Diplomat School 5 Begins

In its opening week, the Diplomat School 5 program once again hosted distinguished names who stand out in their fields.

Participating in the program, Syrian Turkmen Assembly Chair Fayez Amro, Sabancı University faculty member Prof. Dr. Bülent Aras, TOBB University of Economics and Technology Head of the Department of International Relations Assoc. Prof. Dr. Şaban Kardaş, Kültür University faculty member and Euronews İstanbul Correspondent Dr. Bora Bayraktar, and Bahçeşehir University Lecturer andyenidiplomasi.comCo-founder and Chair Gökhan Yücel shared their valuable comments and views with the audience. The program addressed the topics "The Situation of the Syrian Turkmens," "Türkiye and the Middle East after the Arab Spring," "The Basic Principles of Recent Turkish Foreign Policy," "Shifting Balances in the Middle East and Türkiye" and "Diplomacy, Digitalization and Innovation in the 21st Century."

Fayez Amroopened the session on behalf of the Turkmens who have been arrested, forced to migrate and lost their lives in the chaos in Syria. Strongly underlining that the Syrian Turkmens, with a history of 1,500 years, have been trying to survive under difficult conditions for 55 years, Amro emphasized that the struggle waged from within has deep roots. Briefly referring to the starting points of the problems and the period up to the present day, the retired Major General stated that the troubled process escalated with the Baath Party and Hafez al-Assad coming to power; with this development, the perception of governance in the country changed, and one-man rule began with the arrival of an understanding that went beyond religious values and symbols toward the worship of a person. The speaker underlined that the beginning of arbitrary rule, in a sense, destroyed the legal guarantees in the country, and that this affected the Syrian Turkmens the most. Reference was made to how the Syrian Turkmens, who had relatively drifted away from Turkish culture over time, were subjected to intense assimilation especially after policies began to be implemented after 1963, and to the sanctions of a ban on Turkish that continued until the 2011 revolution after a large part of those of Turkish descent and well versed in Turkish culture were forced to migrate. It was stated that the main aim was to destroy the culture of the Syrian Turkmens, assimilate them and even end their existence. While stating that Aleppo is the only place outside Türkiye with a Turkish-speaking population, Amro noted that the revolution that began in March 2011 was followed by chaos shaped on the basis of "either Assad stays or the people go!" and the start of sectarian conflicts. Finally, concluding with the expectations and aims of the Turkmens, he strongly underlined that they do not want any foreign intervention, and that they want the Turkmens to remain a fundamental element in Syria under a democratic government and to preserve their national identity. He said: "The purpose of establishing the Turkmen Assembly is to strengthen Turkmen identity. We are an important part of the opposition. We want unity, not division. Unfortunately, despite so much suffering, there is no support or coverage in international public opinion, including Türkiye. We have one small request from Türkiye: that it support our national territorial integrity."

Bülent Aras, in the session titled "Türkiye and the Middle East after the Arab Spring," discussed the changing dynamics of events in the Middle East and emphasized their effects on Türkiye. Aras assessed Foreign Policy through a three-level map of meaning consisting of the International System, Constructivism and Domestic Politics levels. He particularly stated that, respectively, the broadest global ties and organizations, regional systems and the country's domestic politics influence foreign policy in interaction. Assessing the Middle East and Turkish Foreign Policy at the intersection of these important levels, Bülent Aras first referred to the situation of Arab countries, stating that during the Arab Spring the citizens of these countries had certain demands of their governments rather than wanting to change them. It was stated that the events, which began as a reaction to receiving a negative response to these demands, reached serious proportions, and it was particularly underlined that those reacting against the government were mainly influenced by values such as human rights, democracy, economic development and the right to vote and be elected, as seen in European countries and in countries like Türkiye that serve as a bridge between Europe and the Middle East, and that they were fighting for these values. As an important point, Aras mentioned that it would be difficult for the existing status quo to stand against the demands of the people, and that the desire of this geography to reach the same standards as the rest of the world reflects the Arab Spring being influenced by the transformation in the world.

Şaban Kardaşstated that in order to determine recent Turkish foreign policy and its basic principles, two fundamental questions must first be examined: "How does the recent period differ from previous periods, and what are the elements of change and continuity in this period? And how, and according to which criteria, are the periods distinguished?" The point Kardaş emphasized at the beginning of the session was that Turkish Foreign Policy, besides being a foreign policy pursued by the Republic of Türkiye, can be seen in its early periods as a continuation of traditions inherited from the Ottoman Empire. The change in Turkish Foreign Policy was briefly addressed by period. In the first half of the 1940s, when the Second World War took place, a peaceful policy of active neutrality was adopted; after the Second World War, there was a general tendency to shift toward the West, and in the environment of the Eastern Bloc led by the USSR and the Western Bloc led by the USA, Türkiye sought a place for itself in the West; during the Cold War, politics was integrated into USSR-US relations, a period without much risk but in which it was also not possible to act autonomously. With the end of the Cold War, Türkiye encountered new opportunities as it was granted a wider geography within the new world order, and tried to use these opportunities as a regional power and to put itself in a better position. In the 2000s, with the AK Party government, foreign policy entered a period of both differentiation and continuity. Accordingly, Türkiye is now trying to play an active role not only in its own region but in global politics. While in the 1990s Türkiye focused on policies toward the Balkans, the Black Sea and Eurasia, with the AKP government Türkiye began to engage with the Middle East.

Bora Bayraktar, while discussing the development and change of historical balances in general, drew particular attention to the situation after the First World War. It was stated that this period was a turning point, and the 1918-1940 Mandate Period, the newly founded Republic, new principles, Türkiye's desire to increase its relations with the West and its effort to resemble Western countries were outlined as the main themes.

Stating that the historical balances of the Republic of Türkiye first began to change with the adoption of secularism, Bayraktar said that with this step a curtain was drawn on the Ottoman Empire and the turn toward the West began. Also in this period, the Mosul and Hatay issues emerged as problems that would be resolved after long efforts between the French and British and the Republic of Türkiye. Ultimately, Mosul was left to the British, while Hatay, which had first come under French control, rejoined Turkish territory in 1939. It was stated that during the Second World War Türkiye became institutionalized within the West (NATO membership in 1952), but because it did not find what it hoped for from the West in difficult times, it turned to the Arab countries. While strongly emphasizing that balances constantly change, Bora Bayraktar stated that tension between Türkiye and Palestine did not begin in the 1960s-1970s, and that Türkiye sought to increase its power because existing resources could not be used and energy needs increased. As of 1980, developments took place that upset all balances; among the prominent ones, the Iranian revolution, the occupation of Afghanistan by the Allies, the peace efforts of Israel and Egypt, and the Kurdish issue in Türkiye after the 1988 Iraq war were discussed.

Gökhan Yücelassessed diplomacy from a very different perspective. Arguing that in the 21st century diplomacy must now digitalize by following the spirit of innovation, Yücel emphasized that the world has entered a new era and that diplomacy will now have a very different dimension from what was experienced before. In this regard, Yenidiplomasi.com was presented as the world's only independent diplomacy platform, and the fundamental points of modern diplomacy and international relations were discussed. Digital diplomacy, as applied in social media and journalism, has given thought and practice a very different dimension in these fields. Stating that digitalization means mathematization, the speaker noted that digitalization brings with it individualization, innovation, digital power, borderless diplomacy and speed. Saying, "Borders are the most important matter of diplomacy, but with diplomacy borders are disappearing completely," Yücel stated that with the help of new social media the monopoly on diplomacy has been completely broken and that the specialization paradigm of the Industrial Revolution has moved to a different dimension.