‘Diplomatic Courage’: A Turkish Ambassador in Sinj

ABSTRACT

This study deals with the surprising participation of the Turkish ambassador in Croatia at the country’s well-known annual Sinj Alka, an equestrian competition with a long tradition that relates to a famous victory over the Ottoman Turks in the 18th century. While the bilateral relations between Croatia and Turkey have developed since 1992 on a rather stable and positive level, the historical background has yet been marked by the legacy of the Ottoman occupation over large territories making up today’s Croatia. The 2012 attendance of a Turkish ambassador at the annual festivities in Sinj, themselves also marked by Croatian nationalist frames, was the first time that a Turkish representative was among the official guests. This study employs the concept of diplomatic courage and offers a history of the present in order to show how the lenses of new diplomatic history provide a useful means to approach this historical attendance, relying most importantly on the notion of diplomatic practices. It does this via an analysis of news reports and commentaries from Croatia and Turkey while underlining the historical dimension of the bilateral relationship. The conclusion pinpoints the limits of such practices in other contexts, depending on states’ foreign political choices.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. N. Housley, ‘Christendom’s Bulwark: Croatian Identity and the Response to the Ottoman Advance, Fifteenth to Sixteenth Centuries’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 24, 2014, pp. 149–164.

2. For a brief survey that includes this aspect, see K. Boeckh, ‘Allies Are Forever (Until They Are No More): Yugoslavia’s Multivectoral Foreign Policy During Titoism’, in S. Keil and B. Stahl (eds), The Foreign Policies of.

Post-Yugoslav States: From Yugoslavia to Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2014, pp. 18–43.

3. For an overview, see Ilhan Uzgel, ‘Relations with the Balkans’, in B. Oran (ed.), Turkish Foreign Policy 1919–2006, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 2010, here pp. 823–827.

4. On invented traditions, see E. Hobsbawm, and R. Terrence (eds), The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983.

5. For a brief introduction to the history and significance of Alka games, see A. Vlašić and J. Kovač, ‘Elements of Ottoman Legacy in Alka of Sinj (Croatia)’, in A. Temizer and U. Ö. Uğur (eds), Balkanlar’da Osmanlı Mirası ve Defter-i Hâkânî, Libra, Istanbul, 2015, pp. 507–528.

6. For an important contribution on national identity debates in Croatia, see D. Jović, Rat i mit: Politika identiteta u suvremenoj Hrvatskoj, Fraktura, Zaprešić, 2017.

7. For a pertinent discussion, see M. Kuus, ‘Foreign policy and ethnography: A sceptical intervention’, Geopolitics, 18(1), 2013, pp. 115–131.

8. Quoted in B. Keys, ‘The Diplomat’s Two Minds: Deconstructing a Foreign Policy Myth’, Diplomatic History, 44 (1), 2020, 1–21, p. 7. from N. Um and L. R. Clark, ‘Introduction: The Art of Embassy: Situating Objects and Images in the Early Modern Diplomatic Encounter’, Journal of Early Modern History, 20 (1), 2016, 3–18, quoting p. 2.

9. S. Schattenberg, ‘Die Sprache der Diplomatie oder das Wunder von Portsmouth. Überlegungen zu einer Kulturgeschichte der Außenpolitik‘, Jahrbücher Für Geschichte Osteuropas, 56 (1), 2008, pp. 3–26, here pp. 7–8. All translations from Croatian, Turkish, and German into English are by the author, unless stated otherwise.

10. On the concept of diplomatic discretion, see J. Kuschnitzki, ‘Navigating Discretion: A Diplomatic Practice in Moments of Socio-political Rupture’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 14 (4), 2019, pp. 331–356.

11. The relevance of the Ottoman past is said to have become more significant during the ongoing Erdoğan period. On this point, see, for instance, M. Türkeş, ‘Decomposing Neo-Ottoman Hegemony’, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 18 (3), 2016, pp. 191–216; M. H. Yavuz, ‘The motives behind the AKP’s foreign policy: neo-Ottomanism and strategic autonomy’, Turkish Studies, 2022 (advance publication), doi: 10.1080/14683849.2022.2100700. On neo-Ottomanism’s historical trajectory that preceded the Erdoğan era, see, L. K. Yanık, ‘Bringing the Empire Back In: The Gradual Discovery of the Ottoman Empire in Turkish Foreign Policy’, Die Welt des Islams, 56 (3–4), 2016, pp. 466–488. For an alternative framework that rejects the focus on neo-Ottomanism in analysing current Turkish foreign policy, see K. Dalacoura, ‘Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East: power projection and post-ideological politics’, International Affairs, 97 (4), 2021, pp. 1125–1142.

