Making Sense of Turkey's Rising Power Status: What Does Turkey's Approach Within NATO Tell Us?

Abstract

This article tries to decode Turkey's rise in the context of relations with Western powers within NATO. The main question to be answered is whether Turkey's rise can be interpreted as a challenge to the primacy of the current international order that has been to a significant extent shaped by the Western powers. Unlike other rising powers, Turkey has developed strong institutional relations with these states. NATO is one of those institutional platforms in which Turkey has been in close contact with the established Western powers. The positions that Turkey has adopted on the issues occupying NATO's transformation agenda can offer clues as to how to interpret Turkey's recent rise.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Paul Kubicek and Emel Parlar Dal for their insightful comments on earlier versions of this article.

Notes on Contributor

Tarık Oğuzlu is currently a Prof. Dr in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Antalya International University. His research interests are international relations theories, Europeanization of foreign policy, European Union foreign and security policy, transatlantic relations, Turkish foreign policy, Turkey's relations with EU and NATO/USA, Turkey–Greece relations, Cyprus dispute, and Turkey and the Middle East.

Notes

1. Fontaine and Kliman, “International Order and Global Swing States,” 101–2.

2. Oğuzlu, “An Analysis of Turkey's Prospective Membership,” 285–99.

3. Nolte, “How to Compare Regional Powers,” 881–901.

4. Murray and McCoy, “From Middle Power to Peacebuilder,” 171–88.

5. Neack, The New Foreign Policy Power, 81–4.

6. Bacık, “Turkey and the BRICS.” For example, Bacik, in contrast to this piece, does not mention the links established with Western powers among the criteria as to how to categorize BRICS countries. To him, material and tangible power capabilities seem to suffice for deciding which countries are to be included among the BRICS group. Based on this, he argues that Turkey, having an economic power comparable to South Africa, can be understandably listed under the BRICS category.

7. “Turkey Owns, Leads, Serves to ‘New Mideast:’ Davutoğlu.”

8. Kardaş, “Quest for Strategic Autonomy Continues,” 1–2.

9. Schirm, “Leaders in Need of Followers,” 197–221; Hart and Jones, “How Do Rising Powers Rise?” 63–88.

10. Burges, “Brazil as a Bridge Between Old and New Powers?” 577–94.

11. Wolff, “The Structural and Political Crisis of NATO Transformation,” 476–92.

12. Kay, “What Went Wrong with NATO?” 69–82.

13. Stephen, “Rising Regional Powers and International Institutions,” 289–309.

14. Selden, “Balancing Against or Balancing With?” 330–64.

15. Paul, “Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy,” 46–71.

16. Larson and Shevchenko, “Status Seekers Chinese and Russian Responses to U.S. Primacy,” 63–95.

17. Oğuzlu, “Turkey's Eroding Commitment to NATO,” 153–64.

18. Sjursen, “On the Identity of NATO,” 687–703.

19. Oğuzlu, “NATO ve Türkiye: Dönüşen İttifakın Sorgulayan Üyesi,” 99–124.

20. Öniş, “Turkey in the Post-Cold War Era,” 48–68.

21. Holmberg, “The Changing Role of NATO,” 529–46.

22. Mowle and Sacko, “Global NATO,” 597–618

23. Moens, “Transatlantic Bipolarity and NATO's Global Role,” 241–52.

24. Güvenç and Özel, “NATO and Turkey in the Post-Cold War World,” 533–53.

25. Davutoğlu, “Transformation of NATO and Turkey's Position,” 7–17.

26. İsmail, “What is Turkey's Position on Libya?”

27. Ian, “Turkey and France Clash Over Libya Air Campaign.”

28. Çelikpala, “Escalating Rivalries and Diverging Interests,” 295–7.

29. Aybet, “The Evolution of NATO's Three Phases,” 19–36.

30. Davutoğlu, “Transformation of NATO and Turkey's Position,” 10.

31. Türkmen, “Anti-Americanism as a Default Ideology of Opposition,” 329–45.

32. Güney, “Anti-Americanism in Turkey,” 471–87.

33. Akçali and Perinçek, “Kemalist Eurasianism,” 550–69.

34. Florini, “Rising Asian Powers and Changing Global Governance,” 24–33.

35. Gruen, “Turkey's Role in Peacekeeping Missions,” 435–49.

36. Vamvakas, “NATO and Turkey in Afghanistan and Central Asia,” 57–74.

37. Kibaroğlu, “Turkey's Place in the ‘Missile Shield’,” 223–36.

38. Lesser, “Turkey, the NATO Summit, and After,” 1–2.

39. Davutoğlu, “Transformation of NATO and Turkey's Position,” 11.

40. Flockhart, “NATO and the (Re)-Constitution of Roles,” 3.

41. Davutoğlu, “Transformation of NATO and Turkey's Position,” 12.

42. Oğuzlu, “Turkey and the West,” 981–98.

43. Tocci, “Let's Talk Turkey!” 399–416.

44. Özel, “NATO Summit,” 2–3.

45. “Active Engagement, Modern Defense Strategic Concept.”

46. Howorth, “ESDP and NATO Wedlock or Deadlock?” 235–54.

47. Hallams, “The Transatlantic Alliance Renewed,” 38–60.

48. Aykan, “Turkey and European Security,” 335–59.