Change In Turkish Foreign Policy Research Articles

Continuity and Change in Turkish Foreign Policy During the JDP Governments

There has been a wide debate in Turkey about the changing orientations, directions and conducts of Turkish Foreign Policy (TFP) during the JDP governments. This article examines the JDP era with reference to some structural changes such as change in Turkey’s foreign trade profile, change on Turkish citizens travel destinations and changing composition of incoming tourists to Turkey, change in Turkey’s culture industry and exportation of Turkey’s culture products abroad, change in foreign direct investments to Turkey. The article also examines the ideational parameters of JDP’s foreign policy based on the writings and speeches of Ahmet Davutoðlu as intellectual architect and then as JDP government’s Minister of Foreign Affairs fully in charge of design and conduct of foreign policy. The article basically concludes that the change on TFP has been based on some deeper changes in Turkey at economic, political and sociological level since 1983. These domestic and international structured changes, interpreted by Davutoðlu in a particular way led to the change and the change debate on Turkish Foreign Policy.

Turkish Foreign Policy under AKP Rule: Making Sense of the Turbulence

The twists and turns of Turkish foreign policy under Justice and Development Party (AKP) rule have been a matter of interest not only in the scholarly literature, but also in common discourse. This article traces the unfolding of this policy in Turkey’s neighbourhood and in relation to its quest for EU membership, particularly since 2006, and also discusses the milestones that have been shaping it. Drawing upon the categories of change Charles Hermann identified, this article illustrates the magnitude and direction of change in Turkish foreign policy during this period and critically evaluates its implications for this policy today.

Interpreting Turkey’s Middle East Policy in the Last Decade

Within the Middle East, various forces have tried to impose alternative orders. Turkey is among a number of key players in the region. Since 2002, Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party has shown an increasing interest in the Middle East. This article accepts that there has been a change in Turkish foreign policy since 2002 and attempts to contribute to the previous studies on this issue. It argues that Turkey desires to be a regional power in the Middle East, shaping its vision through a value-based and principled approach. To clarify this vision, the article analyzes the core values and principles defined in Turkish foreign policy in the last decade, which constitute Turkey’s international identity in the Middle East. The article concludes that there have been mainly tactical changes in Turkish foreign policy in general, and towards the Middle East in particular.

Contextualizing change in Turkish foreign policy: the promise of the ‘two-good’ theory

The level of activism in Turkey's foreign policy has reached unprecedented levels during the country's modern history. This increased activism contrasts starkly with Turkey's characteristically traditional status quo orientation evinced during the Cold War. This study aims to establish a theoretical foundation to explain this multifaceted change in Turkish foreign policy. In doing so, it contends that the ‘two-good’ theory of foreign policy renders considerable analytical leverage for contextualizing recent changes in Turkish foreign policy. The theory posits that change in a country's foreign policy is contingent upon its willingness and capability to actively promote its interests. Furthermore, the ‘two-good’ theory postulates the method a country might employ to implement its foreign policy is a function of these two factors as well. The theory leads to two testable hypotheses regarding Turkish foreign policy. This study supports these hypotheses with qualitative and quantitative evidence.

Locating Change in Turkish Foreign Policy: Visa Policies of the Justice and Development Party in the 2000s

This article evaluates foreign policy change under the Justice and Development Party (JDP). After examining the concept of change in foreign policy analysis and in the literature on Turkish foreign policy, the article offers an approach to visa regimes as significant indicators of change in foreign policy. It first provides a qualitative analysis of Turkish visa policies in comparison to those of the European Union (EU) and shows that, after a brief period of convergence, Turkish visa policies have increasingly diverged from the EU. Subsequently, by way of analyzing the incoming mobility of foreign nationals, first the JDP era is compared to its predecessors. Then, two distinct eras within JDP's period of rule are identified and compared. It concludes that, while there are differences between the JDP and the previous eras, the most significant change occurs between the first and second JDP governments.

