The Changing World Order and Turkey

In today's world, two different dynamics exist simultaneously. The challenge is to strike an optimum balance between them.
 
On the one hand, we see a number of countries scattered around the globe intensifying their efforts to forge interdependent and cooperative relations to be able to deal with the challenges of the globalization process successfully.
 
Europe is not the only continent where regionalism dynamics are under way. ASEAN, Mercosur, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and NAFTA are other examples is this regard. This suggests that countries located in different regions are taking pains to define their national identities and interests in reference to their regional habitat. Unless seen as part of a particular region, countries would hardly be able to resist the challenges of globalization and would likely fall by the wayside. Acting as lone a wolf does not pay any dividend in today's world. For countries that have aspirations to play global roles commensurate with their hard power capabilities, the number-one precondition is to identify with a specific region and act as the leading nation there. This is what Germany is doing in Europe. This is what China is trying to do in the East and Southeast Asia. This is what Russia under Vladimir Putin has been trying to materialize in the Eurasian landmass. This is what Brazil aims to achieve in South America. The key to global power status seems to pass through the predominance in a regional environment.
 
On the other hand, the world is increasingly transforming into a multi-polar/non-polar structure with none of the established powers, including the United States and/or Russia, being able to set the rules and coerce others to abide by them. Some call this world G-20, whereas others call it G-2, and others still say G-Zero. What all these different categorizations have in common is we are increasingly experiencing a neo-medieval world in which multiple sources of loyalty and authority, exist simultaneously, and countries, irrespective of their material powers capabilities and geographical locations, are continuously looking after their security and survival on their own. Gone are solid alliance structures based on unchanging common interests or identities. There is a growing inclination to forge pragmatic relations with as many countries as possible, most of the time based on short-term calculations and ad-hoc institutional settings. In today's world the forces of nationalism seem to be outstripping the forces of universalism and cosmopolitanism. One of the key indicators of this emerging reality can be seen in the extremely cautious approach of the Barack Obama administration towards the internal crisis in Syria. Not only does the United States appear to be extremely reluctant to take the lead in ending the conflict in Syria, but also other global actors seem to be very much preoccupied with their internal problems rather than acting as responsible stakeholders.
 
Europe is trying to avoid the Middle Eastern challenge, while China is very much focused on its own region trying to mitigate the potential negative consequences of the US pivot to East Asia. Of all the great powers, only Russia seems to be determined to put its stamp on the course of developments in Syria. However, the Russian activism in the Syrian crisis has nothing to do with Russia's willingness to contribute to global peace and security. Putin's Russia sees Syria as a platform to help regain some of the ground that Russia seems to have lost against the West since the end of the Cold War.
 
Where is Turkey in this picture? This is the question that requires an urgent answer from the Turkish decision-makers. It is not difficult to say that prior to the Arab Spring, Turkey's rise to global power status would most likely pass through the Middle East. Turkey's return to the Middle East during the time the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) has been in power was astonishing in many aspects. The so-called "zero-problems with neighbors" policy epitomized this process. The expectation that Turkey's global rise would to a significant extent be influenced by Turkey's active regional role in the Middle East seems to have been shared by many Turkey observers. Besides, in the pre-Arab Spring era, Turkey's ability to chart its way in the emerging neo-medieval world was quite high given Turkey's success in establishing pragmatic and cooperative relations with almost all global powers, most notably the US and Russia, as well as Turkey's ability to follow a multi-directional, multi-actor and multi-dimensional foreign policy. Turkey was speaking with key global and regional actors, and Turkey's voice used to be given due respect in many governmental and non-governmental platforms.
 
Given this, it is high time to explain why the Middle East would not serve as a launching pad for Turkey's rise to global power status in the years ahead and why Turkey would likely experience difficulties in charting its way in the age of rising nationalism and emerging neo-medievalism. Turkey's attitude towards the Arab Spring over the past three years deserves to be given due attention in this regard. The sooner, the better.