The Turgut Özal period witnessed many changes in Turkish foreign policy and the new philosophies these changes brought with them. Many of these changes were due to Özal’s focus on economics. He has made the free market economy his top priority, seeing the closed economy, status quo and over-reliance on traditional MFA practices as harmful to the country. In this context, he divides the Turkish foreign policy tradition into the Atatürk and İnönü periods, noting that the Atatürk period was much more rational and active than the other. What he criticizes here is the failure of İnönü and the Foreign Ministry, which he says reflects İnönü’s overly cautious traditions, to adapt their established values to the developments of the time and to prevent Turkey from seizing its opportunities. This article analyzes the main concepts of Turkish foreign policy in the Turgut Özal period, relates them to case studies and discusses the criticisms of that period. 

Özal’s Political Philosophy 

   It is possible to correctly understand and convey the foreign policy understanding of any period by understanding the life philosophies of the main actors of that period. Turgut Özal had many different thoughts and understandings within himself. He certainly did not give in to classical and customary theoretical thoughts and formed a much more comprehensive understanding of himself. This situation can be easily noticed when the structure of the Motherland Party is examined. There were individuals representing the liberal, conservative, nationalist and social democratic wings in the party, and according to Özal, this situation did not pose any problems. Some evaluations even draw attention to Özal’s admiration for Ottoman culture. According to him, he gained strength from this by harmonizing the various ethnic elements and understandings he had in the Ottoman Empire in the best way. This cosmopolitan structure has also distinguished itself in the understanding of international relations. As his son Ahmet Özal stated, “he was a person with a Koran in one hand and a computer in the other. (Sezal & Dagi, 2016)  According to him, the innovative mood of the Islamic world and the West could be integrated into each other under appropriate conditions. Contrary to the developments at that time, Özal firmly denied that Islamic countries had to be in conflict with the West and that ideological differences made it necessary. In the idealism-realism dilemma, which is mainly the main discussion of the history of international relations, Ozal harbored both of them with his mixed thought structure. As an idealist, he highly valued the free market economy, the concept of the strong individual and the principles of the enlightenment. On the other hand, the active foreign policy attitude of the Gulf War reflects the way it perceives world realities. According to the statements of some journalists such as Gökmen, Özal had a number of thoughts on Mosul and Kirkuk. He has also often expressed his concerns about the establishment of a Kurdish state, especially in the power vacuum that is likely to be formed in Iraq. Özal, who did not choose sides in the dilemma of realism and idealism, used the arguments of both ideas. Perhaps precisely because of this ambiguity, Ramazan Gözen has described Özal as a “realistic idealist. (Sezal & Dagi, 2016)   

Fundamentals of Foreign Policy 

   Turgut Özal’s most important priority in foreign policy is economic relations and the implementation of a free market economy. According to him, the political weight of countries determines the economic powers they have. In the process of obtaining the necessary power, Turkey should establish close relations with the surrounding belt countries in particular. The state of peace and economic relations provided at the regional level will create a breathing space for Turkey. The most important reflection of this analysis is the policies carried out by Turkey in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988. Basically, Turkey has calculated in which way it can best benefit from the state of war by adopting the principle of active neutrality. During the war, Iraq’s need for Turkey in particular encouraged Turkey to promote trade with both countries. There were significant increases in export and import data. Adopting such a pragmatist approach without getting involved in the chaos created by the war seems quite consistent with Turkish foreign policy interests. Moreover, although Turkey tried to mediate through some organizations such as the Islamic Organization, the ongoing prejudiced attitudes and opinions of Arab countries prevented this mediation.(Hale,2013) Another foreign policy priority is close relations. In particular, it is seen that the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Region, the Economic Cooperation Organization and Peace Water projects are important examples in this context. Although their success is highly controversial, these initiatives demonstrate the basic traces of Özal’s foreign policy approach. Another example is the process of rapprochement with Greece. In 1984, Özal made certain initiatives in order to put the relations with Greece on track for the long term, solve bilateral problems and increase relations to a certain extent. (Kurt, 2018) One of them is the abolition of the visa requirement. According to this non-reciprocal program, Greek citizens would be able to visit Turkey without a visa. According to Özal, this application would bring societies closer and affect relations in a positive way. Although it was an extremely well-intentioned initiative, the expected results could not be achieved. A second rapprochement process in 1987 came with the “Davos Spirit”. (Oran,2010) It is noteworthy that there is no MFA assistance in initiatives carried out by private individuals in general. It would be rather to say that these initiatives also do not provide the expected benefits. A year later, Özal and Papandreou met at the World Economic Forum. A year later Özal and Papandreou met at the World Economic Forum. The statements made after the meeting outlined in general terms that goodwill between the two countries and efforts over time would solve the problems and crises. In addition to the statements, the establishment of two committees, one on politics and the other on economics, was envisaged. In summary, Turgut Özal’s rapprochement efforts with Greece were mentioned to draw attention to his method of solving problems in foreign policy.  Özal adopted these approaches in many other crises. According to him, forums, committees and free market initiatives between countries provided solutions to many crises. However, in the criticism section, it will be pointed out how flawed and incomplete this approach was. 

