Kant's Categorical Imperative and Turkey's Precious Loneliness

                                           German Philosopher Immanuel Kant, 1724-1804

    A few months ago a high ranked government official of Turkey said “The claim that Turkey has been left alone in the Middle East is not true, and if it is then we should say it is precious loneliness.” He described precious as “worthy or valuable” or “value based”. Accordingly, between realpolitik and a moral based policy approach, Turkey opted for the latter. Therefore, Turkey’s loneliness stem from its insistence on ethics and universal values.

    It is hard to judge “preciousness” from an objective standpoint. Yet we can test the moral standards of Turkey’s foreign policy by using Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative. In evaluating motivations for an action, Kant argued that the only objective basis for moral value was rationality for good will. He came up with three formulations and argued that immorality occurs when at least one of them is not followed.

    In formulation one, Kant stated “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.” While aggressively protesting the coup in Egypt, Erdogan hosted Omar Al Bashir, the President of Sudan who orchestrated a coup and committed war crimes according to International Criminal Court.  If Turkey’s maxim is to take stance against military coups, it contradicted itself by hosting an undemocratic leader at the highest level. Therefore, Turkey violated the first formulation.

    In formulation two, Kant stated "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end." While asking for more religious rights for Muslims in Greece, Turkey did not reopen the Halki Seminary, the main theological school of Eastern Orthodox Christianty. Erdogan explained his decision by saying “Why should we always give? We ask for reciprocity.” By following tit for tat strategy in religious freedom, Turkey treated its Greek minority as a means to reach its own end. Therefore, Turkey violated the second formulation.

   A glimpse into Turkey’s foreign policy revealed that it failed the rationality for good will. Therefore, adherence to value based policies is not a significant reason for its loneliness. The reason for Turkey’s loneliness might have been its foreign policy itself, as it seems to have squeezed itself between realpolitik and a moral based policy approach. As a result, Turkey limited its options and leverage points, therefore diminished its friends.

Salih Yasun

Cleveland State University

Undergraduate Student