In the hours after we arrived in Washington to attend the nuclear summit along with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed) Chair Janet Yellen made a presentation in New York, saying that the Fed will "proceed cautiously" in hiking interest rates. Indeed, it is not surprising that the Fed, particularly Yellen and her team, insistently maintain "dovish" strategies and even deepen them. This is because falling commodity prices threaten Asian and Latin American economies as well - which causes trouble for financing in the U.S., as it reduces these economies' demand for the dollar. Also, the fact that these countries have begun carrying out trade in local currencies has emerged as a problem of control for the U.S. The decline in the share of the dollar in world trade is not only an economic problem for the U.S., but also an important development that will have political consequences in the medium and long term. Therefore, the Fed has refrained from arousing dynamics that will further escalate global recession in the case of an interest rate increase.
We cannot regard the Fed's strategy as just a road sign for the economy, as such an insistence certainly points to a new path in the political arena. Here is what I observed in Washington: The U.S. is preoccupied with heated debates on the upcoming presidential elections and television channels air the scramble between presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump down to the last details in an exaggerated manner. I am of the opinion that although the U.S. did not want democrat John F. Kennedy's rule in the past, it will now highlight a preference to move on with a democrat president. I think the U.S. state fathoms the economic and political dynamics of the 21st century. This is not withdrawal for the U.S., but a step toward a multi-polar and controllable new world order in order to re-ameliorate the global system.
The U.S.'s new political strategy lies behind the Fed's "dovish" policies. We can view this strategy from many aspects; we can interpret it as "withdrawal" on the one hand, and as a new way of domination on the other. However, as I underlined above, neither are true. The U.S. must redefine its strategic allies in the Pacific region and the Middle East and accept the fact that countries in both regions can determine their politics with their own dynamics and will. It is not even a matter of discussion that the U.S. can intervene in the internal affairs of its strategic allies and approve or reject political leaders in these countries unlike in the previous century. This fact is not a state of power, but an overt and essential rule for a completely new world order. Ignorance of this reality will lead to the escalation of global instability and grow into a systemic crisis that threatens the whole world. Let me clearly say that the DAESH terrorist organization emerged as a consequence of the insistence of 20th century policies that have no credibility in the new world order. Therefore, stability for central countries like Turkey is also stability for the U.S. This is the reality of today's world.
Because of all this, contrary to current assertions, I do not think that the U.S. and Russia will come to terms and head toward bipolar sharing, unlike in the Cold War period. Russian President Vladimir Putin's politics must be one of the "unacceptable" things for the U.S. Turkey's significance for the attenuation of Putin's politics is as clear as day. Moreover, the Fed's approach and policies show that the U.S., perhaps unlike Europe and the EU, has realized that the current crisis cannot be overcome with policies that disturb income distribution and make the world more unlivable; on the contrary, the crisis is the consequence of such policies. Therefore, it strives to highlight policies that observe global balances both in the east and south. Frankly speaking, a Republican perspective cannot resolve the problems of either the U.S. or the world. During an address to the Republican-dominated United States House of Representatives in January 2012, U.S. President Barack Obama touched on both the causes and solutions of the crisis. He said, "We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules." These statements by Obama were endorsed by the insurgencies of unemployed young black people in a number of American cities, and particularly in Ferguson. Since the 1980s, the Republicans, driven by neoliberal economic fallacies, have being pushing the narrative that "Everyone is not born equal, but capitalism is a system where everyone can make themselves equal to those who are at the top." This tale, which prevailed in the U.S., is now collapsing there with the current crisis. This collapse will not bring back old Keynesian policies and the welfare state that was formed in Europe. Europe, just like the U.S., must seek a new way out.
Consequently, if the U.S. sees that pivotal and powerful countries like Turkey as guarantors of global stability and thinks that it is necessary to eliminate the gap between north and south and east and west for its own existence, this will be for the good of everyone and undermine global terror. We saw the signs of this during Erdoğan's talks in Washington. While everyone addressed his visit in a shallow manner and were engrossed in a debate about whether and how Obama would meet Erdoğan, significant talks were held in the background.
For the first time, U.S.-based global companies took great interest in a Turkish leader visiting their country, strove to meet him and noted down Erdoğan's messages and remarks excitedly. The meetings saw a high level of participation. This now shows that Turkey is a determinative center for the world economy. I think it is important that the U.S. is aware of this reality. This was what we observed in Washington where we have been attending the nuclear summit.