DİPLOMASİ

The Ottoman Empire used ad hoc diplomacy until the end of 18th century. The reign of Selim III, who was closely following the developments in Europe, was a turning point in the adaptation of modern diplomacy. Especially with Mahmud II, the Ottoman Empire began to adapt the rules and institutions of modern diplomacy despite some shortcomings.

The Ottoman Empire was one of the dominant powers until the end of 17th century and carried out its diplomatic relations on the basis of superior-inferior dichotomy. They carried out their diplomatic relations on the basis of unilateralism and there was no room in the Ottoman diplomacy for relations on the basis of equality and mutuality. Therefore, they did not adapt the rules of modern diplomacy until early 1790s because they did not want to make concessions to “inferior” states. However, as opposed to the general view that the Ottomans did not take part in diplomatic relations due to the sense of superiority up until the 18th century, they attached great importance to their diplomatic relations from the beginning.

Although it was an expansionist power with imperial claims, the Ottoman Empire did not neglect diplomacy in the period between 15th and 18th centuries and conducted diplomatic relations with Venice, Genoa, Poland, Russia, Iran, Hungary, Austria, France, Transylvania, Bogdan, Walachia, Ragusa, Georgia, Algeria, Tripoli, Morocco and Marrakech.

Despite their unilateral nature, the Ottoman rulers made long-lasting agreements with non- Muslims. These treaties were renewed regularly so there was an intention to establish state of peace except several wars in the Ottoman foreign policy. For example, Bayezid II signed an agreement with Pope Innocent VIII. In this treaty, the Sultan and the Pope agreed on the capturing of his brother Cem in France rather than sending him to the foes of the Ottomans in return for the control of Jerusalem by the French King after it had been taken by the Ottoman Empire from Mamluks. (Yurdusev, 16) The deal between the Sultan and the Pope shows the pragmatism of Ottomans in their diplomatic relations.

The main objective of the Ottoman rulers through conducting these pragmatic relations with foreign states was to be an influential actor in the European system. The Sultans carried out cautious diplomatic relations with the European states with considering balance of power in the European states system. Thus, Yurdusev argued that this diplomatic pragmatism triggered, to some extent, the formation of nation states in Europe. On the other hand, as the Ottomans became a powerful empire and a part of this power game, the European states had to take the Ottomans into consideration while making their decisions and implementing their policies, so from time to time they allied with the Ottoman sultan against each other. Therefore, the role of the Ottoman Empire in the European states system facilitated the preservation of status quo. (Yurdusev, 22) Especially in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Ottoman rulers supported the English and Dutch against the Habsburgs, the main enemy of the Ottomans at that time, because these states were the forerunners of European resistance against Habsburgs’ dominance in the continent. On the other hand, the Ottoman rulers benefitted from the religious rivalry in Europe and they supported Protestants and Calvinists against the Catholics because this religious split in the continent was an important tool in the war against Habsburgs. The Ottoman pressure on the Habsburgs triggered the spread of Protestantism in Europe. (Yurdusev, 23)

Since the establishment of the Ottoman Empire, diplomacy was a significant tool for inter-tribal and inter-state relations. As a part of diplomatic strategy, Ottoman sultans married daughters of chiefs of other tribes or monarchs of the Byzantine Empire. Main objectives of this strategy were developing friendly relations with other states and expanding territories through obtaining new lands as dowry. On the other hand, in the heydays of the Ottoman Empire, its relations with foreign states were not based on mutuality, but on unilaterality. This system was known as the Âman (Mercy) System. Âman was the privilege or immunity granted by the sultan to foreigners or non-Muslims. This system which protected the rights of non-Muslims within the boundaries of the empire was unilaterally granted by the Ottomans. (Turan, 26)

In addition, Âman system constituted the basis of treaties and agreements signed between the Ottomans and foreign states. In accordance with the principles of this system, Ottomans signed treaties and armistice with foreign states for no more than ten years, so they were temporary agreements rather than permanent ones due to the ghaza policy derived from the Islamic dogma. However, this does not mean that the empire was in a permanent war with foreigners or non-Muslims, but it was used as a leverage to expand its territories and reach its objectives. On the other hand, these Âmans and treaties with foreign states were controlled and approved by Sheikh-ul Islam (the head of religious affairs). When the Ottoman Empire was powerful, the basic criteria for these Âmans and treaties was the interests of the state and its subjects. Âmans and treaties against the interests of the state were ruled out by the Sheikh-ul Islam. For example, despite an agreement between the Ottoman Empire and Venice on the basis of Âmans, with the fatwa of Sheikh-ul Islam Ebussuud Efendi, the empire launched an attack to Cyprus in 1570. This shows the pragmatism of Ottoman rulers which affected their foreign relations and diplomacy. (İskit, 147)