12. K. Bachleitner, ‘Diplomacy with Memory: How the Past Is Employed for Future Foreign Policy’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 15 (4), 2019, pp. 492–508; L. Klymenko and M. Siddi, ‘Exploring the link between historical memory and foreign policy: an introduction’, International Politics, 57 (6), 2020, pp. 945–953.

13. For relevant debates, see J. Wüstenberg and A. Sierp (eds), Agency in Transnational Memory Politics, Berghahn, New York, 2020; M. Mälksoo, ‘Criminalizing Communism: Transnational Mnemopolitics in Europe’, International Political Sociology, 8 (1), 2014, pp. 82–99; A. Littoz-Monnet, ‘The EU Politics of Remembrance.

Can Europeans Remember Together?’, West European Politics, 35 (5), 2012, pp. 1182–1202.

14. For important studies in new diplomatic history, see J. Watkins, ‘Toward a New Diplomatic History of Medieval and Early Modern Europe’, Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 38 (1), 2008, pp. 1–14; B. Tremml-Werner and D. Goetze, ‘A Multitude of Actors in Early Modern Diplomacy’, Journal of Early Modern History, 23 (5), 2019, pp. 407–422; M. Lindemann, ‘The Discreet Charm of the Diplomatic Archive’, German History, 29 (2), 2011, pp. 283–304; M. Herren and I. Löhr, ‘Being international in times of war: Arthur Sweetser and the shifting of the League of Nations to the United Nations’, European Review of History/Revue européenne d’histoire, 25 (3–4), 2018, pp. 535–552; J. C. E. Gienow-Hecht, ‘What Bandwagon? Diplomatic History Today’, The Journal of American History, 95 (4), 2009, pp. 1083–1086.

15. For relevant work in International Relations that focuses on diplomatic practices and mundane aspects, see I. B. Neumann, At home with the diplomats: Inside a European foreign ministry, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 2012, and also his Diplomatic sites: A critical enquiry, Hurst, London, 2013; R. Adler-Nissen and V. Pouliot, ‘Power in practice: Negotiating the international intervention in Libya’, European Journal of International Relations, 20 (4), 2014, pp. 889–911.

16. On this aspect, see G. Wiseman, ‘Bringing Diplomacy Back In: Time for Theory to Catch Up with Practice’, International Studies Review, 13 (4), 2011, pp. 710–713; N. Gould-Davies, ‘The intimate dance of diplomacy: In praise of practice’, International Affairs, 89 (6), 2013, pp. 1459–1467.

17. L. Badel and S. Jeannesson, ‘Introduction. Une histoire globale de la diplomatie ?’, Monde(s), 5 (1), 2014, pp. 6–26.

18. On the meaning of the notion of history of the present, and its divergence from contemporary history, see M. Conway, C. Donert and K. K. Patel, ‘From Contemporary History to the History of the Present’, Why Europe, Which Europe? A Debate on Contemporary European History as a Field of Research blog, June 29, 2022, https://europedebate.hypotheses.org/1150 (accessed on August 1, 2022).

19. Slobodna Dalmacija, ‘Turci zakočili Alku: “Ne možete na popis UNESCO-a”’, November 15, 2010, https://slobodnadalmacija.hr/dalmacija/turci-zakocili-alku-ne-mozete-na-popis-unesco-a-116893 (accessed on January 26, 2022).

20. Ibid..

21. Tportal, ‘297. Sinjska alka okupila političku elitu’, https://www.tportal.hr/vijesti/clanak/297-sinjska-alka-okupila-politicku-elitu-20120805 (accessed on January 30, 2021).

22. These dynamics were later furthered by the opening in Zagreb of a Yunus Emre Institute (the Turkish state-founded cultural institute) to teach Turkish language and organize cultural events in 2016 by the Turkish President Erdoğan.

23. Slobodna Dalmacija, ‘Turski veleposlanik: Turci i Hrvati danas su na istoj strani’, August 3, 2012.

https://slobodnadalmacija.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/turski-veleposlanik-turci-i-hrvati-danas-su-na-istoj-strani-175096 (accessed on January 29, 2022).

