Turkey’s Neighbourhood Policy: Developing a World Complex Interdependence?

1. Turkey’s Neighbourhood Policy:Developing a World Complex Interdependence? K. Kaan Renda Phd Candidate European Studies King’s College London kadri.renda@kcl.ac.uk www.cesran.org

2. Introduction • Realism in IR • Complex interdependence • General characteristics of Turkish Foreign policy • Recent developments and activism • Concluding remarks • Q&A

3. Realist theory • States as unitary and dominant actors • Survival and security are the main objectives • Hierarchy of issues: High politics v. Low politics • Power = Material capabilities = Military force • National interests are pre-given • Conflict and competition persistent

5. Complex Interdependence • Basic Features: • Multiple Channels • Absence of hierarchy among issues • Secondary role of military force

6. Complex Interdependence (continued): • Multiple Channels: • Transgovernmental relations • Transnational relations • Support for Multilateralism

7. Complex Interdependence (continued): • Absence of Hierarchy among Issues • Extensive foreign agendas • Security issue is relegated • Rise of different domestic groups • National interests less clearly defined • Cooperation possible and becomes a norm

8. Complex Interdependence (continued): • Secondary role of Military Force: • Change in threat perceptions • Diplomacy and other civilian instruments praised • Military power is the last resort

9. Complex Interdependence (continued): • Types of Leadership and Role: • Hegemonic leadership: Dominant role • Unilateral leadership: unilateral policies and bilateral relations • Multiple leadership: multilateral policies, mediator and facilitator role, displaying a good example

10. Complex Interdependence (continued): • Sensitivity:the speed and magnitude with which a change in one country is felt in another country. • Vulnerability:the relative availability and costliness of alternative policy frameworks, when itbecomes necessary to adapt to external changes.

11. Turkish Foreign Policy General characteristics of TFP in 1990s: • Geostrategic concerns • Threat perceptions • Military strategy • Domestic politics

12. Geostrategic concerns: • Dominated by realpolitik and geopolitical concerns: Cold war mentality • Power politics: strong army and readiness to use of force • Searching for a new role

13. Threat perceptions: • Threats are everywhere: • Domestic and international threats • National unity and integrity (milli birlik ve beraberlik) • Terrorism • Hostile neighbours • Surrounded by threats • Suspicion and mistrust • Security was the main concern • Security-consumer

14. Military strategy: • Military strategy focused on: • Containment of hostile neighbours through alliances and threat of use of force • Fighting against terrorism • Strong army and strong state was vital for survival • Highly cautious

15. Domestic politics: • State-centric • National Unity and integrity (milli birlik ve beraberlik) • Coalition governments • Military’s role in foreign policymaking

16. Recent Developments • Foreign Policymaking • Economic activism • Diplomatic activism

17. Foreign policymaking • Civilianization: • Democratization: • Desecuritization:

18. Economic activism • Creating a circle of business partners • Web of bilateral agreements • More pragmatic and economy oriented • Rise of trading state after the twin economic crisis in 2000 and 2001: need for new markets • Role of stable and consolidated economy • Energy hub • Possibility of economic regime and economic integration

19. Trade statistics (1)Source: IMF

20. Trade statistics (2)Source: IMF

21. Diplomatic activism • Dynamic and assertive diplomacy • Soft power • From staunch alliances to flexible alliances • Mediator role, problem-solver, pivotal role in regional politics • More cooperative and constructive • Normalisation of relations with neighbours

22. Concluding remarks • Expanding the Turkish sphere of influence • From “tolerating and deterring neighbours” to “good neighbourly relations” • Analytical problems of complex interdependence model • Lack of emphasis on the effects of identity and culture • Too much economy-oriented • Practical problems of new activism in Turkish foreign policy • Problems of zero problem with neighbours policy • Economical and institutional capacity • Over-stretching: Breaking the bow • Over-confidence and declining tolerance to opposition • Seen rhetorical and opportunitist: Lack of concrete results • Domestic problems constrain Turkish role in the region

23. Selected Bibliography: • Aydin, M. (1999). "Determinants of Turkish Foreign Policy: Historical Framework and Traditional Inputs", Middle Eastern Studies 35(4): 152-186. • Aydin, M. (2000). "Determinants of Turkish Foreign Policy: Changing Patterns and Conjunctures During the Cold War", Middle Eastern Studies 36(1): 103-139. • Aydin, M. (2003b). "Securitization of History and Geography: Understanding of Security in Turkey", Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 3(2): 163-184. • Bilgin, P. (2005). "Turkey's Changing Security Discourses: The Challenge of Globalisation", European Journal of Political Research 44(1): 175-201. • Karaosmanoglu, A. L. (2000). "The Evolution of the National Security Culture and the Military in Turkey", Journal of International Affairs 54(1): 199-216. • Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S.(1989). Power and Interdependence, USA: Harper Collins Publishers, 2. Edition. • Kirisci, K. (2006). Turkey's Foreign Policy in Turbulent Times. Chaillot Paper. Paris: Institute for Security Studies. • Oguzlu, H. T. (2004a). "The Impact of 'Democratization in the Context of the EU Accession Process' on Turkish Foreign Policy ", Mediterranean Politics 9(1): 94-113. • Oguzlu, H. T. (2007). "Soft Power in Turkish Foreign Policy", Australian Journal of International Affairs 61(1): 81-97. • Robins, P. (2007). "Turkish Foreign Policy since 2002: Between a 'Post-Islamist' Government and a Kemalist State", International Affairs 83(2): 289-304.

24. Thank you very much! kadri.renda@kcl.ac.uk www.cesran.org