Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Turkey's Engagement with Its Neighborhood: A “Synthetic” and Multidimensional Look at Turkey's Foreign Policy Transformation

2012; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 13; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/14683849.2012.717444

1743-9663

Kemal Kirişçi,

Middle East Politics and Society

Abstract This article argues that a synthetic look at different dimensions of Turkey's engagement of its neighborhood, be it movement of people, civil society interactions and economic exchanges, offers a better understanding of both the broader context within which Turkey's foreign policy is changing and the precise modalities through which this transformation is taking place. This engagement offers a range of opportunities from assisting neighboring countries, including the Arab world, to reform and modernize economically as well as politically to nudging the neighborhood to seek greater interdependence, dialog and cooperation. This would be promising in terms of “win-win” outcomes for Turkey, the European Union (EU) and the region. Such an interdependent and integrated neighborhood around Turkey could unleash economic, social and political processes that may eventually lead to a “democratic peace” in the region even if it might be in the very distant future. However, a number of tough challenges from reinvigorating democratization in Turkey and revitalizing EU–Turkish relations to stubborn regional conflicts would have to be addressed. Governments as well as civil society, academia and the think-tank world ought to start to think about what to do with these challenges. Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Efe Tokdemir with the research for this article and the valuable comments of Mine Eder. I would also like to thank the anonymous referees of Turkish Studies for their constructive comments. Notes This article is an abridged and revised version of the paper that received the “Sakıp Sabancı International Research Award” in June 2011. The full version of the paper can be obtained from the author. Space precludes the inclusion of a review of this literature in this article. However, this review is available in the Sakıp Sabancı International Research Award version of the paper. This paper recognizes that the term “new” for Turkish foreign policy is contested. The term appears to have become popular especially subsequent to Ahmet Davutoğlu's article “Turkey's Foreign Policy Vision: An Assessment of 2007,” appeared in the first issue of Insight Turkey in 2008 and the journal announced this particular issue as “Turkey's New Foreign Policy Vision.” Since then, many articles have employed the term. This paper uses the term in a broader sense to cover a transformation in Turkish foreign policy that started before the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power. This paper supports the view raised by a number of analysts that AKP's foreign policy is a reflection both of “continuity” and “change” in Turkish foreign policy. Calculated from Tables 1 and 2 in Kemal Kirişci, “A Friendlier Schengen Visa System as a Tool of “Soft Power”: The Experience of Turkey,” European Journal of Migration and Law, Vol. 7, No. 4 (2005), pp. 343–367 and data from the Turkish Statistical Institute (TUIK). Calculated from TUIK data. These destinations were one in the Soviet Union (Moscow since 1989), one in Greece (Athens since 1947), two in Iran (Tabriz since 1965 and Tehran since 1978), one in Iraq (Baghdad since 1978) and one in Bulgaria (Sofia 1984). Data obtained from Abdullah Nergiz, Türkiye'de Sivil Havacılığın Gelişimi ve THY (Master's thesis, presented at Marmara University, Social Science Institute, Istanbul, 2008), p. 384 and www.thy.com.tr. For a discussion of the concept of “trading state” with respect to Turkey, see Kemal Kirişci, “The Transformation of Turkish Foreign Policy: The Rise of the Trading State,” New Perspectives on Turkey, Vol. 40 (2009), pp. 29–57. Undersecretariat of the Prime Ministry for Foreign Trade (DTM), “Dış Ticaretin Görünümü: 2008,” p. 26. Based on TUIK data. “Dış Ticaretin Görünümü: 2008,” p. 15. Currently, Germany continues to be Turkey's largest partner. However, Germany's share in Turkish foreign trade fell from 19.2% in 1991 to 9.7% in 2010. TCMB İstatistik Genel Müdürlüğü, available at www.tcmb.gov.tr. “Müteahhitlik Alanında Bilgi Notu,” available at www.ydmh.gov.tr (accessed March 29, 2010). Juliette Tolay, “Turkey's Other Multicultural Debate: Lessons for the EU,” The Annual Sakıp Sabancı International Research Award 2010 Competition, p. 7. Kirişci (2005). “Yeni bir Ortadoğu Doğuyor,” Milliyet, June 10, 2010. Cengiz Aktar and Nedim Ogelman, “Recent Developments in East-West Migration: Turkey and the Petty Traders,” International Migration, Vol. 32, No. 2 (1994), pp. 343–353. Ali Mansoor and Bryce Quillin (eds.), Migration and Remittances: Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union (Washington DC: The World