Turkey and Turkic Nations: A Post-Cold War Analysis of Relations: Turkish Studies: Vol 14 , No 2

Abstract

Turkish foreign policy has experienced massive alterations after the end of Cold War. This has been most evident in Turkey's relations with Turkic nations in Central Asia and the Caucasus, all of which gained independence from the USSR. This article aims to provide a thorough analysis on this issue. First, the article explores the ethnicity concept and applies it to the relations between Turkey and Turkic nations. Then, it examines Turkey's relations with other regional and international powers, namely Russia, the USA, and Iran, through the lenses of Central Asia and the Caucasia. Finally, the article questions the often monolithic view of Turkic nations in the eyes of the Turkish public and delves into the rich yet diverse bilateral relations between Turkey and each Turkic state. To this end, it analyzes Turkey's political, economic, and cultural ties with Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Carefully going over all of these subjects, the article intends to illustrate the multifaceted nature of Turkey's relations with Turkic nations and the prospects and obstacles ahead.

Notes

Aydın, “Foucault's Pendulum,” 1–22.

Sayarı, “Turkey, Caucasus,” 175–196.

Fuller, “The New Geopolitical Order,” 19–43.

I disregard any extremist exceptions under the umbrella of pan-Turkic ideology throughout Turkish Republican history.

Fuller, “The New Geopolitical Order.”

Ibid.

Horowitz, Ethnic Groups in Conflict.

Bulmer, “Race and Ethnicity,”.

Geertz, “The Integrative Revolution,” 259.

See Anderson, Imagined Communities; Chandra, “Cumulative Findings in the Study of Ethnic Politics,”; Deutsch, Nationalism and Social Communication; Gellner, Nations and Nationalism.

Laitin, Identity in Formation.

Bates, “Modernization, Ethnic Competition”; Posner, Institutions and Ethnic Politics in Africa.

Please see, Beller-Hann, “The Turkic Peoples of the World”; Beeley, “The Turkic Peoples of the World,” 369–370.

Suny, The Revenge of the Past.

Suny, “Provisional Stabilities,” 139–178.

Ibid.

Schoeberlein-Engel, “Identity in Central Asia,” 58.

Suny, Provisional Stabilities.

Ibid.

Olcott, “Kazakhstan,” 554–555.

Suny, “Provisional Stabilities.”

Ibid.

Hewitt, “The Value of the Past,” 96–98; Also see Suny, “Constructing Primordialism,” 862–896; and Brook, “Ethnic, Racial, and Religious Structure of the World Population,” 505–534.

Makovsky, “The New Activism in Turkish Foreign Policy,” 92–113.

Aral, “Dispensing with the Tradition?”, 72–88.

Özkeçeci-Taner, “Turkey's Foreign Policy in the Twenty-First Century,” 259–263.

Kushner, “Self-Perception and Identity in Contemporary Turkey,” 219–233.

Yanık, “The Politics of Educational Exchange,” 293–307.

Buszynski, “Russia's New Role in Central Asia,” 546–565.

Barylski, “The Russian Federation and Eurasia's Islamic Crescent,” 389–416.

Kozyrev, “Russia: Chance for Survival,” 12.

They are usually referred as nomenklatura, former functionaries of the Communist Party.

Olcott, “Emerging Political Elites,” 44–67.

Konarovsky, “Russia and the Emerging Geopolitical Order in Central Asia,” 235–260.

Ibid.

Aydın, “Foucault's Pendulum.”

Lubin, “Central Asia,” 261–272.

Aras and Fidan, “Turkey and Eurasia,” 203. Also see Cutler, “US–Russian Strategic Relations and the Structuration of Central Asia,” 109–125.

Hyman, “Moving out of Moscow's Orbit,” 289–304.

Lubin, “Central Asia,” 261–272.

Hyman, “Moving out of Moscow's Orbit.”

Calabrese, “Turkey and Iran,” 75–94.

Swietochowski, “Azerbaijan's Triangular Relationship,” 118–135.

Murinson, “The Strategic Depth Doctrine of Turkish Foreign Policy,” 945–964.

Sajjadpour, “Turkey, Caucasus, and Central Asia,” 197–215.

New York Times, “U.S. Hails Deal With Turkey on Missile Shield.” See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/world/europe/turkey-accepts-missile-radar-for-nato-defense-against-iran.html

Sayarı, “Turkey, Caucasus.”