sinan.
Edirne is the first Turkish city those coming from Bulgaria and Greece encounter, only a few kilometers from the border. Today it has the sleepy and somewhat provincial look of a decayed capital, lazily mirroring itself in the waters of its two rivers, Tundzha and Maritza. Nothing shows the size of the tragedy for which it was stage in 1989.
A painter, sculptor and Arts Professor at the University of Izmir, Ozgur is the guest of honor of the day organized by the University of Thrace to remember the events of 20 years earlier. Tragic and unreal footage images run along a wall: a train incredibly overcrowded with people, tens of children sitting by the tracks, elder women dimmed with a lost look, the white tents of a temporary Red Cross refugee camp. Everywhere, confusion and tears.
The “big excursion” is one of the most tragic chapters of a long and complex history: the troubled relationship between Bulgaria and its substantial Muslim minorities, Turks and Pomaks (Slavs converted to Islam during the Ottoman rule).
Viewed as unreliable and potentially dangerous people, in the decades following the birth of the modern Bulgarian state (1878), Muslims, and Turks in particular, were marginalized, when not persecuted, by the Sofia authorities.
The coming to power of the Communist Party in 1944 marked the beginning of an opening phase. With the conviction of being able to unite the nation on class belonging, able to oust ethnic and religious identity, the Communists initiated a phase of cultural protection of minorities, including the Turkish one.
The effects, however, were far from the Party’s expectations: thanks to the rights granted to it, the cohesion of the Turkish community increased instead of decreasing. The year 1956 marked a new change in course: frightened by the “Turkification of part of the nation”, the Communist élite decided to gradually suppress the rights granted.
The party’s strong man, Todor Zhivkov, bound to lead the country until the fall of the Wall, was a staunch supporter of the strategy that aimed at absorbing Turks and Pomaks, depriving them of their own collective identity. Education in Turkish was first limited, then suppressed. Meanwhile the propaganda machine was started up to show that in Bulgaria there were no Turks (or Pomaks), only Bulgarians, “Turkified” by force during the Ottoman rule.
According to the Communist authorities, this premise led to the conclusion that it was right and due to “straighten what is wrong” by helping the Bulgarian Muslims to “re-discover” their own identity and to be “re-born pure Bulgarians” (the assimilation campaign would go down in history as the “revival process”).
The focus in this strategy was the forced name changing which, in the Islamic tradition, has a transcendental and quasi-magic value, and is the first and foremost element of (self)recognition of the members of the community.
During the 70s, the Pomaks were the first to experience the name changing policy. Esma Bozadzhieva, native of Southern Bulgaria, today general practitioner in Edirne, comes from a mixed family: Turkish father and Pomak mother.
“The whole family was to be ‘re-baptized’ as early as the 70s, Bozadzhieva tells in a crowded outdoor café along the banks of the Maritza river. “My father then decided we should move to Northern Bulgaria, where the situation was more peaceful, moving from city to city. In 1974 we were living in Aytos, near the port of Burgas. One morning, while I was in school, the teacher called me to the board. She said, ‘comrades, from now on Esma’s name is Sema’….”.
Only in 1984, however, does the regime decide to launch the offensive against the Turkish community. The reasons leading to such a rash move are difficult to decipher. Among the decisive factors was the fear for the high demographic increase of the Bulgarian Turks and their concentration in compact and strategic areas on the border with Turkey.
The Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and some episodes of terrorism, allegedly by separatist groups, supplied the Communist élite with further justifications. The final decision, by Zhivkov’s admission, was encouraged by the perception that Turkey could not react, considering Ankara’s difficulties with its minorities.
Everything started on Christmas Eve of 1984, in the highly Turkish populated region of Kardzhali. The name changing operation, carefully prepared by the regime, was supposed to proceed with no major hitches. The news, however, spread quickly, and the campaign was met with harsh and unexpected resistance.

“I had just come home to Dzhebel [a small town near Kardzhali] from Sofia, where I had been working on the Christmas decorations”, Rasim Ozgur remembers. “It was the 26th of December of 1984. The atmosphere was heavy. They had started changing changing names to people in the surrounding villages. The police was everywhere. We took the streets to protest and rebel. The next day they arrested me. I was sentenced to 18 months in the Belene lager, on the Danube. The first six months were the worst of my life, I can only remember the inhumane cold and hunger”.
