A Paradigm Shift in Turkish Foreign Policy: Transition and Challenges

Abstract

This study sets out to explain the general characteristics of current Turkish foreign policy where it examines the interplay between important world events and emergent novel ideas at four different levels of analysis (conceptual setting, micro‐setting, domestic macro‐setting, and external macro‐setting). The new Turkish foreign policy vision and its normative strategy, derived from Davutoğlu's Strategic Depth, have been blended with five new principles: balance between security and freedom; zero problems with neighbors; multidimensional and multi‐track policies; a new diplomatic discourse based on firm flexibility; and rhythmic diplomacy.

Notes

1. David J. Singer, “The Levels of Analysis Problem in International Relations,” in J. N. Rosenau (ed.), International Politics and Foreign Policy (New York: Free Press, 1969), pp. 20–29.

2. For an excellent account on the original movement of neo‐Ottomanism, see Şerif Mardin, Yeni Osmanlı Düşüncesinin Doğuşu [The Birth of the Idea of the New Ottoman] (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2007) and Michael Rubin, “Shifting Sides? The Problem of neo‐Ottomanism” (2004), http://meforum.org/article/628 (accessed January 20, 2008). In addition, see Tarik Oğuzlu, “Middle Easternization of Turkey's Foreign Policy: Does Turkey Dissociate from the West?” Turkish Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (March 2008).

3. James N. Rosenau, The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy (London: Francis Pinter, 1980).

4. David Singer, “The Levels of Analysis Problem in International Relations”, pp. 20–29.

5. Birol A. Yeşilada, “Turkish Foreign Policy Toward the Middle East,” in A. Eralp, M. Tünay and B. Yeşilada (eds.), The Political and Socioeconomic Transformation of Turkey (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993), pp. 169–192.

6. Tanzimat means “reorganization.” It indicates a series of reforms in the Ottoman Empire from 1839 to 1876 under the rule of the sultans Abdülmecid I and Abdülaziz. These reforms were intended to transform the empire, which was based on theocratic principles, to a European‐style modern state.

7. For more details, see Şerif Mardin, Yeni Osmanlı Düşüncesinin Doğuşu (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2007).

8. Ali Fuat Borovalı, “Post‐Modernity, Multiculturalism and Ex‐Imperial Hinterland: Habsburg and Ottoman Legacies Revisited,” in Perceptions, Vol. 2, No. 4 (December 1997‐February 1998).

9. Ibid.

10. Zülfü Livaneli, “Neo‐Ottoman or Ottoman Hinterland?” Sabah (June 16, 1992).

11. See Zülfü Livaneli, “Rainbow Identity,” Sabah (July 20, 1994).

12. Cengiz Çandar, “Turgut Özal: The Ottoman of the 21^st Century,” Sabah (April 28, 1992).

13. Ibid.

14. Rubin, “Shifting Sides?”

15. Stephanos Constandinides, “Turkey: The Emergence of a New Foreign Policy the Neo‐Ottoman Imperial Model,” Journal of Political and Military Sociology (Winter 1996), http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3719/is_199601/ai_n8750313/print (accessed September 15, 2009).

16. Joseph E. Fallon, “The Neo‐Ottoman Empire,” Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture (April 2006), http://islamfund.blogspot.com/2007/12/neo-ottoman-empire.html (accessed September 15, 2009).

17. Güler Kömürcü, “Derviş'li AKP ve Yeni Osmanlı Birliği Planı,” [The AKP and the New Ottoman Unity Plan with Derviş] Akşam (July 20, 2004); Yaman Törüner, “Büyük Ortadoğu Projesi,” [The Grand Middle East Project] Milliyet (February 26, 2004).

18. See Tarik Oğuzlu, “Middle Easternization of Turkey's Foreign Policy: Does Turkey Dissociate from the West?” in Turkish Studies Vol. 9, No. 1 (2008), pp. 3–20; N. Raptopoulos, “Rediscovering its Arab Neighbors? The AKP Imprint on Turkish Foreign Policy in the Middle East,” Les Cahiers du RMES (2004); G. Çavdar, “Islamist New Thinking in Turkey: A Model for Political Learning?” in Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 121, No. 3 (2006), pp. 477–497.

19. Kınıklıoğlu, “The Return of Ottomanism,” Todays Zaman (March 20, 2007), http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/yazarDetay.do?haberno=105869 (accessed September 20, 2008).

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid.

22. Sedat Laçiner, “Küresel Bakış,” The Journal of Turkish Weekly (July 19, 2008), http://www.turkishweekly.net/turkce/yazarlar.php?type=3&id=366 (accessed November 15, 2008).

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid.

25. Richard Falk, “Reconsidering Turkey,” Zaman (October 6, 2004).

26. Ahmet Davutoğlu, Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye'nin Uluslararası Konumu [Strategic Depth: The International Position of Turkey] (Istanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2001).

27. Alexander Murinson, “The Strategic Depth Doctrine of Turkish Foreign Policy,” Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 42, No. 6 (2006), p. 947.

28. Davutoğlu, Stratejik Derinlik.

29. Murinson, “The Strategic Depth Doctrine of Turkish Foreign Policy”, p. 947.

30. Ahmet Davutoğlu, Turkish Daily News (June 14, 2001).

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid.

