https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4006-1401
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article examines the rigid boundaries in relations between China and Turkey by applying social identity theory to international relations. It evaluates different networks of political alliance and external cultural-ethnic ties as rigid boundaries between the two countries. Turkey-China relations have been shaped by both inter-systemic and inter-state dynamics. Therefore, to show how social context and the permeability of social structure have affected the nature of bilateral relations, this article divides relations into two historical contexts of Cold War and post-Cold War periods. It concludes that it will be hard to go beyond rigid boundaries as long as each side has its own solutions to problems between the two countries.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Note on contributor
Nilgün Eliküçük Yıldırım is Assistant Professor in the Department of International Relations at Atılım University in Ankara. Her research interest includes Chinese Foreign Policy, Turkish-Chinese relations, Social Psychology, Non-Western International Relations Theory.
Notes
1 Pew Research Center, “Do You Have a Favorable?” According to the results of the survey conducted in an average of 30 countries between 2009 and 2017, Turkey is either last or second to last in favorable views of China, except in 2017 (fifth to last). Apart from Japan and Vietnam, nearly all of the surveyed countries have a more favorable opinion of China than Turkey. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/database/indicator/24
2 Pew Research Center, “Do You Have a Favorable?”
3 Vice, “In Global Popularity Contest.”
4 Tajfel and Turner, “An Integrative Theory,” 34.
5 Ibid., 40.
6 Ellemers et al., “Social Identification and Permeability.”
7 For applications of social identity theory to international relations, see Mercer, “Anarchy and Identity”; Larson, “Status Seekers”; Hagendoorn, Linssen and Tumanov, Intergroup Relations; and Lee, “Will China’s Rise.”
8 Lee, “Will China’s Rise,” 32.
9 Halliday, The Making of the Second, 24–8.
10 Ibid., 30.
11 Ibid., 8.
12 For a study that explains Turkey’s westward orientation through inter-systemic dynamics of Cold-War see Akdan, “An Appraisal of Debates.”
13 Dong, “Chinese View of Atatürk,” 670.
14 Zan, “Uncertainty and Ambiguity,” 70.
15 Yılmaz, “Turkey’s Quest for NATO.”
16 Lippe, “Forgotten Brigade,” 97.
17 Üngör, “Perceptions of China,” 406.
18 Ibid., 415.
19 Zan, “Uncertainty and Ambiguity,” 70.
20 Karpat, “Yakub Bey's Relations,” 21–2.
21 Clarke, “The Impact of Ethnic Minorities,” 8.
22 Shichor, Ethno-Diplomacy, 20.
23 Çolakoğlu, “Turkey-Taiwan Relations.”
24 Çolakoğlu, “Turkey-China Relations,” 34.
25 Shichor, “China and Turkey,” 198, Çolakoğlu, “Turkey-China Relations,” 35.
26 Zhongping and Jing, “China's Strategic Partnership,” 11.
27 Shichor, “China and Turkey,” 202.
28 Zambelis, “Sino-Turkish.”
29 Erşen, “The Shanghai Cooperation Organization.”
30 “President Erdoğan: EU not Everything, Turkey May Join Shanghai Five,” Hurriyet Daily News, November 20, 2016.
31 Üngör, “Turkey and the Shanghai.”
32 Tao, “An Alternative Partner to the West?,” 27.
33 Shichor, “China and Turkey,” 200.
34 Turkish MFA, “Turkey’s Multilateral Transportation Policy.”
35 Atlı, “Turkey as a Eurasian Transport Hub,” 117–9.
36 Devonshire-Ellis, “China’s Silk Road.”
37 Atlı, “Turkey as a Eurasian Transport Hub,” 119.
38 Inan and Yayloyan, “New Economic Corridors,” 43–52.
39 FDI Information Bulletin.
40 Karadeniz and Toksabay, “China's Envoy Says.”
41 Weiner, “The Macedonian Syndrome,” 668.
42 Brubaker, “National Minorities.”
43 Davis and Moore, “Ethnicity Matters,” 173.
44 Winslett, “Differential Threat Perceptions.”
45 Ibid. 653.
46 Ibid., 655.
47 The State Council Information Office of PRC, “Historical Matters Concerning Xinjiang”.
48 Shichor, “See No Evil,” 63.
49 Shichor, “Artificial Resuscitation.”
50 Öniş, “Turkey and Post-Soviet States,” 68.
51 East Turkestan Information Bulletin.
52 Çolakoğlu, “Turkey-China Relations,” 36.
53 Atlı, “Turkey’s Foreign Policy,” 7.
54 Wong, “Ethnic Tensions in Xinjiang.”
55 Turkish MFA, “Statement of the Spokesperson.”
56 Mo, “Turkey's Fabricating Singer's Death.”
57 Erdogan, “Turkey, China Share a Vision.”
58 “Xi, Turkish President Hold Talks, Agreeing to Deepen Strategic Cooperation.” Xinhuanet, July 2, 2019. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-07/02/c_138193186.htm?mc_cid=1701ffaf84&mc_eid=a04fcc7444
59 Mai, “Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s.”
60 Demirtaş, “Turkey Hits China Hard Over.”
61 Peyrouse, “Discussing China.”
62 Shichor, “See No Evil.”
63 Dunn, Nyers, and Stubbs, “Western Interventionism.”
64 Üngör, “Turkey and the Shanghai.”
65 “Don't Interfere in Turkish Affairs,” The Daily Star, July 24, 2017. Accessed from https://www.thedailystar.net/backpage/dont-interfere-turkish-affairs-1437724