Between December 24th, 1984 and January 14th, 1985, the names of 310,000 people in Bulgaria were changed. The operation was marked by violent protests and repression. There was talk of tens of people dead and thousands arrested, about 1000 of whom locked up in the prison camp of Belene with Rasim Ozgur.
For the party’s leadership, the “revival process” was a success. “We have not solved the Turkish problem, but we have made a decisive step forward. In 15 or 20 years everything will be forgotten”, Zhivkov declared at the Politburo on March 30th, 1985.
For those who suffered it, though, the name changing was a deep trauma. “The director summoned me and told me straightforward that I had to choose another name for myself. Then they changed all my students’ names. From that day on the children stopped answering the roll-call, they felt lost, confused. It was terrible”, recalls Vesile Yildiz, in 1989 a teacher in the town of Tzar Kaloyan, today a teacher in Edirne.
“They called me at the factory meeting, the ‘Breza’ in Kardzhali, and in just a day I was Raycho Karov”, Rahim Karoglu tells me with a half smile, while we are sitting outside his small joiner shop in the suburbs of Edirne. “Our family was lucky”, he adds. “We all kept the same last name. Not everyone was that lucky”.
In addition to the name changing, talking in public, wearing the veil and circumcising boys was forbidden. It is difficult to say which would be the long-term effects of the “process of rebirth”. It is a fact, though, that while the Bulgarian Communist regime launched itself into this political adventure, the world around started transforming at an increasing pace.
The coming into office of Mihail Gorbachev in the Soviet Union and the start of the perestrojka opened scenarios that had been unthinkable until then. Dissident groups and organizations developed in Bulgaria too, which stated the issue of human rights and asked for a revision of the “revival process”.
In the spring of 1989, while the cracks in the socialist system in Eastern Europe became more and more visible, the times were mature and the Turkish issue came back with all its strength. Protests and hunger strikes began to claim the rights previously denied. The repressive apparatus of the regime then reacted with the partial extradition of the political élite of the Turkish community, mainly towards Austria and Sweden.
Demonstrations, initially peaceful, reached village and city squares in early May of 1989. When the police forces intervened, marches turned into chaotic and bloody clashes. There were tens of confirmed casualties and hundreds of injured people.
“We were protesting for our names and our rights, but they responded with the use of weapons”, tells F. from Medovetz, a town not far from Varna, stage for a particularly violent demonstration. Even though 20 years have gone by F., who is today owner of a beauty salon in the Fatih neighbourhood in Edirne, does not feel like telling me her name. During that demonstration, a bullet killed her sister-in-law, Nazife Hasan, who was then only 22 years old.
On May 29th, Zhivkov unexpectedly announced on TV the will to open the borders with Turkey “to allow tourists to visit the neighboring country”. At the same time, “undesired” Turks were given by the police a brand new passport and an invitation to leave the country that did not allow for reply.
After brief hesitation, on the 3rd of June, the Turkish government in turn decided to open up the barriers. The confused atmosphere contributed to creating a real “emigration psychosis”, which the regime wisely cultivated.
“We are on the verge of a huge emigration psychosis”, Zhivkov confidentially declared to the party’s leadership, on the 7th of June. “We need it, we welcome it […]. If we are not able to take away 2-300,000 members from this community [the Turkish community], in 15 years Bulgaria will no longer exist. It will become like Cyprus, or something like that”.
The mass exodus of the Bulgarian Turks thus started. They left by car, bus, train. They left whatever they could carry. Many sold everything at give-away prices, including their house. Whole towns were emptied, often with the help of the “milicija”, which carefully followed the operation.
Long lines were soon formed on the borders of Malko Tarnovo and especially Kapetan Andreevo, at the gates of Edirne. It took days to cross the border – and once crossed it, many did not know where to go or what to do.
Turkey had to manage a flow of refugees (officially “tourists”, since those entering the country did so with a 3-month tourist visa, hence “the big excursion”) a lot greater than expected and compared to what it was actually capable of managing.
In the suburbs of Edirne a refugee camp was hastily set up with the help of the Red Cross. It soon became overcrowded. “Our living conditions in the tents were very poor”, Vesile Yildiz recalls. “The situation became unbearable when a cloudburst poured over the camp, turning it into a sea of mud”.
