Just three- four years ago, “breaking news” with an urgent code was rare. Because we had smaller crises and problems back then.
Now, however, we have "breaking news" alarms on our phones almost every hour. We feel as if we are constantly on pins and needles.
There are two reasons for this:
First, crises and problems that the world and country deal with have dramatically risen. Indeed, we are experiencing developments that alarm people.
Second, they have exaggerated the “breaking news” warning. Everything and every development is released with an urgent code, which is a complete disgrace. So, we have gotten used to it.
Now let's look at the crises we have experienced in the past ten days:
The Northern Iraq referendum.
The Idlib operation.
The Afrin operation.
The Astana talks on conflict areas in Syria.
The crisis with Germany.
The removal of the Transition from Primary to Secondary Education (TEOG) exam.
All these issues are on all our agendas. So, we have a last-minute development every hour.
Well, how do we see these crises? How do we analyze and resolve them? Do we finally bring them to a healthy solution? Do we at least understand them?
I think we have problems in understanding and analyzing crises. Although types and degrees of crises are different, the problems of solving problems are common.
I identify the common reasons as follows:
Problems with defining friends and foes
If we are going to play international politics in accordance with global rules (which we have to do, as we cannot afford the contrary), then primarily we must redefine the concepts of friend and foe. Neither friendships nor enmities are permanent. You may be a foe of your friend or vice versa in the future. You may even be friends and enemies simultaneously.
Then you have to act accordingly, talk accordingly, and strategize accordingly. In fact, there is alliance, not friendship. There is the conflict of interest, not enmity. We have to define it like this.
It was equally wrong to tell the world what an enemy Russia was when we fell at loggerheads with the country, and to say “Long live Putin” when we made peace with the country.
We had the same problem with the crises that we had with the U.S., Germany, the Netherlands, Northern Iraq, Syria, Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Emotional reactions, emotional statements and emotional decisions were our biggest problem. When we had to do things contrary to what we had said, all the news were statements consisting of emotional reactions.
Populism, valor, slogan
We express our emotional reactions with a rhetoric that is full of valor adorned with slogans and that slips toward populism. The headlines of newspapers, the columns of authors, the statements of politicians and the attitude of leaders always bring us to the same point.
We think it is good when it is a "TT” on the social media, but this sudden, valorous and populist rhetoric does the greatest harm to inter-state relations. It is not possible to solve crises with pressure and direction from others. Even in diplomacy there is a scale of love and hate.
Lack of policy
The first thing to do to overcome a crisis is to produce a solution policy immediately. This policy, produced by a team of professionals, experts and consultants, is the official policy of the state and the country. The state institutions also know this policy and follow it.
I do not think we have a global policy in the crises we have experienced lately. Every institution often had a mind of its own, leading to a great coordination problem. Everyone passed the buck on to the Presidency and chose to wait. The crises could not be resolved for this reason.
The latest example is the crisis that was caused by the lack of an education policy. What are we going to replace the exams with? We do not know that yet. Because no policy was set in advance.
Why do people feel the need to make statements and explanations on every issue? The countries that speak the least but do the most in the world are the U.K. and Israel. They play a leading role in every subject but no one sees or hears about it.
Talking about what you will do and showing the moves you will make means restricting yourself. I don’t know why we are so eager to make statements and to put ourselves forward even in issues we are not interested in. It is not a problem if we finally solve the crises. But this is not the case. Everyone is tired of saying “there is a serious communication problem.”
I think these issues concern not only the government, but of all of us. Instead of analyzing the problems with reason, knowledge and data, we choose to assess them with emotions, valor, our own mentality and to impulsively react. Hence, these problems pile up.