BY BULENT KENES
TODAY’S ZAMAN - The debates on Turkey during the year 2010 particularly focused on its new foreign policy. Especially after the Gaza flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza, blockaded by Israel, was brutally raided by Israel, killing our nine innocent citizens, and effectively ruining the Turkish-Israeli relations, the arguments that "Turkey has turned its back on the West and shifted its foreign policy axis" started to be more frequently and loudly voiced.

It is true that the Turkish-Israeli relations were sabotaged by the radical rightists with extremely fanatical behaviors, like Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who have been haunting the Israeli foreign policy. It is also true that the Turkish-US relations are now characterized very differently from the Cold War era’s habitual allegiance and dependence on Washington. It is further true that despite its tremendous efforts to comply with the EU criteria, Turkey has continually faced obstacles raised by certain European capitals and is now suffering from big disappointments and frustrations in its EU accession negotiations. Moreover, it is obvious that Turkey had not only tried to create an ambit of peace in its immediate environment by manifesting its will and intention to solve its problems with its all neighbors, but also exhibited interest in faraway geographies, by opening itself to Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, Central Asia, China, and the Pacific regions. It is known that Turkey is trying to improve its relations not only with Iran, a country treated with suspicion by the West and which did not have very good relations with Turkey until very recently, but also with Russia. It is another fact that Turkey has been assuming a pro-active role in the solution of international problems, and is now active in the international organizations as it has never been. In other words, there is nothing wrong with Turkey’s new foreign policy is making into agendas around the world and particularly in the West. However, Turkey’s successful new policy does not deserve to be squeezed into the frequently voiced suspicion, "Is Turkey’s axis shifting?"

As Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu noted during his meeting on Saturday with journalists in İstanbul, Turkey wants to be one of the key countries which restore the international system that is currently teeming with injustice and unfairness. And it seeks to fulfill this role of a restorer by upholding all democratic rights and freedoms like European countries and by boosting its economic growth as quickly as China. Stressing that Turkey is currently going through the fourth restoration period after three previous attempts, namely the Tanzimat reforms, the establishment of the Republic, and the introduction of the multiparty system in 1950, Davutoglu underlines that “this new freedom-based restoration process” has the EU norms and standards as its main set of references. Turkey is a member both of G-20 and the OECD, and it is also preparing to host the summit meeting of least developed countries in May. Thus, it is preparing to assume the role of bridging both between the West and the East and between the South and the North, and to act as the mouthpiece of the poverty-stricken world in the richer side of globe.

Western observers are quite justified in discussing the Turkish foreign policy as Ankara’s recent ambitious foreign policy is no longer the usual silent, static, reactive and dependent foreign policy. In a recent discussion program on TV, I had discussed this issue with a former diplomat who had acted as the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs in early 2000. When the distinguished retired diplomat had parroted the same arguments frequently voiced by certain groups in the West, saying that Turkey’s axis has shifted and it has turned its back on the West, I could not stand any longer and said: "Can you say that the current Turkey is currently lag behind the Turkey of some eight or ten years ago in terms of democracy, human rights standards, freedom of education, individual rights and freedoms, rule of law, women’s rights, minority rights, the military-civilian relations and all other values that are truly western in nature? If by saying that Turkey has turned its back on the West, you mean that Turkey is no longer complying unconditionally the policies tailored by Washington, London and some other Western capitals without consulting Turkey as was the case in the Cold War era, then you are right. Now, Turkey does not follow the policies developed in some Western capitals, but pursue its original and independent foreign policy which it develops taking into consideration the sensitivities of the West within an alliance framework. Still, it takes the Western values as its basis in developing and implementing its foreign policy."

Really, who can claim that, compared to the past, Turkey is less active in NATO, the EU, the Council of Europe, the G-20, the OECD, the OSCE and similar Western international organizations? Who can argue that Turkey -- which does not want to be a front country and believes that NATO should no longer be a front organization -- is currently making less contributions -- compared to some ten years ago -- to NATO’s operations which it believes serves peace and stability?

Even a cursory look at the destinations of the foreign visits Davutoglu, the mastermind and implementer of the new foreign policy, made in 2010 is enough to refute the axis shift claims. Out of its 81 foreign visits, Davutoglu made 45 (45) visits to Europe and North America. He paid two (one) visits to Latin America, 18 (24) visits to the Middle East, 13 (15) visits to Asia, and three (four) visits to North Africa. As there is no significant difference between his 2010 visits and 2009 ones (given in parentheses), then how did the Turkey’s axis shift debates soar in 2010?

If there is one who finds it plausible that a foreign policy being directed by a foreign minister who made 56 percent of its foreign visits to Europe and North America and only 27 percent to the Middle East, 17 percent to Asia, and 5 percent to Latin America and North Africa can be shifted away from the West, please tell me how this is possible. For instance, if pro-Israel local and foreign lobbies and media organizations have reasonable explanations in this context, I am really eager to hear them. What about the visits foreign statesmen made to Turkey? Are they any different? Of course not. Thus, of those who visited Turkey, 31 percent came from Asia, 28 percent from Europe and North America, and only 26 percent from the Middle East. Given these figures, what is this axis shift debate? Isn’t it a full-fledged black propaganda and brutal psychological warfare effort?