On August 21st, 1989, Turkish authorities, in a state of emergency, decided to close the border, even though thousands of people were still waiting to cross it. From the 3rd of June to the 21st of August of 1989 about 360,000 “tourists” emigrated to Turkey. Those who did not have relatives and friends in Turkey were sent to stay in schools or hotels. A difficult process started: integration not only in another state but also from a socialist socio-economic one to a market state.
“What struck me most upon my arrival in Turkey? The fact that here you had to work for real”, and
Rahim Karoglu’s smile stretches to fill his whole tanned face.
The fate of many refugees was changed once again by the speedy fall of the Communist regime, only a few months later, in November of that same year. Forty-thousand go back to Bulgaria before the expiry of the 3-month visa. By the end of 1990, 150,000 Turks went back to their home country.
The new democratic regime gave the Turks their names back and, although not completely, granted them the possibility to organize themselves politically. In the following years, while the near country of Yugoslavia was torn by ethnic wars, Sofia revealed itself to be an isle of stability thanks to what politicians and the media call, perhaps with a little too much emphasis, “the Bulgarian Ethnic Model”.
Many of those who emigrated, however, decided to remain in Turkey. Strong communities established in Istanbul, Izmir and of course in Edirne, first stop of their journey. Today they are well-integrated in Turkish society. “We Bulgarian Turks are hard workers, and on average we had a higher degree of education compared to Turkey. And we help each other, that’s why many of us were able to make it”, says Basri Ozturk, President of the Bulgarian Turks Association in Thrace.
Notwithstanding the success in integrating in a new reality, the life of many “tourists” remains suspended between Turkey and Bulgaria. “We have relatives on both sides of the border, we often go back to Bulgaria, to our home towns, and almost all of us have both passports. We are integrated but we cannot forget our roots”, Esma Bozadzhieva says.
In 20 years, in the life of those who were then forced to leave their homes and country, other toil and happiness have settled, and for many time has soothed, if not healed, open wounds from the “revival process” and the “big excursion”.
Not for everyone, though. “Nazife is dead and no one can bring her back. On her death certificate they wrote ‘cause of death: pneumonia’, :smack says now moved F. from Medovetz. “She left two small children, whom nobody paid back, not even symbolically, for the loss of their mother. Nobody has paid for this”.
Turkish Cypriots overwhelmingly opposed to reunification November 11, 2009
Posted by Yilan in Turkey.Tags: Cyprus, EU, Greece, Kibris, KKTC, Turkce, Turkey, Turkish, Turkish Cypriot, Turkish minority, Turkish population, Turkiye, Yunanistan
add a comment

A recent poll conducted in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) has revealed a lack of confidence among the public in the eventual success of the ongoing reunification negotiations between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders, with almost 80 percent of participants favoring a two-state solution instead of reunification of the divided island of Cyprus.
The results of the poll on “social, economic and political tendencies,” which was conducted last month by the KADEM research company with 1,114 interviewees, were published on Friday in the Kıbrıs newspaper, the Anatolia news agency reported.
Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat and Greek Cypriot leader Dimitris Christofias broke a four-year stalemate on talks in March 2008 and have been engaged in face-to-face negotiations with the goal of reunifying the island. Previous reunification efforts collapsed in 2004 when the Greek Cypriots rejected a settlement blueprint drafted by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, while the Turkish Cypriots overwhelmingly approved it with 65 percent.
When asked how they would vote if the Annan plan were put to referendum today, only 30.1 percent responded that they would say “yes” to the plan, while 45.1 said they would say “no,” and 20.9 percent said they were “undecided.”
According to the results, the majority doesn’t believe that the ongoing talks will eventually lead to a resolution of the Cyprus issue. Yet, when compared to an earlier survey conducted in January, the number of those feeling that the negotiations are hopeless has decreased, with an increase in those believing that the talks will yield a result.
Sixty-three percent said in the latest KADEM poll that they don’t believe the negotiations between Talat and Christofias will yield a result. The response to the same question stood at 74.5 percent in January. Meanwhile the number of those who believe the talks will yield a result increased from 22.3 percent to 33.4 between January and October.
Nonetheless, the most striking results of the survey were about the expectations of the Turkish Cypriot people concerning the legal status of the KKTC. Accordingly, 77.9 percent would like to see two completely separate states on the island, while 4 percent said they seek a continuation of the current situation. The KKTC is only recognized by Turkey. Meanwhile, 48.5 of respondents said “no” to integration with Turkey, while 42.6 percent favor it.
