surrounding regions and a country providing new vision and new horizon for the international relations. coming to the third earthquake, third earthquake started in 2009, 2010, but the real earthquake happened in 2011. it's a economy political earthquake. in this earthquake, we have an global economic crisis and it reflection to europe on one hand and a regional political earthquake, historic transformation on the other hand. now, sitting in the capitol of turkey. every day morning, when we wake up and start to work, usually i do wake up in other countries, but, still assume that i'm in turkey.

when we turn our eyes to our west, to europe, from greece up to spain, there's a zone of economic crisis. democratic governments being replaced by technocratic governments in some countries and there's a worry about the future of europe. european union and we as turkey, we want to be a european union and we want follow every event for our own future, when we turn our eyes to east and south from iran, and from syria, especially up to morrocco, there's political turmoil, political change and in the middle of these two crisis zones, there's a country having a stable democratic process, we had

elections last year. one of the fastest growing economies, last year, we were in two quarters we were first and in the second we were the second big growing and there's a country with a active foreign policy. when the arab uprising occurred it was a big challenge for the region and for turkey. the same day when abazzizi burned himself in protest. we made statements, and we had a special cabinet meeting and we took a strategic position. our assessment was that that revolve is not a nation revolve. it not a revolt of one country,

it widespread revolt, and now it time for change. and we asked what should be our foreign policy, how do we approach to this process and we said we will be supporting the demands of the arab people, wherever they are, and whatever they demand it is their right to demand. and why? because we looked at the flow of history. in one of my speeches in last year, march, i said this is the normalization of history. because 20th century there were two abnormal structures in the region. one was colonialism, which separated cities, societies from each other, like french and british colonies or british

colony in egypt and so all these countries, societies were separated from each other, the second abnormality was in the cold war, because north yemen was commnist, now it time to have a single ownership and throughout the cold war, because of the arab wars and because of the soviet type of governorance, there was a absence of link between the leaders and the people. and we said, it was a risky decision. it's always. now some people are surprised. as a former -- how we have to make a critical decision, usually they are long thinking,

slow acting people. that is the image, or utopic as they claim to me that some of our foreign policies are. but, unique to, if you make an assessment and if you trust yourself you have to make courageous decisions and the leadership should show these decisions. yes, turkish foreign policy took a risk last year. today it's easy to say, it was normal to go to mu bbarak, some countries sided with the wrong side of the revolt. we took risks. why? because we have a vision for our region, that vision for our

region is new regime, new political systems based on the demands of the people. and a new regime fully integrated to each other through the economic policies. that was our stand when we had good existing relationships because there was no problem between us and their people. and this is our policy today. second principal was if we are on the side of the people, then, how could we help to this process and we said, we will use all the means of diplomacy until the end in order to prevent bloody transition. and every case in the middle east and north africa are unique in itself, the demands is the

same, and the process is the same. but the countries are different. egypt is egypt, libya tunisia, they are almost, all arab people, while in iraq or syria, you have much more diversified societies. the army's structures are different. egyptian army has different tradition than syrian army or libyan army. each case is unique, but the demands of the young generation is same and one for all. and our approach to this transformation, it's the same, but in each case, we had different diplomatic matters to help with the practice.

today, in syria, what we tried to do is, unique as compared to egypt and libya or tunisia, first of all, let me say, last month when i went to tehran, before going there, i gave a press conference, and a statement, we said we don't want to have cold war structures in our region, cold war tensions, a new cold war polarization in our country. and today when the resolution was vetoed i repeated the same, we do not want to see new cold war logic rising in our region. what did i mean? i mention inside the region, new polarizati ons, such as shiite

and suni countries. there was rejectionist camps, we do not want that type of separation. or pro west anti-west countries. in our region today, there's one single difference, those who are trying to keep cold war structures and those who are trying to understand the flow, the logic of the flow of history. and try to respond to the demands of the people accordingly. what do i mean, this? mubarak was pro west, assad was pro soviet, in cold war and

anti-west afterwards, mubarak and gadhafi was shiite, or close to shiite approach. our attitude against mubarak, gadhafi and assad is same and the demands of the young people and today of the people of homs is the same, they is a society, they had a same demand. what people in the square, young people wanted, is free and fair election, transparency accountability and what people in homs today want is same. rule of law, accountability, free and fair election.