Although they did not establish permanent embassies in foreign states before the 18th century, the Ottomans allowed foreign states to establish diplomatic missions in the empire. Venice was the first state opened an embassy in Istanbul right after the conquest. It was followed by Poland (1475), Russia (1497), France (1525), Austria (1528), the Great Britain (1583) and the Netherlands (1612). (İskit, 147- 148)

Therefore, the first Ottoman Embassy was established in London in 1793 and this was a turning point in Ottoman diplomacy. Being aware of the loss of dominance and superiority over the European powers, which had become more powerful starting with colonization and continued with the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution, Ottoman rulers used all instruments and institutions of diplomacy. The Industrial Revolution also played a serious role in the erosion of Ottoman power. With the accumulation of capital and boom in economic production, Western states hegemonized the international relations. On the contrary, the Ottoman Empire could not keep up pace with these developments and began to collapse due to the lack of initiative to adapt new rules and developments in technology, science, military and economy.

As a result of the balance of power strategy established in Europe with the Vienna Congress, multilateral diplomacy was the major diplomatic instrument in the 19th century. With the decline of Ottoman power in this period and the need to make alliances with the European powers in order to survive, Ottoman rulers did not hesitate to join multilateral conferences to solve their problems in the international arena.

However, with regard to foreign policy and diplomacy, there are certain commonalities between the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic.

First of all, the Turkish Republic was established on the same geography despite shrinkage of Ottoman territories after the 18th century. The Straits and geographical location, as a bridge between Europe and Asia, of the Turkish Republic can be considered as important elements of its foreign policy. On the one hand, these elements enable Turkey, as a medium-sized power as opposed to the Ottoman Empire claiming global superiority, to carry out negotiations in order to maximize its interests to the extent possible, but, on the other hand, as a state encircled by regions like the Balkans and the Middle East full of problems forces it to conduct a cautious foreign policy and diplomacy.

Secondly, the mindset of the Republican rulers and diplomats have been shaped by the Ottoman balance of power strategy especially after the 19^th century. Both its founders Atatürk and İnönü and their successors tried hard to increase the number of friends and decrease the number of enemies. Especially during WWII and the Cold War, Turkey tried to establish alliances with Western powers like the Great Britain and France against German and Italian revisionism and expansionism during WWII and the United States against the Soviet claims and threat during the Cold War. The global conjuncture and Turkey’s own interests like protection of territorial integrity and sovereignty, economic development and military modernization necessitated to do so. This also shows the Western-oriented foreign policy and diplomacy since the beginning of modernization and Westernization efforts in the Ottoman Empire by Selim III.

Thirdly, rulers of the Turkish Republic similar to the Ottoman sultans and the statesmen especially during the decline and collapse periods have refrained from wars and they have attached great importance to the solution of problems through diplomacy. In this vein, Turkey became a member of League of Nations (LoN) in 1932 upon its invitation and joined the United Nations (UN) after WWII and NATO in 1952. Protection of regional and global status quo as well as Turkey’s sovereignty and territorial integrity have been the priorities of Turkish statesmen. In addition, when Turkish foreign policy in the Republican era is considered, the dominance of leaders in the formulation of foreign policy can be clearly seen. Starting from Atatürk, dominant figures like İsmet İnönü, Adnan Menderes, Süleyman Demirel, Bülent Ecevit, Turgut Özal and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have become influential figures in Turkish foreign policy.

All-in-all, when the dynamics and institutions of Turkish foreign policy and diplomacy are considered, the heritage of Ottoman diplomacy can be clearly seen. In terms of mindset, objectives, instruments and institutions, Turkish diplomacy can be regarded as a continuation of Ottoman diplomacy.

It was the diplomatic system adapted by the states before the establishment of modern, permanent diplomacy in the 14th and 15th centuries. States were sending temporary representatives or missionaries to each other for specific missions. For the solution of problems, signing treaties, declaring their war or peace decisions, etc. rulers were sending their representatives. After the formation of modern diplomacy, states began to adapt professional and permanent institutions and instruments. The Ottoman Empire used ad hoc diplomacy until the end of 18th century. The reign of Selim III, who was closely following the developments in Europe, was a turning point in the adaptation of modern diplomacy. Especially with Mahmud II, the Ottoman Empire began to adapt the rules and institutions of modern diplomacy despite some shortcomings.

