The new center of the world
A recent Financial Times news report titled "Crunch time approaches for EU-Turkey relations" starts with a headline, saying, "[President Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan's authoritarian rule precludes membership of the bloc." We cannot help but be astonished, given that even the customs union process, as well as Turkey's 53-year European Union accession process, turned into a one-sided and unfair process which went against the EU's expansion perspective. Despite Turkey's insistent efforts, the EU did not renew the agreement. As Turkey was not a full member of the bloc, it stayed out of the agreements which the EU signed with third countries - which negatively affected the country's foreign trade volume. Apart from this, even the refugee crisis of the past year indicates the EU's Fabian policy on Turkey in its relations. The EU did not fulfill any of its promises to Turkey regarding the refugee issue. In fact, the refugee issue of the past year and the way it played out in Turkey-EU negotiations are a summary of the 53-year Turkey-EU relations.
Under these circumstances, Erdoğan recently pointed to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as an alternative, saying, "If Turkey becomes a member, its room for maneuvering will broaden considerably." Nobody can suggest that this means an axis shift for Turkey.
Everyone must see that Turkey will turn toward both its east and west at present and from now on, and will follow a strategy to become the center of welfare and stability in its region. This is a new path that emerged under Erdoğan's leadership and is not being shaped by the West's impositions.
In fact, this new path is not shaped by Turkey's preferences alone. When we look at Asia, especially China, today, we see that a new Asian development is coming quickly. This new Asian development is also the consequence of the current process we can define as the most profound crisis and transformation of the West and capitalism starting in 2008.
We need to seek the dynamics of this change in the 2008 financial crisis, which was more far-reaching and more transformative than the 1873 crisis, also known as the Panic of 1873, and the Great Depression of 1923. American economist Joseph Schumpeter's concept of creative destruction, which points to a process of industrial change that constantly destroys the old economic structure and creates a new one, was present during the 2008 crisis. Thus, the 2008 crisis emerged as a historical opportunity for developing countries. British economic historian Angus Maddison's following theses from his "Contours of the World Economy 1-2030 AD" are relevant here. Maddison expands on the growth performance of the world economy by 2030, and argues that Asia will outperform the West in growth by 2030, claiming that the falling population growth rate in the West will decline even further, and that the world economy will grow by an average of 3 percent a year. He also says that Asia's growth will be dramatic, as it will actualize a major portion of global production by including China and Japan and will reach the significant position Asia had in the early 19th century. The world has not seen any developments that would disprove this prediction. Quite the contrary, we have entered a period in which developed countries go around in circles due to the impact of the 2008 crisis. We can describe this change as a new development paradigm that started from the East, just as Italian political economist Givanni Arrighi argues in his "Adam Smith in Beijing."
Well, is this change good for everyone? I think game theory, from American mathematician John Forbes Nash, can help us find an answer to this question. He says everyone should choose the optimum for himself and his challengers in a spirit of mutual compromise, instead of each choosing what is best for themselves. Thus everyone involved can survive the crisis without a loss. Certainly, the Asia-Pacific region is undergoing a change more smoothly than the Middle East and Africa and this change is indeed helping the system fix itself in Asia. However, it is hard to say the same for the Middle East, Caucasus and Africa.
Let us note that the change in Turkey is much more significant, as it is not confined to Anatolia alone and includes MENA, Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. Turkey's dynamics of change will also resolve all questions in the entirety of the region dating back to the 20th century, including the Palestine-Israel conflict. At this point, we need to look at Erdoğan's pioneering role in Turkey's economic change.
This historical and current economic political reality underlies Erdoğan's criticism of the EU and his emphasis on the SCO. Apart from all of this, we see that the U.S. will step into a new Keynesian period under Donald Trump's presidency. To what extent will the U.S.'s strategy of overcoming a new crisis through infrastructure investments be realistic? The world is not the world of the 1940s, so I do not think the U.S. will be able to overcome the crisis by imitating what it did in the 20th century. However, countries like Turkey will help both themselves and the world tackle the crisis by pursuing quite a different path from the one they pursued in the previous century.
Under these circumstances, Erdoğan recently pointed to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as an alternative, saying, "If Turkey becomes a member, its room for maneuvering will broaden considerably." Nobody can suggest that this means an axis shift for Turkey.
Everyone must see that Turkey will turn toward both its east and west at present and from now on, and will follow a strategy to become the center of welfare and stability in its region. This is a new path that emerged under Erdoğan's leadership and is not being shaped by the West's impositions.
In fact, this new path is not shaped by Turkey's preferences alone. When we look at Asia, especially China, today, we see that a new Asian development is coming quickly. This new Asian development is also the consequence of the current process we can define as the most profound crisis and transformation of the West and capitalism starting in 2008.
We need to seek the dynamics of this change in the 2008 financial crisis, which was more far-reaching and more transformative than the 1873 crisis, also known as the Panic of 1873, and the Great Depression of 1923. American economist Joseph Schumpeter's concept of creative destruction, which points to a process of industrial change that constantly destroys the old economic structure and creates a new one, was present during the 2008 crisis. Thus, the 2008 crisis emerged as a historical opportunity for developing countries. British economic historian Angus Maddison's following theses from his "Contours of the World Economy 1-2030 AD" are relevant here. Maddison expands on the growth performance of the world economy by 2030, and argues that Asia will outperform the West in growth by 2030, claiming that the falling population growth rate in the West will decline even further, and that the world economy will grow by an average of 3 percent a year. He also says that Asia's growth will be dramatic, as it will actualize a major portion of global production by including China and Japan and will reach the significant position Asia had in the early 19th century. The world has not seen any developments that would disprove this prediction. Quite the contrary, we have entered a period in which developed countries go around in circles due to the impact of the 2008 crisis. We can describe this change as a new development paradigm that started from the East, just as Italian political economist Givanni Arrighi argues in his "Adam Smith in Beijing."
Well, is this change good for everyone? I think game theory, from American mathematician John Forbes Nash, can help us find an answer to this question. He says everyone should choose the optimum for himself and his challengers in a spirit of mutual compromise, instead of each choosing what is best for themselves. Thus everyone involved can survive the crisis without a loss. Certainly, the Asia-Pacific region is undergoing a change more smoothly than the Middle East and Africa and this change is indeed helping the system fix itself in Asia. However, it is hard to say the same for the Middle East, Caucasus and Africa.
Let us note that the change in Turkey is much more significant, as it is not confined to Anatolia alone and includes MENA, Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. Turkey's dynamics of change will also resolve all questions in the entirety of the region dating back to the 20th century, including the Palestine-Israel conflict. At this point, we need to look at Erdoğan's pioneering role in Turkey's economic change.
This historical and current economic political reality underlies Erdoğan's criticism of the EU and his emphasis on the SCO. Apart from all of this, we see that the U.S. will step into a new Keynesian period under Donald Trump's presidency. To what extent will the U.S.'s strategy of overcoming a new crisis through infrastructure investments be realistic? The world is not the world of the 1940s, so I do not think the U.S. will be able to overcome the crisis by imitating what it did in the 20th century. However, countries like Turkey will help both themselves and the world tackle the crisis by pursuing quite a different path from the one they pursued in the previous century.