Geography is the Destiny

Turkey’s geographical location has always been the most important leverage in Turkey’s relations with other countries. Despite the danger of exaggerating ‘geographical determinism’, it would not be wrong to argue that Turkey’s diplomatic relations and foreign policy record during much of the Republican era have been deeply informed by Turkey’s geography (Aydin, 2003, 163-184). Turkey’s geography has been both an asset and liability. Turkey’s decision to join NATO as well as being in the crosshairs of global powers can be convincingly attributed to its geographical location. Being located at the intersection point of three continents, Turkey has continuously attracted the attention of other countries, notably the great powers which have had vital security interests in Turkey’s regional environment.

The United States defined Turkey as the unsinkable aircraft carrier during the Cold War. The Soviet Union wanted to get control of the straits and eastern part of Anatolia in the immediate aftermath of the World War II and this prompted Turkey to seek security cooperation with the United States. Turkey joined NATO in 1952 to deal with the Soviet challenge much better. Turkey’s efforts to become an energy hub during the post-Cold War era are noticeable. In its effort to convince the Europeans to the idea of Turkey’s membership in the European Union, Turkish rulers have continuously instrumentalized Turkey’s geographical location as a bargaining chip. Turkey’s geography has recently come to the agenda in the context of the migration crisis engulfing European countries. The migration deal that Turkey signed with the European Union in the spring of 2016 is very much the function of Turkey’s peculiar geography in the context of European efforts to stem the refugee flow emanating from the Greater Middle Eastern region. The main reason why the island of Cyprus occupies a very important place in Turkish foreign policy is Cyprus’s geographical proximity to Anatolian peninsula as well as the recent discovery of rich natural gas resources in Eastern Mediterranean.

The reason why Europeans could not easily give up on Turkey can also be boiled down to Turkey’s potential contribution to European security. Hence, Turkey is mainly characterized as a buffer-zone and insulator country by Europeans. Underlining Turkey’s potential contribution to the protection of the Kantian security environment inside the EU against the security challenges emanating from the Hobbesian security environment in the Middle East has decisively colored Turkey’s discourse with Western/European countries. Depiction of Turkey as a ‘bridge’ and ‘role model’ by Westerners does also relate to Turkey’s geographical location.

Turkey’s geography does also suggest that Turkey should always be alerted to potential threats posed to its security as well as maintaining strong and credible armed forces. Of all the reasons of military’s key role in Turkish diplomacy, the need to have a powerful army in this fragile and delicate geographical location proves to be decisive.