The International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicted in its report for July 2017 that there would be relative-partial growth increase in major emerging and advanced economies, but that the world growth average would remain at 3.5 percent.

What is noteworthy here is that the growth of developed countries, especially of the U.S., is far below those of developing countries with an average of 2 percent. Despite all the efforts made by the U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed), the U.S. growth cannot reach the desired level in terms of inflation and unemployment data. In fact, this infertility that cannot be overcome despite the Fed shows us that the issue is too deep to be resolved by "monetary" expansion alone. This is even more evident for the eurozone. No matter how hard he tries, European Central Bank (ECB) President Mario Draghi will not be able to find a solution to the crisis in Southern and Eastern Europe. Germany is stopping the European expansion and considers an almost racist enmity toward Turkey and Islam to be a formula of liberation. So, it is responsible for both the current and coming European crisis. But the U.S. knows that the crisis cannot be resolved with monetary policies any longer. Although the Fed is still unaware of this, U.S. President Donald Trump and the team are well aware.

Of course, the fact that the crisis is so deep and structural reminds Trump of the solutions of the Cold War era. Even though the "nuclear chitchat" we had last week in this framework is a throwback to the Cold War, it is somewhat different from what happened from 1947 to 1991. This time North Korea is playing a bit part for both the U.S. and China and prevents us from seeing that there is a new trade order dominance issue between the U.S. and China starting from the Pacific. However, the previous Cold War was clearly the (nuclear) balance of the repartition of the world through the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

Former U.S. President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to resolve the problem of the U.S. dominance of the Pacific by making partial agreement with China and forming the trans-Pacific line. However, even Obama understood in the last period of his rule that neither the trans-Pacific nor the trans-Atlantic line would work. As he understood, he spent the last four years in power trying to ensure that Turkey has no activity in the new world order. He supported the Syrian civil war, ambiguity in the Middle East, terrorist structures in the region, and lastly the Democratic Union Party (PYD)/PKK terrorism. Daesh is also an Obama-era organization in this sense. This is because both the trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic trade regimes were based on the U.S. "appeasing" China and Russia and receiving their support and - almost - ignoring the rest of the world.

According to this projection, even South Korea did not have such an initiative in Asia. "No countries in South America, Africa and the Caucasus would raise their heads and they would practice old neoliberal policies without questioning, would be positioned as not the producers, but consumers and markets of the new industrial revolution [Industry 4.0] and their financial structures would be dependent on London, New York and Frankfurt."

Here was the U.S.'s plan in the Obama era: "If we keep world trade by neutralizing central developing countries, it will not be a problem for us to constantly run deficits. It is also good for a trade order based on the dollar. There is no point in running constantly huge deficits in our trade with China, because at the end of the day, China has to buy more dollars and U.S. bonds with its surpluses."

This was also true for the west of Asia. According to them, the petro-dollar system would still be in place in the Gulf, Turkey would be economically integrated with the EU and continue its dollar-based debt economy and the new German-centric consolidation in Europe would also capture the east of Europe. The "liberal" revolutions in Eastern and Northeastern European countries, which are the old Russian territories, would emerge as the bastions of the trans-Atlantic order.

They tried to actualize this scenario with coups in countries like Egypt and "liberal" operations and coup attempts in Latin America and Turkey, as they knew that the potential for growth was in these countries and that it would not come back anymore. So, what must be done was to allow controlled growth in these countries, seize the political mechanisms and transfer the resources back to the center again.

However, things did not go as desired; they succeeded with coups in countries like Egypt and with "velvet revolutions" in some previously Soviet-dominated countries. But many developing countries, especially Turkey, chose to set their own way. Russia and China made it clear that they would not be so "soft," and would not share the economic advantage that was turning toward their favor.

This fact surfaced when Trump came to power in the U.S. Moreover, Britain saw the EU's German-centric stalemate and initiated the Brexit process. So, both the trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic lines fizzled out. What was left behind was terror and coup scenarios and neoliberal clichés of this scheme.

In this case, Trump rightfully cancelled all these agreements, questioning, "We run deficits in trade with Asia and we do not reinforce the dominance as it is claimed, so why do we continue this?" On all G20 platforms, he reiterated that the U.S. runs redundant deficits and came to take up a "protectionist" attitude.

Of course, the political aspect of this attitude was a partial Pacific nuclear chitchat. As a matter of fact, in this case, the EU became more complicated. ECB President Mario Draghi made a speech in Portugal on June 27, which still no one understands. Germany has further taken over the reins and the euro has gone through the roof to tear up Eastern Europe.

Under all these circumstances, Turkey has come to have the upper hand. Now, it is poised to determine the northern energy and trade routes with Russia, and the central and southern energy and trade axes with China and the countries in the region on its own.

This picture will undoubtedly determine our economic policies.

Turkey will strongly actualize a market-friendly and open economic policy and carry out reforms in line with this policy. While the U.S. is floundering in the stalemate of protectionism, the EU is shrinking under Germany's leadership. In this case, countries like Turkey will set the new world order. This is inevitable now.