Unit 6: Diplomacy of the Republic of Turkey

Theorising Turkish Diplomacy and Foreign Policy

Structural Factors

These factors which have produced long-term impact on Turkish diplomacy do not change easily from time to time, and offer a particular contextual environment in which Turkish decision makers tend to interpret external developments. Structural factors have a lasting impact on Turkey’s diplomacy and foreign policy.

Ottoman Legacy : Turkey inherited many aspects from the Ottoman Empire:

1. The state is the main diplomatic and security actor. State is the main actor that provides security; state elites define which issues should be considered as security issues; security interests are defined in reference to the survival and well-being of the state.
2. The ‘Sevres syndrome’ Turkey is surrounded by enemies that would never hesitate to make use of any opportunity to dictate their terms on Turkey as well as to dismember this county.
3. Diplomatic and foreign policy issues that requie expertise need to be dealt with secretly and behind closed doors.
4. An imperial mentality manifests itself in the way how Turkish rulers interact with their counterparts in other countries. It also suggests that Turkey holds itself responsible for the well-being of people living in the post-Ottoman geography.
5. The alternative ideologies and strategies that had once come to the agenda in late 19th century with a view to ensuring the survival of the Ottoman Empire - namely pan-Turkism, pan-Ottomanism and panIslamisim - have continued to influence Turkey’s diplomatic practices during the Republican era.
6. The idea that Turkey would not be able to achieve its national interests if the gains of the wars won on battlefields were not legitimized through diplomatic negotiations. Securing legitimacy in the eyes of international public opinion through the successful employment of international law has always been important in Turkish diplomacy
7. Turkey’s defensive realpolitik security culture has also been decisively shaped by the Ottoman era experiences. The idea of playing great powers off against each other is quite strong in Turkey. Balance of powers politics has shaped Turkish diplomacy since the early 1920s.

Westernization : Since the second half of the nineteenth century Turkey’s efforts to join the key Western/ European international organizations, viz. external Westernization, has gone hand in hand with the transformation process at home in line with the constitutive norms and values of Western international community, viz. internal Westernization. Westernization is also thought of a security strategy in that Turkey would feel itself safe and secure if it came closer to the West/Europe and its Western/European identity were recognized as such by Westerners/Europeans.

This process has both negative and positive connotations in the context of Turkish diplomatic history. Despite all kind of problems experienced in relations with Western/European nations, particularly during the postCold war era, Turkey’s Westernization process is still on and membership in NATO is seen vital to the fulfillment of Turkey’s national security interests.

Ataturk’s Legacy : To Mustafa Kemal Ataturk Turkey’s number one national interest during the 1920s and 1930s was to protect the newly gained independence and sovereignty as well as successfully completing the radical transformation process at home. Involvement in the internal affairs of other states and pursuit of expansionist and irredentist foreign policies do not hold any place in Ataturk’s diplomatic legacy. Trying to solve national security problems through diplomacy and international law is another legacy of Ataturk. Diplomacy backed by hard power capability and diplomatic initiatives conferring legitimacy on military victories constitute the backbone of Ataturk’s diplomatic legacy.

Geography is the Destiny : Turkey’s diplomatic relations and foreign policy record during much of the Republican era have been deeply informed by Turkey’s geography. 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. Turkey joined NATO in 1952 to deal with the Soviet challenge much better. 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.

Temporal and Conjectural Factors

In addition to the structural factors, Turkish diplomacy and foreign policy has also been informed by the confluence of some conjectural factors which tend to have short term impact on how Turkey’s diplomatic practices have unfolded since the early 1920s.

International System:

• The time period between 1923 and 1939 had a multipolar international and regional environment with none of the great powers having the ability to set the course of international developments
• During the Second World War, Turkey continued the multi-directional foreign policy stance of the interwar period and pursued the socalled active neutrality foreign policy (Vanderlippe, 2003, 63-80). Rather than siding with one side of the warring parties, Turkey tried to benefit from the geopolitical rivalries between the axis powers on the one hand and the allied countries on the other.
• The time period between 1945 and 1960 corresponds to a bipolar international structure and a high level confrontation between the USled Western liberal democratic countries and the communist countries of the Soviet block.
• For about twenty years between 1960 and 1980, Turkey shifted to a more multi-directional and multidimensional foreign policy stance as the so-called détente caused a softening of the bipolar confrontation between Western and eastern blocks (Hale, 2013, 104- 134).
• During the 1980s, Turkey had to discover the importance of the strategic relations with the Western world once again as the change of regime Iran and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan increased the tension between the two blocks.
• The 1990s could be seen as a period in which Turkey tried to strike a balance between pursuing a more independent/multidirectional foreign policy stance on the one hand and increasing its efforts to solidify its presence in the Western international community on the other.
• The shift to a more multipolar system over the last decade, particularly following the global financial crisis in 2008, and the spectacular increase in Turkey’s material power capabilities seem to have encouraged Turkish rulers to follow a more multi-directional and multi-dimensional foreign policy stance. During this era, Turkey has been in search for more strategic autonomy.