24. Večernji List, ‘300 godina Alke: Knjiga o velikoj alkarskoj tradiciji puna je povijesnih pikanterija’, August 9, 2015, https://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/300-godina-alke-knjiga-o-velikoj-alkarskoj-tradiciji-puna-je-povijesnih-pikanterija-1018460 (accessed on January 28, 2022).

25. Tportal, ‘Interview with Turkish Ambassador: “Croatia is perfect for everything”’, August 3, 2012, https://www.tportal.hr/vijesti/clanak/croatia-is-perfect-for-everything-20120803/print (accessed on January 25, 2022). The following quotes in this paragraph are from this source. This is the English version of the interview that was published by this news portal.

26. Davutoğlu was a long-time foreign policy advisor for the current Turkish President Erdoğan, consequently foreign minister (2009–2014) and prime minister (2014–2016), prior to his eventual political distancing from Erdoğan and the founding of his own political party (2019). He is said to have actively implemented a more conscious neo-Ottomanist foreign policy in Turkey, while the actual contents of this approach and the role of Islamist features therein are still discussed. For a related take, see B. Özkan, ‘Turkey, Davutoğlu and the Idea of Pan-Islamism’, Survival, 56 (4), 2014, pp. 119–140.

27. See fn. 11.

28. Jutarnji List, ‘Na Alci po prvi puta i turski veleposlanik! Josipović: “Drago mi je da se prihvaćaju pozitivne poruke”’, August 5, 2012, https://www.jutarnji.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/na-alci-po-prvi-puta-i-turski-veleposlanik-josipovic-drago-mi-je-da-se-prihvacaju-pozitivne-poruke-1547052 (accessed on January 24, 2022).

29. Index, ‘Alkarsku svečanost uveličao i turski veleposlanik: Povijest je povijest, tu sam radi kulture’, August 5, 2012, https://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/Alkarsku-svecanost–uvelicao-i-turski-veleposlanik-Povijest-je-povijest-tu-sam-radi-kulture/629806.aspx (accessed on January 28, 2022).

30. On Turkish state and national identities, see T. Alaranta, National and State Identity in Turkey: The Transformation of the Republic’s Status in the International System, Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.

31. Slobodna Dalmacija, ‘Turski veleposlanik o dobrodošlici Sinjana: Ne možete nagovoriti narod da plješće strancu’, August 7, 2012, https://slobodnadalmacija.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/turski-veleposlanik-o-dobrodoslici-sinjana-ne-mozete-nagovoriti-narod-da-pljesce-strancu-175547 (accessed on January 24, 2022).

32. Novosti, ‘Intrigator’, August 11, 2012, https://arhiva.portalnovosti.com/2012/08/intrigator-85 (accessed on January 31, 2022).

33. Milliyet, ‘Hırvatistan’la 300 yıllık “savaş”ı Türk elçi bitirdi’, August 8, 2012, https://www.milliyet.com.tr/dunya/hirvatistan-la-300-yillik-savas-i-turk-elci-bitirdi-1577798 (accessed on January 25, 2022). This story was also shared by other Turkish media outlets such as Hürriyet.

34. Blic, ‘Sinjska alka u znaku turskog ambasadora i pomahnitalog konja’, August 5, 2012, https://www.blic.rs/vesti/svet/sinjska-alka-u-znaku-turskog-ambasadora-i-pomahnitalog-konja/levwfd5 (accessed on January 27, 2022).

35. Tportal, ‘Interview with Turkish Ambassador’.

36. For an initial overview of Turkish collective memory, see E. Özyürek (ed.), The Politics of Public Memory in Turkey, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, 2007.

37. This should not lead us to overlook that within Turkey itself, recent years have shown a more diverse mnemonic engagement with this issue, as the local civil society became actively involved in novel ways to commemorate the more openly acknowledged Armenian genocide.

38. See M. Michel, ‘Génocide arménien : retour sur un centenaire’, Politique étrangère, 3, 2015, pp. 83–91.

39. For different takes on this turn in Turkish politics in the 2010s and before, see J. Baudner, ‘The Politics of “Norm Diffusion” in Turkish European Union Accession Negotiations: Why it was rational for an Islamist party to be “Pro-European” and a Secularist party to be “Anti-European”’, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 50 (6), 2012, pp. 922–938; N. Polat, ‘Regime change in Turkey’, International Politics, 50 (3), 2013, pp. 435–454; M. Somer, ‘Turkey: The Slippery Slope from Reformist to Revolutionary Polarization and Democratic Breakdown’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 681(1), 2019, pp. 42–61.