Paradigm Change in Turkish Foreign Policy After Post-Cold War

The article analyses the change in paradigm of Turkish Foreign Policy with reference to Post-Cold War. The article has two main assumptions: (i) The international system mainly determines the foreign policy of any state (ii) Post-Cold War is a multi-polar international system with three sub-periods. The article understands the strategy and objectives of Turkish Foreign Policy for each sub-period to identify the paradigm change of it. The article concludes that Turkey has adopted a complementary alliance with West in its foreign policy, but endeavored to conduct an ideologist alliance the remainder states of Ottoman Empire after 2008

Strategic Depth: A Neo-Ottomanist Interpretation of Turkish Eurasianism

The change in Turkish foreign policy in the twenty-first century’s second decade has its origin in the approach referred to by Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu as Strategic Depth. Because it aims to give Turkey status as a Eurasian power, this approach has been described as neo-Ottomanism, referencing the geographic extent of the Ottoman Empire. Because of its intrinsic pragmatism and the geographical region that is its focus, Strategic Depth has been influenced by Eurasianist thought in Russia. But the Strategic Depth approach differs from Russian Eurasianist ideas because it refuses to place itself in conflict with Western civilization and instead positions Turkey as a bridge between Western and Muslim civilizations. To this extent, Strategic Depth may be described as a conservative interpretation of Turkish Eurasianism.

Activism in Turkish Foreign Policy: Balancing European and Regional Interests

This article argues that long-term changes in Turkish foreign policy are primarily due to the diversification of the country's political and economic interests. Important international structural shifts such as the end of the Cold War or the broad fluctuations in oil prices have constituted the initial impetus for the changes that we have seen in Turkish policies. Discussing alternative perspectives on new activism in Turkish foreign policy, the article gauges Turkey's foreign policy affinity (based on voting patterns in the United Nations General Assembly) and trade with other states to place recent trends in the broader context of the past three decades. It shows that, as the “West” has become less coherent in its policies, Turkey has moved closer to EU members and distanced itself from the US. The data also undermine “shift of axis” arguments as Turkey's foreign policy affinity with Middle Eastern countries has, in fact, declined. The trade data reveal a diversification of the country's commercial interests that contribute to Turkey's increasing regional activism. The country now balances its long term European interests with its recent regional ones.

Evolution of Turkish-Israeli Relations 1992-2008: Causes, Actors and Reactions

47 *Kilic Bugra Kanat is a an assistant professor of Political Science at Penn State University, Erie and a non-Resident Fellow at SETA Foundation. He received his PhD degree in Political Science from Syracuse University (Syracuse, NY). He received his MA in International Affairs from Marquette University (Milwaukee, WI) and his undergraduate education in the International Relations and Sociology from the Middle East Technical University (Ankara, Turkey). 1 Charles F. Hermann, “Changing Course: When Governments Choose to Redirect Foreign Policy,” International Studies Quarterly 34 (1990): 3-21; Jerel A. Rosati, Martin W. Sampson III, and Joe D. Hagan, “The Study of Change in Foreign Policy,” in Foreign Policy Restructuring: How Governments Respond to Global Change, ed. Jerel A. Rosati, Joe D. Hagan, and Martin W. Sampson, (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1994); Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981); Jakob Gustavsson, The Politics of Foreign Policy Change: Explaining the Swedish Reorientation on EC Membership, (Lund: Lund University Press, 1998); Jakob Gustavsson, “How Should We Study Foreign Policy Change?” Cooperation and Conflict 34 (1999): 73-95.K. J. Holsti, Why Nations Realign: Foreign Policy Restructuring in the Postwar World, (London: Allen and Unwin, 1982), 2. Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies Vol. XXXVI, No.2, Winter 2012 Evolution of Turkish-Israeli Relations 1992-2008: Causes, Actors and Reactions Kılıç Buğra Kanat* Introduction Although “the change in foreign policy” of a country is one of the most frequently used phrases in the field of foreign policy, the issue has remained one of the most understudied topics in academia. Despite developments in other fields, including foreign policy analysis, foreign policy decision-making, and comparative foreign policy, foreign policy change has not generated enough scholarship to be considered a separate field of study. In different instances, several scholars raised red flags about the lack of systematic scholarship on this topic in foreign policy literature and asserted the necessity to form a systemic research program to deal with the issue of foreign policy change.1 Although these calls resulted in the 48 formation of certain theoretical models to understand foreign policy change, these models have not been implemented sufficiently through case studies, and thus their efficacy and empirical relevance have still not been researched or discussed properly. Moreover, different studies in this field rarely engage in a dialogue and there is a significant lack of integrative studies in the field, which would bring together the salient aspects of different studies to create a more comprehensive approach toward foreign policy change. As a result, there is deep disagreement among scholars about the definition, causes, process and outcome of foreign policy change in countries. In this study, I aim to contribute to the literature of foreign policy change scholarship by integrating the findings of different foreign policy change studies with empirical findings on Turkish-Israeli relations. The study will take foreign policy change as a process instead of a single breaking point. It will be argued that, other than in the case of major crises and revolutionary changes, the foreign policy transformation of countries takes place in a gradual fashion as a result of the cumulative effect of domestic, regional and international factors. Monocausal explanations will fail to provide an accurate portrait of the changes in foreign policy and will lead to reductionism in this field. Although some of these factors may play a more prominent role in the path to the policy change, at the end of the day there are only a number of major transformations in foreign policy which took place as a result of only a single factor. In addition, in most instances of foreign policy transformation, change necessitates either a consensus among different actors within an authoritative foreign policy decision unit or an effective and strong leadership. The changes in Turkish foreign policy towards Israel throughout a twenty year period will be used to demonstrate this form of multicausal and gradual evolution in foreign policy. In addition to showing the causes and process of foreign policy changes, the study will also take into account the outcome of those changes. Changes in a country’s foreign policy elicit varied reactions from...