Cyprus joined the EU as a divided island in May 2004 after the Greek Cypriots in the south rejected the UN reunification plan in twin referendums held in 2004.
Turkey’s refusal to implement a trade pact between Turkey and the EU that requires Ankara to allow Greek Cypriot vessels to use its air and sea ports has already prompted the EU to freeze eight chapters in Turkey’s accession talks, and the bloc may consider fresh sanctions at a summit in December.
Talat: Greek Cyprus’ accession to NATO ‘intolerable’
Meanwhile, Talat said this week that the Turkish Cypriots would oppose a possible Greek Cypriot accession to NATO, in comments on EU criticism last month against Turkey that it is blocking EU-NATO military cooperation due to concerns over Cyprus.
“We know that the EU gives great importance to NATO and that it relies on the general security provided by NATO,” Talat said after meeting with EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn in Brussels on Thursday. “However, nobody should forget that the Turkish Cypriots and Turkey, which supports the Turkish Cypriot side, cannot tolerate the inclusion of the Greek Cypriot army in NATO. It would pose a serious security threat against us. Accepting this would be a kind of suicide.”
Oldest Karamanli misses home November 10, 2009
Posted by Yilan in Turkey.Tags: Greece, Turkce, Turkey, Turkish, Turkish minority, Turkish population, Turkiye, turks, Yunanistan
add a comment
![]() |
The last surviving Karamanli, or Karamanlides in Greek, 98-year-old Stavros Farasopulos, says he misses his friends and his village back in Kayseri, and that he is proud to share his hometown with Turkish President Abdullah Gül.
Farasopulos was born in the village of Ağırnas in the eastern province of Kayseri in 1911 as a member of the local Karamanli community. Karamanli was a Greek Orthodox Christian community whose first language was Turkish written in the Greek alphabet and lived mainly in Kayseri’s Cappadocia region. Their name drives from the Karamanoğulları state that was based there before the growing Ottoman Empire annexed it in the mid-15th century.
The Karamanli community had to leave Turkey during the compulsory population exchange between Greece and Turkey in 1923 when transfer was solely based on religion, even though the Karamanlis’ first language was Turkish and most didn’t speak a word of Greek.
Farasopulos said he has missed his Turkish friends and his hometown since leaving it in 1924. He currently lives in Western Thrace, where his home is full of photos of Kayseri and one featuring President Abdullah Gül.
Among the mementos he keeps are letters dating back to when his family lived in Kayseri, letters in Turkish but written in the Greek alphabet.
Farasopulos’s eldest son, Nikos, speaks fluent Turkish. “My father brought me up as a proper Karamanli,” said Nikos.
When asked about his life in Ağırnas before 1922, Stavros Farasopulos said: “My best friends were Enver and Niyazi. Turkish was my mother tongue.”
Farasopulos then started talking about the period after World War I when Greece invaded Turkey.
“At that time, Greeks and Turks killed each other, but in my hometown nothing happened. That was because there was nothing that separated Turks from Greeks. During Turkey’s Independence War [1919-1922] I seldom saw a Turkish soldier in my village,” he said.
“I know my Kayseri and the Karamanlis. Turks, Greeks and Armenians are the same.”
Farasopulos said when he and his family first arrived in Greece he was discriminated against because the only language he could speak was Turkish.
Years later, in the 1960s, a friend from back in his village, Turan, came to visit Farasopulos in Greece. The first time Farasopulos went to his village after 1924 was in 1970. “When I went there in 1970, I was welcomed with open arms. I stayed there for two months. I didn’t want to leave. They later rebuilt the Ayi Anargri Church in the village. I thanked the mayor,” he said.
The last time he visited Ağırnas was in 2000. “I have grown old. I really want to visit my hometown but how can I?” he asked, citing his age.
Atatürk could only go west, experts say November 10, 2009
Posted by Yilan in Turkey.Tags: Ataturk, EU, Turkce, Turkey, Turkish Cypriot, Turkish minority, Turkish population, Turkiye, US
add a comment
![]() In this undated archival photo, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (R), founder of the modern Turkish Republic, meets a foreign visitor during the 1930s.
|
On the 71st anniversary of the death of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the people of the country he founded are grappling with questions about whether Turkey has shifted its foreign policy toward the East.
The decision to adopt pro-Western policies in the 1930s was a “must” for Atatürk due to then-existing realities in the region, experts said.