 Gulf War Policies 

   After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the UN Security Council adopted economic sanctions resolutions. Shortly after, decisions involving the use of force against Iraq were added to the economic sanctions. Although the legal validity of these decisions has caused many disputes, British and American forces have established their military presence in the Gulf. Özal maintained a pro-American attitude throughout the war. In many public statements, he stated that American support was under the umbrella of UN resolutions. Many opinions are being put forward about the extent of this support provided. According to his relatives and some journalists, Özal’s main analysis was related to the power vacuum that America’s intervention would create in the region. The development of this power vacuum against Türkiye, that is, the establishment of a Kurdish state in the north of Iraq, was Özal’s biggest reservation. According to him, Türkiye could not influence the developments if it did not take its place in this military muddle in its neighboring country, and this normally made Turkey think that it needed to take concrete steps. However, considering the conditions of the period, the fact that public support has not been at an adequate level since the first day has been a serious obstacle for Özal. Torumtay, the chief of the General Staff, and the defense and foreign ministers of the time resigned in opposition to Özal’s pro-interventionist mindset , which were not in line with the basic understanding of Turkish foreign policy, and this best reflects the public hesitation. Despite all the objections, Turgut Özal was able to help America in various ways. (Sezal & Dagi, 2016)  First of all, the cooperation agreements with the United States have been extended and the way for the use of the bases has been opened. However, with the use of Nato bases in Turkey, the United States had the chance to organize an operation to Iraq. Another aid is the sending of troops to the Iraqi border. The military, which did not intervene, nevertheless prompted Iraq to send troops to the border of the region and relieved the US fronts in the conflict.(Hale,2013) The view behind Özal’s support, which is considered excessive by some, is actually this: Turkey is an extremely critical geopolitical power in the region, even if the cold war is over, and this situation should be best understood by the Western world. However, according to the intention, these policies, while extremely appropriate, have not been very successful in producing results. After all this support and pleas, the senate in the United States has voted to denounce the Armenian events as genocide. This has caused a disappointment. On the other hand, Özal did not get the response he wanted from Europe as a result of the Gulf War. Since, unlike the United States, the foundations of human rights and democracy occupy a much more important place in foreign policy for the European Commission, it has slowly become clear that Turkey will not be able to enter into a dialogue with the EU at the desired level until it solves these problems. 

   Türkiye-EU 

  The Türkiye of the 1980s was not very successful in the areas of human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law. The provisional courts set up during the coup process, the death sentences imposed etc. were observed with great concern by the EU and naturally led to criticism afterwards. As already mentioned, Özal’s Western support for the Gulf War, while reaching incredible proportions, did not receive the desired response from the EU. However, Turgut Özal, who is aware that he is lagging behind the EU countries in the economic field, has set himself the goal of reaching the level of these countries when determining the country program. For many observers, Özal pursued a pragmatic policy and strengthened economic ties by taking various initiatives against Islamic countries during this period. The reason for this is to build the economy necessary to become a member of the West wing through trade with the countries of the region. In the following process, it became clear that it would be much easier to solve economic problems than to solve political ones. In addition to the human rights violations experienced by Türkiye, it was a great misfortune that the PKK problem arose, and the EU (especially France and Greece described pkk members as freedom fighters) did not hesitate to put this situation in front of Turkey every time. The issue of the PKK needs to be evaluated separately because there were serious differences between the European countries’ and Türkiye’s view of the structure that had just started to organize at that time. For Turkey, there should have been no compromise in the fight against terrorism and all measures should have been taken. For this reason, some of the European countries did not even think that the PKK was a terrorist organization and demanded rights that could not even be accepted for terrorist members. When the PKK issue was kept out, the EU’s human rights pleas were largely justified. After all, it was very difficult for them to see Turkey as a European country when union members were arrested, protests were banned in universities and intellectuals were in prison. With the Balfe Report, the EU put its criticism in formal document. In general, human rights violations were condemned. It was emphasized that the death penalty should be abolished and the way to the ECHR should be opened. Özal tried to use this situation wisely and after various initiatives (such as the opening of an application to the ECHR) he submitted his application to the Commission in 1987. As in previous cases, the outcome was not encouraging. The EU decided that Turkey was “not eligible” and, instead of an direct rejection, asked Turkey to set some targets on the horizon. The importance of association agreements was emphasized and Turkey’s position as a key partner rather than a member was referred to. The reflections on this idea of partnership will also be seen during the Merkel period. 