Changes in Turkish Foreign Policy: A Shift or a Passing Interest?

Since 2003, following the election of the Justice and Development Party (JDP), Turkish Foreign Policy placed a clear emphasis on the Middle East, establishing and improving relations with the region. This, by some, was interpreted as a major shift away from the traditional Western oriented stance, while others argued that this was just an effort to develop a multi-dimensional foreign policy. The paper argues that the rising interest in the Middle East is not something we observe for the first time. There are two factors that determine Turkey’s interest in the region: government’s ideological position and the international context. Due to the developments in these two areas Turkey experienced periods of rising interest before. This being said, there are certain characteristics that distinguished JDP policies from previous experiences like an effort to act independently and a special emphasis on the Palestinian issue. The paper also argues that despite what we have been observing so far, Turkish foreign policy will continue to act alongside of the West in the region.

Role Theory and Securitization: An Agency Based Framework for Decoding Turkey’s Diplomatic Offensive against Israel

Turkish foreign policy has recently undergone remarkable changes, and these changes have led to a considerable degree of foreign policy activism, most notably in the Middle East, which has never been seen throughout the history of the Turkish Republic. It is unquestionable that Turkey’s activism in the Middle East increased the country’s power in the Arab-Muslim political circles but also caused deterioration in Turkish-Israeli relations. Although there has been a consensus on relating the changes in Turkish foreign policy towards the Middle East with the Justice and Development Party’s Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, AKP leading echelons, to date only a few studies attempted to incorporate a particular theoretical approach to explain this agency based shift. This paper argues that role theory can be incorporated into the theory of securitization and it can be used as a conceptual tool for decoding Turkey’s strained relations with Israel

Making Sense of Turkish Foreign Policy in the Middle East under AKP

Employing the four categories of change as defined by Charles Hermann and the insight of Walter Carlsneas that the dynamic between structure and agency causally condition each over time, the article conceptualizes change in Turkish foreign policy under the AKP. This theoretical analysis of Turkey's foreign policy allows for the examination of the interplay of domestic actors with the regional and international systems including their economic, identity and security components. It also explores the impact Turkey's activism in the area has had in Turkey and among the people of the region. Finally, it raises key questions as to the future of Turkish foreign policy as the outcomes of the Arab Spring develop.

THE CHANGING NATURE OF TURKISH-SYRIAN RELATIONS: A GLOBALIZATION PERSPECTIVE

This paper examines globalization’s effects on the change in Turkish foreign policy towards Syria in a comparative perspective. Through the 1990s Turkish foreign policy towards Syria was shaped by realist parameters as Turkey relied on an alliance with Israel, and hard power seeking deterrence and coercion. However after Syria submitted to Turkey’s demands and signed a counter-terrorism accord in 1998, the two states engaged in a certain rapprochement process. Most notably, following the Iraq war that promoted common threat perceptions, Turkey put a new face into practice in its foreign policy. In the 2000s, besides its growing military capabilities, Ankara also drew on soft power in its new approach to Syria and introduced many new opportunities for its neighbor through the bilateral cooperation. That carried Turkey’s relationship with Syria to unprecedented levels of collaboration in the political, economic and social realms. As elaborated in the study, the changes in Turkey’s new approach towards Syria resonate with some significant theoretical perspectives in the literature on globalization and foreign policy change. In this respect, Turkey’s new foreign policy approach is suggested as a late response to globalization’s challenge to traditional foreign policy formation as the regional security dynamics in the 1990s impeded a rapprochement. Along with the changes in Turkish foreign policy towards Syria in the first decade of the 2000s, the regional implications of Ankara’s new approach are also discussed. Lastly, the limits of Turkey’s new foreign policy approach are examined touching upon the developments in Syria since the “Arab Spring.”