In the heydays of the Ottoman rule, Suleyman I (Kanuni) granted capitulations to France. Initially, capitulations were economic, political and legal privileges granted to foreign states and subjects. However, as time passed and the empire began to decline, they turned into burdens on the Ottoman Empire hard to carry.

Ottoman sultans did not care for the support of other states or learning opinions and policies of them in certain issues because they thought that it was a kind of inferiority for them to establish permanent diplomatic missions in these countries. (Tuncer, 11) On the other hand, there are different approaches to the source of this sense of superiority. For some scholars, it derived from the perception of Islam as a universal religion and the Ottomans’ duty of safeguarding and expanding the rule of Islam. However, it can be argued that the basic motive of Ottoman sultans was to expand their imperial power rather than solely expanding territories under the flag of Islam. Therefore, the Ottoman rulers did not try to establish bilateral diplomatic relations and missions in foreign countries until the 18th century due to their imperial claims and the sense of superiority rather than religious biases which impeded their mutual relations on the basis of equality which is an important principle of modern diplomacy.

Nevertheless, the change of dynamics in the European states system with the end of Dark Ages after the 15th century with Renaissance and Reformation movements, on the one hand, and geographical discoveries, on the other, the Ottoman Empire faced new challenges and started to decline. However, the decadence of the Ottoman power cannot be explained only by external factors. In other words, after the 16th century, the empire was not ruled by strong and competent rulers as Mehmed II, Selim I and Suleyman I. The administrative system and the palace were full of problems. In addition, especially after mid-1600s, the Ottoman economy started to weaken with the end of territorial expansions, discovery of new routes and defeats in wars with stronger European states as a result of the formation of modern states and armies. Lastly, but more importantly, the Ottoman military system which was the major source of Ottoman power began to decline after the 16th century. Janissaries as the crux of the Ottoman military power lost their discipline and prestige as well as their adaptation to modern war techniques and tactics.

In the heydays of the Ottoman Empire, its relations with foreign states were not based on mutuality, but on unilaterality. This system was known as the Âman (Mercy) System. Âman was the privilege or immunity granted by the sultan to foreigners or non-Muslims. This system which protected the rights of non-Muslims within the boundaries of the empire was unilaterally granted by the Ottomans. (Turan, 26)

Venice was the first state opened an embassy in Istanbul right after the conquest.

In the ad hoc diplomacy period, agents or envoys were sent to foreign states for different purposes. They were assigned by the sultan for signing peace treaties or trade agreements, peace proposals, carrying out peace negotiations or mediating between two states, negotiating the clauses of treaties, establishing or consolidating friendly relations, collecting debts of Ottomans, learning the opinions and policies of the states about the empire, declaring the change of throne, giving presents of the sultan, delivering letters from the sultan, declaring an Ottoman victory, congratulating a new monarch on behalf of the sultan, joining coronations of European monarchs, inviting European monarchs to certain ceremonies and claiming taxes.

Ottoman envoys assigned by the sultan to carry out specific diplomatic activities were evaluating their missions in the reports called Sefaretname (Diplomatic Letters). Diplomatic letters were rich sources for the Ottoman diplomacy and diplomatic missions.

The French Revolution (1789) and the Industrial Revolution (started in the late 18th century) had serious impact on the Ottoman Empire. Ideas of nationalism, nation-state, equality, fraternity, liberty and justice born out of the French Revolution accelerated the collapse of the empire as other multi-ethnic and multi-religious empires. Starting from the Balkans, all minorities in the Ottoman Empire came up with the demands for independence or at least equality among communities. Ottoman millet (community) system prevented them from being treated as equals. In this process, Ottoman subjects in the Balkans, started with Serbs in 1804 and Greeks in 1821, revolted against the Ottoman Empire. In order to save the empire from disintegrating and prevent foreign countries, like Russia claiming protectorate over the Slavs in the Balkans, from intervening in domestic policies, the Ottoman rulers had to take some serious measures. In 1839 Tanzimat Edict and in 1856 Islahat (Reform) Edict were declared to grant some rights and privileges to the foreign subjects of the Empire

The first Ottoman Embassy was established in London in 1793 and this was a turning point in Ottoman diplomacy