33. For Ahmet Davutoğlu's in‐depth analysis on the civilization aspect in world politics, see A. Davutoğlu, “The Clash of Interests: An Explanation of the World (Dis)Order,” Perceptions, Vol. 2, No. 4 (December 1997‐February 1998) and A. Davutoğlu, “It's Only Natural,” Al‐Ahram Weekly (December 13–19, 2001).

34. Ahmet Davutoğlu, “The Power Turkey Does Not Use is that of Strategic Depth,” Turkish Daily News (June 14, 2001).

35. Ibid.

36. For more details, see Ahmet Sözen, “Changing Fundamental Principles in Turkish Foreign Policy Making”. Paper presented at the International Studies Association Annual Convention, San Diego, CA, March 22–25, 2006.

37. For a detailed study on the religious parties in Turkey, see Birol A. Yeşilada, “The Virtue Party,” Turkish Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Spring 2002), pp. 62–81.

38. For Gül's presidency debate, see “Generals' Warning May Prove Positive,” Guardian, May 1, 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/01/simontisdall.international (accessed November 20, 2008).

39. In 2009, Köksal Toptan was replaced as the president of the parliament by Mehmet Ali Şahin, a moderate AKP MP and former state minister who comes from the National Outlook tradition and is very close to the prime minister.

40. For the new penal law adultery issue, see “Turkey Revises its Penal Code in Bid to Join the European Union,” New York Times, (September 27, 2004), http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/27/international/europe/27turkey.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&position=&oref=slogin (accessed November 20, 2008).

41. See Abbas Güçlü, “AKP de system partisi oldu,” [AKP, too, Became a System Party] Milliyet (June 30, 2007), http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2007/06/30/yazar/guclu.html (accessed November 20, 2008).

42. See “Hamas Visit: Good Diplomacy by Ankara,” Zaman, (February 21, 2006), http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/yazarDetay.do?haberno=30119 (accessed November 20, 2008).

43. See “Erdoğan Angered by Israel's Gaza Campaign,” Today's Zaman, http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=162602 (accessed January 14, 2010).

44. See “Un‐understandable Logic behind the Visit,” Turkish Daily News, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/h.php?news=un-understandable-logic-behind-the-visit-2008-01-28 (accessed January 14, 2010).

45. Gürkan Zengin, “Davutoğlu Kitabını Hayata Geçiriyor,” [Davutoğlu Puts His Book into Practice] Star Gazetesi (January 21, 2008).

46. “Turkey's Foreign Policy: An Eminence Grise,” The Economist, (November 15, 2007), http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10146653 (accessed November 20, 2008).

47. See Stephan F. Larrabee and Ian O. Lesser, Turkish Foreign Policy in an Age of Uncertainty (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2003), p. 16.

48. Ahmet Sözen, “Turkish Democratization in Light of its EU Candidate Status,” in K. Inglis and A. Ott (eds.), The Constitution for Europe and an Enlarging Union: Union in Diversity? (Amsterdam: Europa Law Publishing), pp. 300–304.

49. There were several reasons for Turkey's limited success in expanding its influence in Central Asia in the 1990s. Turkey did not have the necessary financial means and resources to take an important economic and political role in the region. The “Turkish model,” based on democracy, secularism, and market economy, had little attraction from the autocratic leaders of the region. Turkey's domestic problems limited the amount of attention and resources Turkey could devote to the region. In addition, Russian influence in the region was stronger than had been anticipated in Turkey. For further details, see William Hale, Turkish Foreign Policy: 1774–2000 (London, Portland OR: Frank Cass, 2000), pp. 191–212.

50. See “Synopsis of the Turkish Foreign Policy,” at the Turkish Foreign Ministry web site, http://www.mfa.gov.tr/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Synopsis/SYNOPSIS.htm (accessed November 20, 2008).

51. Ibid.

52. Sözen, “Turkish Democratization in Light of its EU Candidate Status.”

53. Ekrem Dumanlı, “Erdogan: No Stepping Back from the Copenhagen Criteria in the Fight Against Terror,” Todays Zaman (September 14, 2005), http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20050914&hn=24050 (accessed November 20, 2008).

54. Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer called for democracy and reform in Muslim countries during the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) in June 2004, where the foreign ministers came together in Istanbul in June 2004.

55. On October 10, 2009, Turkey and Armenia signed two important protocols to normalize their relationship after a crisis over the speeches of the two foreign ministers, which lasted several hours and was defused by the intervention of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

56. Davutoğlu, Stratejik Derinlik.

57. Tarık Ramadan, “Free Speech and Civic Responsibility: Cartoon Controversy 2,” International Herald Tribune (February 5, 2006), http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/05/opinion/edramadan.php (accessed November 20, 2008).

58. Gürken Zengin, CNN Turk Special Editorial (February 17, 2004).

59. Ibid.

60. For further details, see Ziya Öniş, “The Turkish Economy at the Turn of a New Century: Critical and Comparative Perspectives,” in M. Abromowitz (ed.), Turkey's Transformation and American Policy (New York: The Century Foundation Press, 2000), pp. 95–115.

61. For further details, see Hale, Turkish Foreign Policy, pp. 195–199.

62. For further details, see Svante E. Cornell, “The Kurdish Question in Turkish Politics,” in M. S. Radu (ed.), Dangerous Neighborhood: Contemporary Issues in Turkey's Foreign Relations (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2003), pp. 123–142 and M. S. Radu, “The Rise and Fall of the PKK,” in M. S. Radu (ed.), Dangerous Neighborhood: Contemporary Issues in Turkey's Foreign Relations (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2003), pp. 143–164.