Turkish Foreign Policy, its Domestic Determinants and the Role of the European Union

This paper investigates whether Turkish foreign policy has changed in recent years, specifically in line with the EU accession process, and tries to uncover the main dynamics behind these changes. The main proposition in the paper is that domestic changes in Turkey have led to a reshuffling of foreign policy objectives with a renewed emphasis on improving relations with the country's neighbours. The paper investigates whether such a policy change is complementary to the Turkish goal of inclusion in the EU, and further proposes that the changes in Turkish foreign policy since 2002 involve an increased activism partly in line with the EU accession process and as a result of the changes in domestic politics.

Israeli-Turkish Tensions and their International Ramifications

The deterioration of relations between Israel and Turkey, culminating in the “Gaza flotilla” affair of June 2010, are part of a reorientation in the Turkish foreign policy over the past several years: a move away from the West and toward Muslim states and non-state groups, including such radical actors as Iran, Hamas and Hizballah. This article reviews the rationale for the Israeli-Turkish strategic partnership in the 1990s and the early years of this century. It then documents deviations in Turkish foreign policy from Western patterns. Next it examines how changes in Turkey's twenty-first century strategic environment, as well as in the domestic arena, led to a reorientation of Turkish foreign policy and to current tensions in bilateral relations. And finally, it assesses the impact of the changes in Turkish foreign policy on the Greater Middle East and global politics.

Turkey's Search for a Third Party Role in Arab–Israeli Conflicts: A Neutral Facilitator or a Principal Power Mediator?

This paper examines Turkey's increasing involvement in the Israeli–Syrian and Israeli–Palestinian conflicts as a third party in the last decade. The paper first discusses the underlying reasons and motivations behind the change in Turkish foreign policy. In this section we answer the following question: While the traditional Turkish policy in the Middle East was non-intervention, what factors contributed to this recent change? We discuss these as systemic factors and domestic factors. In the second section of the paper we summarize the theoretical literature on third party intervention and mediation especially focusing on strategies, modes, activities, and tactics used. This section lays the background for the following section which classifies the various Turkish third party strategies and activities in the Israeli–Syrian and Israeli–Palestinian conflicts so far. In the final section we focus on the challenges to this new Turkish role from Turkish, Israeli, and Arab perspectives. We also discuss the crises between Israel and Turkey in the last year and how they constitute a barrier to Turkey acting in an effective third party role.

Is There a Europeanization of Turkish Foreign Policy? An Addendum to the Literature on EU Candidates

The beginning of Turkey’s accession negotiations with the European Union on October 3, 2005 constituted an important turning point for Turkey’s relations with the EU and for Turkish socio‐political transformation. This paper poses the following questions: (i) Is there a Europeanization of Turkish foreign policy as a result of Turkey’s accession negotiations with the EU? (ii) If so, then what are the main areas and limits in which Europeanization of Turkish foreign policy has occurred? This paper answers these questions by providing a background of Europeanization; first by differentiating between the member states and the candidate countries; second by analyzing the Europeanization of Turkish foreign policy through an investigation of the changes in Turkish foreign policy since 1999 with regards to the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), NATO‐EU cooperation and Turkey’s Middle Eastern neighbors.

TURKISH FOREIGN POLICY AT THE END OF THE COLD WAR: ROOTS AND DYNAMICS

Starting with the military coup d'etat of September 12, 1980, Turkey had experienced fundamental changes in its political structure, economic system, social strata, cultural patterns, religious expressionism, and foreign policy. With the end of the Cold War ten years after, the world entered a period of historic systemic changes. Along the way, Turkey moved suddenly from a staunchly pro-vvestern isolationist existence in its immediate neighbourhood into a central posture vvith an intention to have an effect across a vast region extending 'from eastern Europe to western China'. This change in Turkey's stance and mentality was due to wider changes experienced within and around Turkey during the 1980s. This paper, employing theoretic and practical explanations, explores Turkey's transformation in domestic and foreign policies during the 1980s and early 1990s, in order to set the stage to the analysis of Turkish foreign policy at the end of the Cold War. It will specifıcally look at the nature of the political regime, socio-economic dynamics, and external environment as factors that brought about change in Turkish foreign policy in the wake of the end of the Cold War.