40. On this soccer/football diplomacy, see F. Hill, K. Kirişci and A. Moffatt, ‘Armenia and Turkey: From normalization to reconciliation’, Turkish Policy Quarterly, 13(4), 2015, pp. 127–138.

41. Such a prospective visit was mentioned, for instance, on the website of the local Croatian-Turkish Friendship Association in Zagreb. See https://www.htup.hr/novosti/turski-veleposlanik-donirao-vodu-posjetiteljima-sinjske-alke (accessed on January 25, 2022).

42. Ibid.

43. M. Schäuble, ‘Living history? Reenacting the past and promoting “tradition” in the Dalmatian hinterland’, Nationalities Papers, 47 (2), 2019, pp. 198–216, here p. 202.

44. In 2018, the Turkish ambassador to Uganda was recalled for having dressed in a way that referred to Helen of Troy. She explained her dress choice ‘by suggesting that it was the Year of Troy in Uganda’. While the photos of the ambassadors’s outfit created reactions among some Turks who saw it as an ancient Roman or Greek dress, it was clear that for the, in the meantime, markedly more Islamist and conservative approach of the AKP government such a move was too courageous. Although Troy is an important historical location within Turkey, a reference to an ancient Greek figure was interpreted as not being in line with the expected nationalist and religious sentiments a Turkish diplomat should (re)present. For details, see Hürriyet Daily News, ‘Turkish envoy to Uganda recalled after wearing Trojan costume in ceremony’, November 3, 2018, https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-envoy-to-uganda-recalled-after-wearing-roman-costume-in-ceremony-138536 (accessed on August 1, 2022).

45. See M. Türkeş, op. cit.

46. See G. D. Brockett, ‘When Ottomans Become Turks: Commemorating the Conquest of Constantinople and Its Contribution to World History’, The American Historical Review, 119 (2), 2014, pp. 399–433.

47. See, in addition to the studies mentioned above, T. Hall, Emotional Diplomacy: Official Emotion on the International Stage, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 2015; A. Jones and J. Clark, ‘Performance, Emotions, and Diplomacy in the United Nations Assemblage in New York’, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 109 (4), 2019, pp. 1262–1278; F. Rösch, ‘Affect, practice, and change: Dancing world politics at the Congress of Vienna’, Cooperation and Conflict, 56 (2), 2021, pp. 123–140; T. Balzacq, ‘Rituals and Diplomacy’, in T. Balzacq, F. Charillon and F. Ramel (eds), Global Diplomacy. An Introduction to Theory and Practice, Cham, Palgrave Macmillan, 2020, pp. 111–122; G. S. Terry and A. Makarychev, ‘Performative Diplomacy and Popular Geopolitics: The Case of Russian Anti-COVID Assistance to Italy’, Problems of Post-Communism, 69 (1), 2022, pp. 83–91; S. Erlandsson, Personal Politics in the Postwar World: Western Diplomacy Behind the Scenes, Bloomsbury Academic, London, 2022; I. B. Neumann, ‘Diplomatic Representation in the Public Sphere: Performing Accreditation’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 14 (4), 2019, pp. 447–466; S. Behar, ‘Shrine diplomacy: Turkey’s quest for a post-Kemalist identity’, History and Anthropology, 30 (4), pp. 421–433; K. Bachleitner, ‘Ontological security as temporal security? The role of “significant historical others” in world politics’, International Relations, 2021 (advance publication), doi:10.1177/00471178211045624.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Deniz Kuru

Deniz Kuru is a lecturer and research fellow at the Department of Political Science, Goethe-University Frankfurt. His current focus is on Global International Relations, and connections between Global Intellectual History and International Relations. He co-edited two volumes (with Hazal Papuççular), A Transnational Account of Turkish Foreign Policy (2020) and The Turkish Connection: Global Intellectual Histories of the Late Ottoman Empire and Republican Turkey (2022). His recent articles include “Dialogue of the ‘Globals’: Connecting Global IR to Global Intellectual History” (All Azimuth, 2020) and “Not International Relations’ ‘mare nostrum’: On the divergence between the Mediterranean and the discipline of International Relations” (Mediterranean Politics, 2021).