The 4th Antalya Diplomacy Forum has become one of the established brands of Turkish foreign policy and an important platform to showcase Türkiye’s global diplomatic activism. Compared to other international forums, the Antalya Diplomacy Forum’s ambition is not only for greater visibility but also to gain a strong foothold in terms of content and meaning. This year, with more than 6,000 participants and heads of state and government from different countries, the three days of diplomatic traffic were a lively three days of “the world gathered in Antalya.” Antalya, which is already a global center for tourism, has become one of the hot spots of international politics through this forum, providing a significant added value to the tourism geopolitics of the city.
The most critical aspect of the forum is that it provided an important basis for understanding the current course of Turkish foreign policy. Türkiye’s foreign policy framework is not limited to its immediate neighborhood. It is actively involved in many issues on a global scale. At a time when the fragility of the international system is increasing day by day and uncertainties prevail in a wide range of issues from security to trade, global warming and human security, Türkiye is one of the countries that emphasizes the need for diplomacy the loudest. While the global power rivalry, which has taken shape in President Donald Trump's era in the U.S. and has become even fiercer, has made the fault lines in world politics more visible, Türkiye stands out in this environment by emphasizing the principles of negotiation instead of conflict, inclusiveness instead of exclusiveness and multilateralism instead of unilateralism. Of course, it is not possible to say that Turkish foreign policy is naive in its defense of these principles.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s messages at the forum and the diplomatic framework outlined by Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan reveal that Turkish foreign policy is based on the reality on the ground and is carried out with a multidimensional approach. The Middle East is one of the clearest examples in this regard. In a period of intensifying conflict dynamics, Türkiye is balancing by activating its deterrence capacity when necessary, while keeping all diplomatic tools in place. In this context, President Erdoğan’s message on Syria that “we will never allow the destabilization of Syria” was not only a regional security concern but also a reflection of an attitude directly related to Türkiye’s strategic priorities. Moreover, the participation of Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa in the forum and his direct contact with representatives of Türkiye and other countries should be read as a sign of new diplomatic openings on the Syrian issue. In this sense, the forum demonstrated the potential of developing solutions not only at the level of discourse but also at the level of action.
In the same context, Israel’s quest to open a new area of instability through Syria is in clear contradiction with Türkiye’s national interests and its policies on Syria. Erdoğan and Fidan have made this position clear, while at the same time, the Israeli side has stated that it does not want conflict in Syria. Trump’s warning to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to be rational about Türkiye should be remembered in this context. Otherwise, Israel’s military action or intelligence activities that would destabilize the region would lead to a direct reaction from Türkiye. For this reason, one of the prominent topics at the forum was the message to establish a de-escalation mechanism between Türkiye and Israel.
The diplomatic traffic in Antalya should have been carefully monitored to understand the general outlines of Türkiye’s foreign policy framework and its future perspective. President Erdoğan’s renewed focus on European Union membership shows that Türkiye is still pursuing this goal, while the European position on Türkiye is far from realistic. As a result of the war in Ukraine and the foreign policies pursued by the U.S. in the Trump era, Europe faces two deficits: a security deficit and an economic deficit.
Despite knowing that it needs an actor like Türkiye to close both of these gaps, Europe is deliberately excluding Türkiye from its defense and security architectures. However, what is remarkable here is that at a time when the U.S. is step by step withdrawing from the region, a European architecture that excludes Türkiye will lead to a weakening of the continent. In other words, two critical pillars of European security are being weakened simultaneously. This approach threatens not only Türkiye-Europe relations but also Europe’s strategic resilience. Ultimately, Türkiye’s “selective engagement” approach will make these vulnerabilities even more visible.
It is obvious that Europe should turn to Türkiye for economic cooperation. However, here too, political issues take precedence over strategic ones, indicating that Europe is approaching the issues with tactical reflexes.
At the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, many topics from Africa to Asia, from climate change to security, were discussed within this framework. The bilateral meetings, mini summits and thematic sessions were very meaningful in terms of showcasing the multidimensional structure and broad portfolio of Turkish foreign policy.
Another important dimension of the forum is that Antalya has become an alternative discursive platform. In forums organized in Western capitals, it is very difficult for the voices of relatively weaker actors to be heard. Western perspectives are centered on their own interests, and issues are addressed with this one-dimensional approach. When Syria is on the agenda, Syrians are absent; when discrimination against Muslims in Southeast Asia is on the agenda, regional representatives are absent. When it comes to Africa, colonial reflexes are still effective. One of the main problems of such platforms is that the West acts in a reductionist and patronizing language rather than a human-centered one. However, the Antalya Diplomacy Forum demonstrates that it is also possible to have an approach that looks at the world at eye level and is centered on justice and equity. Erdoğan’s call for a “just world order,” which he repeatedly voices on every international platform, is the cornerstone of this perspective. The solution to today’s global crises can only be possible through a common language and understanding of legitimacy.
At this point, the example of Gaza is striking. The silence of the international system in the face of Israel’s genocidal policies seriously undermines the West’s discourse of a rules-based order. Moreover, this silence reaches a dimension that further legitimizes Israel’s violence. In such a period, the ability of countries like Türkiye, which advocate for rebuilding justice and legitimacy, to make their voices heard on common ground makes the Antalya Diplomacy Forum more than just a diplomatic event. This platform creates a place for itself as an alternative discursive space in global politics.
In conclusion, with the topics discussed this year, the Antalya Diplomacy Forum once again demonstrated that diplomacy is one of the most powerful tools of the international order and that the way to deal with global problems is through multilateral, participatory and equitable diplomatic grounds.