Political Ideologies : Despite the fact that structural factors have to a significant extent curtailed their ability to set the course of Turkish foreign policy in line with their distinctive political ideology, they have nevertheless had the opportunity to reflect their ideologies on Turkey’s diplomatic choices. Of all the alternative political ideologies, center-of-right, center-of-left, Turkish nationalism and political Islam stand out most.

Center-of-right parties have most of the time supported Turkey’s pro-Western and pro-European foreign policy orientation. It is during their tenure in government that Turkey joined NATO, applied for membership in the European Union, joined the Customs Union with the European Union and strengthened strategic, military and economic cooperation with Western countries.

Center-of-left parties are also pro-Western and proEuropean in terms of their foreign policy orientation, yet compared to center-of-right parties they proved to be more predisposed to the idea that a multi-directional foreign policy orientation would better serve Turkey’s national interests (Celep, 2011, 423-434). These parties have been more sensitive than center-of-right parties in preserving Turkey’s secular identity and unitary state character.

Turkish nationalist parties have on the other hand adopted a soft-skeptic approach towards Turkey’s relations with Western countries both bilaterally and institutionally (Avcı, 2011, 435-447). They have been in favor of Turkey’s membership in NATO and the European Union, yet questioned the logic of the institutional relations if they would dilute Turkey’s strong state identity, societal cohesion, territorial integrity and national sovereignty.

Political Islamists, compared to all other ideologies mentioned above, question the dynamics of Turkey’s relations with Western countries and argue that Turkey should not try to join Western institutions.

Actors, Process and Tools of Turkish Diplomacy

The government is the main actor in charge of defining Turkey’s foreign policy interests and diplomatic goals. it is the elected representatives of the Turkish people that have the final authority to determine Turkey’s foreign policy orientation. Despite the primacy of elected civilians in this process, the appointed bureaucrats in state administration have long played the most decisive role. Bureaucrats in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and National Security Council and the high level generals in the military were more influential than elected civilians in the government. The governments that were formed in the aftermath of military coups did not have the confidence to challenge the privileged position of state elites/security establishment in this context.

Foreign policy decision making process in Turkey is now both centralized and civilianized. Conducting foreign policy with domestic policy motivations has now become a norm and this attest to the growing importance of public opinion in foreign policy making process.

Turkey’s strong military power capability constitutes the most important source of Turkish diplomacy.

As of today, Turkey has more than 200 diplomatic missions all around globe. While ambassadorial missions deal with diplomatic and political issues, consulates are in charge of dealing with social, cultural and similar problems of Turkish people living in other countries.

Turkey has recently opened many diplomatic missions in Africa and other far distant places. This shows that Turkish diplomacy has now gained a global vision and scope.

The employment of civilian and soft power instruments in Turkish diplomacy has also become noticeable in recent years (Oğuzlu, 2007, 81-97). Since the time Turkey began to intensify its effort to become a part of the ongoing globalization process and opening itself to the world, businessmen came to the fore as important actors in Turkish foreign policy.

Desecuritization of bilateral relations with neighboring countries (Aras and Polat, 2008, 495-515), particularly with the ones located in the Middle East; helping bring into existence EU-like regional integration mechanisms in its region; investing in multilateral problems in its effort to find solutions to regional problems; taking ‘mediatory and facilitation initiatives’ in the solution of disputes between other countries’ and intensifying the social and cultural exchanges with other countries in social, cultural, tourism and educational levels all now shape Turkish diplomatic practices decisively.

Improving Turkey’s positive image in the eyes of other countries does also constitute an important part of Turkish diplomatic efforts in recent years.

Turkey’s Relations with Nato as a Case Study

Turkey has been one of the most important members of NATO since its accession to the Alliance in 1952. Having defined for many years its foreign, defense and security policies on the basis of NATO membership, Turkey began to adopt a more questioning and critical perspective towards the Alliance with the end of the Cold War. Even though elite groups maintain their commitment to NATO, there is a rising skeptical approach in public towards the West in general, and the U.S. and EU members in particular.

The Cold War Period : After the Second World War ended, Turkey wanted to join NATO mainly from a security oriented perspective. Turkey wanted to secure Western help by joining the multilateral security organization NATO. Turkey desired to become a member of NATO with a view to shoring up its resistance capability against the threats emanating from outside sources. From the very beginning, NATO has primarily been a collective defense organization for Turkey.