Mensur Akgün, a leading authority on Turkish foreign policy, said improving bilateral relations with the West was a “must” – not a “choice” – for Turkey because the most serious threats came from that direction at the time.
“When Turkey entered the 1930s, it was facilitating mutual dialogue with the Western democracies. As part of this policy, in 1932 it entered the United Nations, where France and Great Britain were influential on other countries,” said Akgün. “Atatürk signed the Balkan Entente to secure Turkey’s western borders because he was concerned about re-armament efforts by fascist Germany and Italy.”
The 1934 Balkan Entente sought to mutually guarantee the security of Romania, Greece, Turkey and Yugoslavia’s common frontiers. The signatories agreed to suspend all disputed territorial claims against each other and their neighbors.
In that era, Atatürk was largely concerned about Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia and Germany’s re-armament efforts, according to Akgün, who is also the director of the Foreign Policy Program at the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation, or TESEV.
“Atatürk was closer to Great Britain, particularly after the Italian invasion and amid increasing political tension in the eastern Mediterranean region,” Akgün said. He added that the political rapprochement resulted in the Saadabat Non-Aggression Pact, which brought Turkey’s eastern neighbors together under its leadership.
Italy’s invasion in Ethiopia, which increased political tension in the Mediterranean, forced the eastern nations to develop a strong defensive mechanism. Amid growing concerns, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Turkey signed the Saadabat Pact in 1937 in to counter possible Italian threats and secure Turkey’s eastern borders.
According to Akgün, Atatürk had a pragmatic policy. While improving ties with the Western democracies, he also embraced Eastern nations under the yoke of the West. Apart from this, however, Turkey did not join any political organization to the east, Akgün said said.
İnal Batu, Turkey’s former ambassador to Pakistan, said Atatürk tried to set up a zone of influence for Turkey to the east, contrary to the public’s commonly held opinion.
Atatürk developed dialogue with whichever country he thought was valuable, Batu said. “However, the Middle East was experiencing its colonial era, so Turkey did not have many political choices in the east,” added Batu, who is now a Democrat Party, or DP, deputy.
According to Batu, it is wrong to say Atatürk ignored eastern developments. “The signing of the Saadabact Pact and the annexation of the Hatay province to Turkey were fruits of his policy,” he said.
Batu also emphasized that modern Turkey’s formation from the ashes of an oppressed country was a unique model for Third World countries’ independence struggles.
“The Kemalist model was admired by the intellectuals in many [developing countries] who believed that it would serve as a good example for the suppressed peoples of the East,” he said.
Kamran İnan, a veteran Turkish politician and former chairman of Parliament’s foreign relations committee, said Atatürk did not make any arbitrary discrimination between East and West in his foreign policy.
“He did not turn his back on the Eastern nations. However, how many independent political partners were there in the Middle East [with whom] to have independent political ties?” İnan said.
According to İnan, Atatürk gave priority to improving bilateral relations with Western democracies for political reasons.
“He was looking for an acceptable place for the newly born Turkish Republic among the democratic powers that shaped international relations in the 1930s,” he said.
Soli Özel, a foreign-policy columnist for the daily HaberTürk, said Atatürk was forced to look west because of the political climate of the 1930s.
“It was a must for Atatürk because he was looking for a zone of influence in the West,” he said. “He was trying to produce a far-sighted policy against possible threats that could come from Italy and Germany, which were ruled by fascist leaders in that era.”
İlter Turan, a political expert, said it was untrue that that Atatürk’s foreign policy was based on mutual relations with Western democracies.
“Atatürk stood closer to the West than to the East for political reasons because he wanted to see Turkey as a civilized culture in the Western part of the world,” said Turan, a political-science academic at Istanbul’s Bilgi University.
Turkish intellectuals and military officials said Atatürk’s death was a tragic loss to both Turkey and developing countries because Turkey’s modernization encouraged independence claims among Eastern nations in addition to opening an astonishing chapter in Middle Eastern history.
Nejet Eslen, a retired Turkish brigadier general, said Atatürk led the first uprising of oppressed nations under the yoke of imperialist powers.
“He was like no other statesman. He used all his courage for his nation. We are indebted to Atatürk’s peaceful policy for the birth of the first republic in the Near and Middle East,” he said. “Turkish people had a great victory in the war, but the heart of [the country’s] foreign policy still lies with Atatürk’s famous phrase, ‘Peace at home, peace in the world.’”