so it means, it is not an issue of shiite and sunni, we need one consistent approach. turkey has a consistent approach. we are against any oppression in our region. we not want to see any regime seeing a country as if it is their own personal property, or property of their one ideology, but it belongs to the people of that nation. and turkey in principal is against any foreign intervention, we show this many times but at the same time, if there's an oppression by a leader, we could not be expected

to be silent. two weeks ago i was in moscow, i was asked a question that was, had good relations before, but you have some problems now, how do you evaluate? i said before he was not fighting against his own people. now, he is fighting against his own people. when i went to last time, to demascus last august, i made it clear, if there's a foreign attack against you we will side with you, but if you fight against your own people and force us to decide, either with i you or with the people, we will not think one time, we will be with the people. we said be like a go are rbechev, transform the system.

but he preferred to be different, it was his choice and today we are siding with the people of homs, like we sided with the people of sorevio. for us, one of these oppressor is from one ground and the other is this one is this type but oppression is oppres sion, when we look at the region, there's three sub regions, one is north africa. if we had this meeting last year, we would not imagine that in one year, that there would be free and fair elections in

tunesia or morroco or egypt. but in one year we are optimistic and hopeful, because there were free and fair elections in these three countries and there's a transitional process going on in libya. we had many challenges, we should not forget, we should not forget. that in the first earthquake, geopolitical earthquake, it start happen in 1991, and then we had the kosovo war in 1999, all this should have been achieved in the middle east in the '90s. in north africa, now all international organizations, all regional powers should be having full solidarity in indonesia,

and the prime minister is from na -- president is from a leftist nationalist party, it's a good combination, we should not look at the composition of the paliament and think there were worries, what will be happening to eaisrael governmen this should not be a concern for the egypt, there's only one authority to decide, egyptian people, no other concerns should lead us or lead international politics. if there's a democratic government, that democratic government will decide what is good or what is bad for their

own people. if that people is not happy with that government, the next day, the next election, they will change, not us. we have to have full solidarity during this process with libya. and we have to create success stories, rather than creating new negative images. the second zone is more gulf countries, less populated and more income and there are many incomes, in bahrain, despite defendant difficults, i went to bahrain to have discussions and at the end of the day more stable, but the more challenging third -- more

challenging for the sub region is the third which is from iraq, syria, lebanon, led a challenging neighborhood. and the backbone of this is today syria. regarding syria, last year, we had three stage diplomacy, the first was engagement with the administration, we did it. we worked hard, eight months on to september. and unfortunately we were not able to convince the administration to stop the violence and to go direct to the reformed. then we started after, after september, we started a region with the arab league, we supported all arab league plans. when arab league came to a point that there's support, we had the third stage international stage

and arab league supported the resolution against the council and turkey supported this resolution, unfortunately there was a veto, now at this stage, we cannot just wait and see. we have to create a new international awareness. regarding the sufferings of syrian people, therefore in these days we are talking and consulting with all the concerned parties and actors medical record to create such an international awareness, so, in short. the economy political earthquake, the after shocks will continue to be coming, we cannot be day dreaming, there will be challenging risks in front of us. but two references will make us strong. one, the values we are defending, and we will continue

to defend these same values everywhere in the world, second, active foreign policy diplomasy. to resolve these issues through peaceful means, if we can achieve the economic, management economic and political earthquake, in an appropriate manner, then a new convention, a new conference a new restructuring of international organizations will come as the new challenge in front of us, because we need now a new global order. a real inclusive global order. and a political order based on dialog, and economic order based on justice and a cultural order

based on inclusiveness and a >> probably one of the meatiest presentations i think we've heard in quite away. than, foreign minister. i've asked dr. aliriza to be the moderator for the questions. we only have about ten minute, because he has to get someplace else. bulla bulent, please. >> there's a whole bunch of hands. can you identify yourself? >> my name is-[ inaudible ] from the newspaper in juice lierusal.