The most important factor that facilitated Turkey’s accession to the Alliance was that the United States, as being the most important NATO member, attributed a tremendous importance to Turkey’s geopolitical position and military capacity in the context of Cold War’s security Dynamics.

Another factor that initially pushed Turkey to seek membership in NATO and later on proved to be one of the main reasons for its justification in the eyes of Turkish people was that NATO membership was considered as an important milestone in Turkey’s decades-old Westernization/ Europeanization/modernization process.

Given that Turkey and other NATO members regarded the Soviet Union as the common enemy during the Cold War, Turkey was able to pursue NATO-oriented foreign and security policies.

Post-Cold War Period: New Definitions of Interests and Identity : After the Cold War ended and the threat stemming from the Soviet Union disappeared, Turkey’s attitude towards the Alliance has begun to change.

The last two decades have seen that compared to its neighbors, Turkey’s hard and soft power capabilities have tremendously improved.

Turkey has begun to play more active foreign policy roles. the international system has gradually gained a multipolar character, with the strict limitations of the Cold War era coming to an end.

While the end of Cold War reduced the threats stemming from the Soviet Union and positively affected TurkishRussian relations, developments in the Middle East, Balkans and Caucasus have started to become more important in the context of Turkey’s security This situation has weakened NATO’s special and privileged position in the definition of Turkey’s foreign and security policies. NATO has lost some of its appeal in the eyes of Turkish elites.

Another factor that has proved to be effective in shaping Turkey’s attitude towards NATO in the post-Cold War era is that the quality of Turkey’s relations with European allies have begun to be much more dependent on the pace of Turkey’s accession process with the European Union.

Turkey’s security began to be increasingly affected by the developments taking place in non-European geographies, it has become more difficult to build Turkey’s foreign and security policies primarily on the Western axis, of which NATO has been the most important component.

Turkey’s relations with Russia and Iran have dramatically improved as Turkey has gradually left the NATO-centered foreign and security policy mentality behind.

The identity-based considerations that had been very much instrumental in shaping Turkey’s attitude towards NATO during the Cold War years have also begun to change with the advent of the 1990s.

The main foreign policy objective of Turkey should be to help shape regional developments decisively and to forge interests-based pragmatic relationships with key global actors. Turkish foreign policy should be defined and conducted in a multi-lateral and multi-dimensional fashion so as to make sure that regional and global developments do not negatively affect the liberal democratic transformation and economic development processes at home.

Turkey has been striving to play a more possesive and shaping role in the transformation process of NATO in the post-Cold War environment.

Turkey’s objective in this regard has been to play more effective roles in NATO’s transformation process to ensure that the policies to be adopted by NATO allies do not negatively affect Turkey’s multi-lateral national identity, and multi-dimensional and multidirectional foreign policy interests.

Turkey has also adopted a more questioning and critical stance throughout NATO’s transformation process (Oğuzlu, 2012, 153-164). Turkey’s main objective has been to prevent the transformation process of NATO from negatively affecting its relations with its neighbors as well as the positive perception of Turkey in the Islamic world.

Similar to other European allies, particularly Germany and France, Turkey holds the view that Russia’s concerns should have been given more attention while developing NATO’s policies concerning enlargement and the missile defense system.

Turkey has evaluated NATO‘s missile defense shield system in the context of its relations with Iran.

Despite adopting a critical and questioning attitude on some of the issues coming to the agenda of the Alliance, Turkey has at the same time paid an utmost care not to veto any particular decision should all other allies agree on. Turkey has not wanted to be seen as the maverick within the Alliance.

Turkey also wants to play an active role in NATO’s efforts to reach out to the Middle East, Eastern Mediterranean and Persian Gulf regions.

Turkey’s new attitude towards the Alliance has been informed by more interests-based calculations than identity-related considerations. This can be best observed in Turkey’s position on the institutional relationship between NATO and EU.

Turkey’s new attitude towards the Alliance seems to have also been informed by more the risks of being entrapped by NATO’s policies than the risks of being abandoned by the Alliance. As Turkey’s dependency on NATO in terms of security and identity decreased, Turkey has adopted a more questioning attitude towards the Alliance.

Membership in NATO is still the most important evidence of Turkey’s place in the Western international society. Withdrawing from NATO or adopting an obstructionist attitude within the Alliance would bring into existence serious suspicions on Turkey’s foreign policy intentions and interests. This situation will affect Turkey’s relations with Western actors negatively.

Conclusion

In this chapter;

• the diplomatic and foreign policy dynamcis of the Republic of Turkey’s since the early 1920s.
• the impact of structural and conjectural factors in this regard
• the actors, instruments and processes of Turkish diplomacy.
• Turkey’s relations with the collective defense organization NATO
• how Turkey’s diplomacy practices have evolved since the early years of the Cold War era till now are covered.