Turkey an active player both in West and East, pundits agree November 9, 2009
Posted by Yilan in Turkey.Tags: EU, European Union, Turkce, Turkey, Turkish, Turkish Cypriot, Turkiye, turks, US
add a comment

Scholars and journalists have argued that Turkey’s new foreign policy vision is a result of the country’s geopolitical significance, in addition to its Muslim population and cultural and historical ties with neighboring countries, and that this change cannot be viewed as the country giving up its long-standing European Union membership bid, in interviews with the Aksiyon weekly.
Muhammed Nureddin, the director of Beirut Strategic Research Center, considered the old foreign policy strategy as one challenging its past, but says that with the new vision, Turkey is becoming a regional power. “With the Turkey’s new foreign policy, the world is now closer to peace. The attitude of Turkey in international politics is based on the idea of justice. The moral principles pursued by Turkey make its image better in the eyes of the people,” he added.The director of Turkey’s Marshall Fund, Özgür Ünlühisarcıklıoğlu, underlined the risks stemming from the new foreign policy understanding and noted that there should be a clear definition of the close relations with Iran so as not to disturb the West. He also noted that Turkey’s cooperative stance with Hamas and Sudan’s leader Omar al-Bashir could produce trouble in its relations with the West and Israel. Secondly, the zero problems with neighbors strategy could create tensions with other neighbors.
Fayyaz Chaudhry, the editor of foreign policy news at a Pakistani news agency, regarded the improving relations of Turkey and Asian countries as helpful in Turkey’s EU bid and stated that Turkey’s initiatives to reach a settlement between Afghanistan and Pakistan are a result of the new foreign policy vision. “Both of the countries need a new actor apart from the US for the achievement of reconciliation attempts. If Turkey can boost relations between these two countries, this will be a great success for Turkish diplomacy.”
“So far Turkey has been defined as the bridge between East and West. However, this definition is not enough to give a clear description of Turkey. It is now an active diplomatic player in both East and West,” said Fehmi Hüveydi, a journalist from Egypt and underlined the mediation efforts of Turkey, mainly in Middle East, and recalled that Egypt was uneasy about the active role of Turkey in the region. However, it was appeased by Turkey’s remarks that convinced Egypt that Turkey should not be seen as its rival in the region.
The weekly Aksiyon devoted its latest cover issue to a current debate on whether a change concerning Turkish foreign policy priorities in international politics, which are based on an alliance with the West, the US and western European countries, has been undertaken which will ultimately result in a closer stance with eastern countries.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced on Tuesday in the AK party group meeting that “our foreign policy is directed towards the West but it does not mean that Turkey will turn its back on its neighbors in the north, south or east.”
Aksiyon claims that Erdoğan’s remarks show that the greatest ambition for Turkish foreign relations is being an EU member which the prime minister thinks will not constitute an obstacle to developing better relations with other countries. Some EU member’s voicing their rejection and discontent of Turkey’s EU bid has created a deceleration in the process. However, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu advocates that as an EU member, Turkey will be instrumental in bridging the EU and Gulf countries.
Despite some arguments that the new strategy for Turkish foreign policy is neo- Ottomanism, Turkey has been quite successful in establishing promising relations with countries that were not under Ottoman rule like Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The “zero problems with neighbors” strategy produced and pursued by Davutoğlu has facilitated the dialogue with close neighbors and is considered a courageous step in demolishing barriers to resolve Turkey’s long-lasting problems of like the Armenia and Cyprus issues.
Gökhan Bacık from Gaziantep Zive University stated that Turkey has got over the psychology of the Cold War era recently and underlined the importance of the perception of Turkey to its close neighbors. “When the country does not obey the rules set by the established elites, a field of opportunities waits for Turkey because of its Ottoman history and Islamic background.”
Turkey is now emerging as a fair broker due to its tough mediation efforts in problems and conflicts in Eurasia. The West sees Turkey’s role as essential and helpful in the domestic conflicts in Leb anon and the disputes between Syria and the US. Moreover, Turkey has been able to bring together hostile countries like Afghanistan with Pakistan along with Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia. In addition, Turkey has been playing a very active role in easing the tensions between Russia and Georgia and Armenia and Azerbaijan. Therefore, with a record number of votes Turkey was able to be elected to permanent membership of the UN Security Council with the votes of 151 countries.

