After a 12-year period pause in high-level visits from Ankara to Beijing, Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan visited China this week.
The top Turkish diplomat's agenda during the three-day visit was filled with a diverse range of topics, from bilateral trade ties to perspectives on global conflicts as in Palestine and Ukraine, from energy and trade corridors to the situation of ethnic Uyghur Turks and Muslims in China.
Put briefly, Türkiye and China share similar perspectives on many issues. This shared stance includes strengthening mutually beneficial trade relations and exploring new initiatives for energy-related projects, solidarity with Palestine and Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The situation of ethnic Uyghur Turks in China seems to be a matter of divergence yet there is a willingness to keep communication channels open on communicating the concerns.
Turkish-Sino ties have had their ups and downs or periods of interregnum. At the moment, there is fertile ground and opportunity to bring the two ancient civilizations closer through a win-win relationship. Of course, I am referring to a pragmatic viewpoint where the two can benefit from the growing inconsistency in global power relations and the failure of global governance in steering regional conflicts to a peaceful ending via diplomacy.
The changing dynamics in Türkiye’s foreign policy approach and the balancing vision in its priorities have led Ankara to move beyond its traditional diplomatic sphere. The new diplomatic activism, coupled with growth in economic and defense abilities, diplomatic interferences and mediation efforts in international disputes as well as humanitarian and development cooperation with the global south, has increased Türkiye’s prestige and power from a mere emerging middle power. In other words, Türkiye’s balanced and active foreign policy has shifted its relative diplomatic power upward, making it a key actor between the East and the West or, in a way, a strategic player between the Global North and the Global South. This strategic position was clearly put to work as Ankara tried to mediate between Ukraine and Russia during the Black Sea Grain Initiative.
As such, at a time when U.S.-China rivalry is peaking, Fidan’s visit should be interpreted as a balancing move from Ankara. “We are closely following the developments in Asia Pacific and their geopolitical repercussions,” Fidan said during a presser with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi in Beijing.
“We believe that the challenges in Asia Pacific require effective multilateralism, constructive dialogue efforts and cooperation based on common priorities,” the Turkish diplomat said. He added: "The reflection of China's economic competitiveness to the international public opinion in a different way, and the endeavor to produce a different global struggle from here, is indeed an event that rings alarm bells for world peace, stability and development.”
These words indeed had an address other than mere diplomatic gestures. In a way, they were words defining where China will stand in Turkish foreign policy vision and what this would mean in Türkiye’s relationship with its traditional Western allies and partners.
This was also in line with how Fidan’s Chinese counterpart responded: “China is willing to continue to strengthen coordination and cooperation with the Turkish side within the framework of the United Nations and the Group of 20, to oppose all forms of hegemony and power politics, and to maintain the stability of the global supply chain.”
As Turkish diplomatic activism has expanded its geographical scope with Africa, Latin America and Asia Anew visions, Asia-Pacific will indeed occupy a strategic place on the decision-makers' agenda. Given the contradictions and inconsistencies in Western allies’ view of Türkiye, the eggs will be put on several different baskets and the baskets may even change at times. The global world order is going through a transformation now and it is uncertain how it will be designed for the long term. At a time of uncertainty, a state’s diplomatic consistency and pragmatism must go hand in hand to ensure maximizing self-interests, while also increasing regional and global influence. This is precisely the reason behind Ankara’s flirting with the BRICS as the EU lacks vision in its ties with Ankara.
“Certainly, we would like to become a member of BRICS. So we’ll see how it goes this year,” Fidan had also said during his visit as he blamed the EU for being stuck in identity-based politics biased against Türkiye.
As I had previously said in this column, the global world order is undergoing a transformation and it would be in the EU’s best interest to see the ‘big strategic picture’ as Fidan had previously described it and move beyond biases against Ankara.
This would require not only understanding and acknowledging the new reality about Türkiye’s growing power in different realms but also accepting it and re-thinking how to deal with Ankara and establish a win-win relationship. While powers like China, Russia, India and others in distant geographies are strategizing their relationship with the new Türkiye, it is hard to fathom where the EU and other Western allies stand in their ties with Türkiye.