Bank, 2007), p. 58. Mine Eder, “Exploring Layers of ‘Othering’: Globalization and Female Migrant Workers in Turkey,” Prepared for “Continuity and Change in Southeastern Europe” Conference, Harvard Kennedy School, Kokkalis Program on Southeastern and East Central Europe and Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies, February 3–4, 2011, p. 5. Thomas Straubhaar, “Turkey as an Economic Neighbor,” in Ronald Linden, Ahmet Evin, Kemal Kirişci, Thomas Straubhaar, Nathalie Tocci, Juliette Tolay and Joshua Walker, Turkey and Its Neighbors: Foreign Relations in Transition (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2012), pp. 173–194. Interview with two representatives of AÇEV held in Istanbul, October 2009. According to Balcı in 2003, there were Gülen schools in 25 countries, see Bayram Balcı, “Fethullah Gülen's Missionary Schools in Central Asia and Their Role in the Spreading of Turkism and Islam,” Religion, State & Society, Vol. 31, No. 2 (2003), p. 156. Berna Turam, Between Islam and the State: The Politics of Engagement (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007). Bülent Aras, “Turkish Islam's Moderate Face,” Middle East Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 3 (1998), pp. 23–29; Filiz Başkan, “The Fethullah Gülen Community: Contribution or Barrier to the Consolidation of Democracy in Turkey?,” Middle East Studies, Vol. 41, No. 6 (2005), pp. 849–861; Turam, 2007. William Hale, “Christian Democracy and the AKP: Parallels and Contrasts,” Turkish Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2 (June 2005), pp. 293–310; Sultan Tepe, “Turkey's AKP: A Model ‘Muslim-Democratic Party’?,” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 16, No. 3 (2005), pp. 69–82. Ayhan Kaya, “Diasporada Çerkes Kimliğinin Dönüşümü,” in Semra Cerit Mazlum, and Erhan Doğan (eds.), Sivil Toplum ve Dış Politika (Istanbul: Bağlam, 2006), pp. 57–75. Fuat Keyman, “Globalization, Modernity and Democracy: In Search of a Viable Domestic Polity for a Sustainable Turkish Foreign Policy,” New Perspectives on Turkey, No. 40 (2009), pp. 7–27; Ziya Öniş, “Multiple Faces of the ‘New Turkish Foreign Policy’: A Political Economy Explanation,” Insight Turkey, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Winter 2011), pp. 47–66. Cengiz Çandar, “Türkiye Kaddafi'nin ‘Utangaç’ Müttefiki mi?,” Radikal, March 22, 2011. See also Şaban Kardaş, “Turkey's ‘Moral Politics’ in Libya: Seduction by Analogy?,” Today's Zaman, March 20, 2011. See, for example, Yaser el-Zeatire, “Erdoğan'a çağrı” translated and published in Radikal, March 25, 2011. For a discussion of Turkey as a “hegemon” in the Arab world, see Malik Mufti, “A Little America: The Emergence of Turkish Hegemony,” Middle East Brief (Crown Center, Brandeis University), No. 51, May 2011. Kadri Kaan Renda, “Turkey's Neighborhood Policy: An Emerging Complex Interdependence,” Insight Turkey, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Winter 2011), p. 106. Öniş (2011), p. 59. Straubhaar (2012). Sinan Ülgen and Yiannis Zahariadis, “The Future of Turkish-EU Trade Relations: Deepening vs. Widening,” CEPS EU-Turkey Working Papers, No. 5/August 2004. Mensur Akgün, Gökçe Perçinoğlu and Sabiha Senyücel Gündoğar, Orta Doğu'da Türkiye Algısı (Istanbul: TESEV Yayınları, 2009). International Crisis Group, “Turkey and the Middle East: Ambitions and Constraints,” Europe Report No. 203, April 7, 2010, p. ii. Kemal Kirişci, “Comparing the Neighborhood Policies of Turkey and the EU in the Mediterranean,” in Meliha Benli-Altunışık, Kemal Kirişci and Nathalie Tocci (eds.), Turkey: Reluctant Mediterranean Power (GMF, Mediterranean Paper Series, February 2011), p. 40. For such ideas see Charles Grant, “A New Neighbourhood Policy for the EU”, Centre for European Reform Policy Brief, March 2011; Peter Harling, “Europe and the Middle East: Divorce by Mutual Consent?,” Al-Hayat, February 24, 2011 and Katinka Barsych, “Turkey, The EU and the Mediterranean Uprisings,” Centre for European Reform Blog, March 16, 2011. See also Nathalie Tocci and Jean-Pierre Cassarino, “Rethinking the EU's Mediterranean Policies Post 1/11” IAI Working Papers 11/06, March 2011. Louise Fawcett, “Aliances, Cooperation, and Regionalism in the Middle East,” in Louise Fawcett (ed.), International Relations of the Middle East (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). Bezen Balamir Coşkun, “Region and Region Building in the Middle East,” UNU-CRIS Occasional Papers (Brugge: United Nations University, Comparative Regional Integration Studies, 2006), p. 10. For the notion of “getting to zero,” see Ahmet Evin, Kemal Kirişci, Ronald Linden, Thomas Straubhaar, Nathalie Tocci, Juliette Tolay and Joshua Walker, Getting to Zero: Turkey, Its Neighborhood and the West (Washington, DC: Transatlantic Academy, 2010). The source of this data is “Iran Country Report,” Global Finance Magazine, available at http://www.gfmag.com/gdp-data-country-reports/253-iran-gdp-country-report.html#axzz23hPgcATy (accessed 19 August 2012).