  Criticisms On Özal 

It is quite easy to bring criticism to the Turgut Özal period. The biggest reason for this is that he has an ambitious foreign policy vision. As the weight and size of the goals grow, the size of the failure also grows. For this reason, thinking that Özal’s practices and foreign policy approach are too ambitious and trying to analyze it from this point of view also generates many criticisms. Nevertheless, at this point, it would be very useful to refer to and remember the criticisms of the Baskın Oran. According to Oran, Özal has three basic mistakes. (Oran et al., 2010) The first of these is related to economics. Özal realized the free market transformation of the Turkish economy without preparing the necessary infrastructure. While this situation seems to give results in the short term (with the support of aid, IMF support, etc.), it has led to problems in the long term, especially related to inflation and the value of the currency. In addition, the fact that economic and political institutions in Turkey have adopted closed economy traditions for many years has been an obstacle to this free market transition. At this point, it has been a subject of criticism that Özal has not given these institutions the necessary time to digest the transformation. The second criticism is related to the understanding of foreign policy. According to Özal, the method of solving the disputes and problems in international relations was to establish economic relations. According to this understanding, the commercial ties established between the two countries, the economic forums and perhaps the concessions given to each other enable the parties to show good faith and create interdependence. Therefore, this dependence also obliges that the crises experienced must be overcome, and the parties act accordingly. The biggest mistake of this approach, which I think is extremely flawed, is that it does not understand the long-standing problems experienced in relationships. Every state has its own culture and way of handling events. However, not every crisis that happens will be corrected in economic forums, because the basis of the crisis goes back to old times. The establishment of cultural ties between them, deciphering various problems, peoples should believe in the existence of a solution. Özal’s approach has to be very naturally inadequate to solve your problems with Greece and some middle eastern countries (such as Syria). Our problems with Greece, which have a long history, are not manifested in a single point. There are many issues such as the problem of the continental shelf in the Aegean, prejudice and bitter experiences left over from the World War, the attitude of Greece towards Turkey in the EU, etc. It is also doomed to be a big mistake to think that all these problems can be solved with planned economic cooperation. The importance of using diplomatic channels more and understanding each other between the parties should also be emphasized. Finally, Özal’s utter disregard for Turkish foreign traditions has been condemned by many quarters. Özal, who does not benefit from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which has a long history and therefore experience, has caused a number of embarrassing incidents. “Özal embraced the MFA by describing the bills in the U.S Congress in connection with the Armenian events of 1915 as a one-off thing. This led to U.S authorities to downplay the official Turkish demarches in connection with the issue.” (Oran et al., 2010) Another prefix is the attitude that Turgut Özal showed during the atrocities against the Turks in Bulgaria. Özal, who rejected diplomacy and used an extremely populist language, could not withstand the consequences of these statements. “If Bulgaria spent a million Turks, we will admit them…. They can’t do a shit. Mr.Zhivkov can also come ; I will take him to see te GAP project.” (Oran et al., 2010) It would not be wrong to state that no crisis can be solved with such rhetoric. In fact, as Kissinger often notes in his book Diplomacy, the fact that a statesman makes such populist statements and takes no action seriously damages the deterrent power of that country. Another example of this is Turkey’s reactions during the period when the internal turmoil in Syria began. Making less use of foreign policy authorities and turning to populist statements will cause serious problems in the long run, which is the best example of the migrant problem that Turkey is experiencing today. 

Conclusion 

Turgut Özal’s period stands out in the history of Turkish foreign policy as a model of realistic idealism. Özal’s distinct blend of idealism and realism changed Turkey’s global standing, emphasizing economic diplomacy as a fundamental driver of international relations. He also promoted strategic relationships and regional cooperation with a pragmatic approach anchored in a free market economy, with the goal of elevating Turkey’s political and economic status. His vigorous participation in the Gulf War demonstrated his dedication to global stability, even as he handled the region’s intricacies. While Özal’s creative initiatives offered considerable promise, they were also met with criticism for their broad breadth and occasional contempt for diplomatic conventions. Ultimately, the Turgut Özal era will be remembered as a period of dramatic development in Turkish history, when a visionary leader left an indelible mark on the country’s foreign policy landscape. 

Sources:

Oran, B., Akdevelioğlu, A., & Akşin, M. (2010). Turkish Foreign Policy, 1919-2006: Facts and Analyses with Documents. 

Kurt, V. (2018). ÖZAL’IN DIŞ POLİTİKASI: ULUSLARARASI SİYASET, DEĞİŞİM VE SÜREKLİLİK. Muhafazakar Düşünce Dergisi, 15(55), 157–171. 

Laçiner, S. (2009). Turgut Özal Period in Turkish Foreign Policy: Özalism. USAK YEARBOOK, 2, 153–205. 

Sezal, I., & Dagi, I. (2016). Özal’lı Yıllar: Siyaset, Iktisat, Zihniyet. BetaYayincilik. 

Hale, W. M. (2013). Turkish foreign policy since 1774.