do you see movement in the next 12 months and what role will turkey play in that round? >> so. since the agenda was more on syria i focused there, but whatever happens in our region could -- cannot be understood without making a reference to palestine and now there's a new middle east emerging. at the core of this crisis was palestinian question. therefore, in this new era, there should be a new initiative. there should be a new approach to the palestinian/israeli issue. first of all, our first should be reconstitution of palestinian groups. in last five, six months together with egypt we are working very hard to unite, and

to have one territory, one single authority in west bank and gaza, because without having one authority, even if one side makes a deal apiece, it will be difficult to implement, and i am happy to say that there are some positive developments, and as you know last week there was an agreement signed between mahmoud abbas and before that mahmoud abbas came to turkey. we had meetings to encourage them. this is something, good news. and we have to support this. without such there cannot be a meaningful peace process, and in this nation of consolation, the critical term is both sides accept the peaceful resistance.

this is a clear indication that hamas is now adapting a peaceful method of politics. but at the same time, mahmoud abbas is accepting a resistance if a country -- if a people is under occupation for so many decades, it is their right to defend themselves to resist, but in a peaceful manner, and until a peace being achieved. this is good side on palestinian side. this is a good news on palestinian side. we expect a good news from israeli side. unfortunately, until now, assad didn't give positive messages. neither to the region nor even to american administration or committee. unsettlement is continuing. the provocative statements regarding palestine is

continuing. and two-state solution is not being defended openly by all members of israeli government. now it is time to decide. what is the future of palestine? nobody can expect this existence to continue. palestinians deserve their state. i have to be very frank here. russia was wrong regarding syria. -- wrong regarding the palestinian state. if a policy is consistent with the human conscience, wit human wisdom, then that politics is a ta

-- sustainable. wherever you want, all human being, is behind palestinian state. except for some dogmatic people are behind the people in syria, and these are not contradictory. as turkey, we will support recognition of palestinian state, if possible tomorrow, if possible today this hour, because this nation deserves to have their own state. if there is -- if there is a need of negotiation for this, then israel must come to the table without making a pre-judgment, such as settlements. enough is enough. the people of our region, including turkey, we are paying for this, because of the prolonging of palestinian/israeli crisis. israelis must decide. what do they want? do they want one state? they are afraid of the demographic rise of palestinians. they don't want one state. do they want two states based on

1967 borders? not less. and is jerusalem the capital city of palestine? this is the consensus of the u.n. secretary, resolution, consensus of all of us. two-state, then they must come to the table, instead of building new settlements in the palestinians' zone, according to the 1967 borders. if they say that there will be no state, then they have to say this openly. so that we will know who want peace and who do not want to have peace. this new regional environment create as new hope for a middle eastern peace process. i hope everybody will understand this new logic of history, flow of history, and act accordingly for having a two-state solution where palestinians and israelis

live together side -- with mutual respect but full independence and sovereignty of palestinian state. >> i think we may have time for only one more question. can i ask you to stand up, please. >> -- >> we have a microphone. >> over here. >> [ inaudible ] from the -- mr. minister, you have had a lot of dealing with the iranian government. what is your take on the iranian attitude? how seriously do they take the possibility of a militaryinrven one. and number two, what kind of incentive will bring them back to the negotiation table with the p-5 plus one and finally, how do they justify, explain

their attitudes? >> regarding nuclear issue, as someone who -- issued almost five, six years and especially, us a know in 2010 we work very hard for a deal with brazil. i can say -- i am very sorry, in fact, because of the failure of all of these negotiations, because i know technical details through all these negotiations i became like a nuclear expert, because even for the last day of negotiations before tehran agreement was done, we negotiated nonstop 18 hours around the table. all the details. last year we had the last round of talks in istanbul, and last month i went to tehran, and i

encouraged and called for another round of talk. they said they are accepting. i spoke with -- she accepted. we you now, in these days we are workingf talk. knowing all the details, i can tell you the problem is not a technical problem. the technicalities of nuclear issue could be resolved in a few days, because it is clear what iran wants is right for peaceful -- we will tell them, you will have that right, like other nations, but you will comply with mpt and iaea regulations and they will check. what we want, and p-5 plus 1-1, that there is, there should not be a nuclear are military technology. so there should be certain assurances for both sides to be given to each other. for turkey, our position is clear.