DİPLOMASİ

Turkey’s membership in NATO since 1952 and the ongoing accession negotiations with the European Union are now the most important dimensions of Turkish foreign policy.

The revision of the Lasuanne regulations on the status of Turkish Straits through the Montreaux Convention in 1936, the incorporation of Hatay region into Turkey in 1939, and the settlement of the Mousul question and the border dispute with Iraq in 1926 are all examples to the use of international law and diplomacy in Turkish foreign policy.

Despite the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the Johnson Letter crisis in 1964, the arms embargo crisis in 1975, and the anti-U.S. sentiments running high in the country from time to time; NATO preserved its privileged position in Turkish diplomacy during much of the Cold War period.

Turkey’s relations with Russia and Iran have dramatically improved as Turkey has gradually left the NATO-centered foreign and security policy mentality behind. This remains so despite the fact that Turkey has been at odds with Russia over the course of developments in Syria and Ukraine.

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 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, let alone imposing its will on to others through unilateral and coercive means.

Turkey initially opposed to the appointment of Denmark’s then-Prime Minister Rasmussen as NATO Secretary-General. The offensive attitude adopted by Rasmussen in the cartoon crisis against Muslims in 2005 was effective in Turkey’s opposition.

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. The best example of this attitude took place on the occasion of NATO’s military operation in Libya. Turkey initially opposed to NATO’s intervention in Libya. This operation was at the beginning launched by Britain and France outside NATO framework and then taken over by 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 supported NATO’s expansion toward Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary; Turkey participated in and led the multinational NATO forces in Afghanistan; Turkey took part in NATO’s limited involvement in Libya in 2011; Turkey let NATO install radar facilities of the missile defense system in its territories; and Turkey encouraged the Alliance in its efforts to help radiate NATO’s values to the countries, which are not to be NATO members, within the framework of NATO’s Partnership for Peace Program.

National security and foreign policy interests have long been defined from the perspective of the state. There is a strong state tradition in Turkey.

Issues of diplomacy, foreign policy and national security were so much existential and vital that they should not be left to the discretion of the politicians who only think how they can win upcoming elections and remain in power. State elites would, on the other hand, put national interests at the center of their behaviors and approach vitally important issues from the perspective of state.

Turkey is defined as the crown jewel in geopolitical power struggles among external actors. 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. A strong dose of siege mentality exists among Turkish people. Turkish decision makers tend to perceive Turkey’s neighbors to all directions as the pawns in the hands of great powers, which would likely use them as leverage in their relations with Turkey. The facts that many neighbors of Turkey gained their independence from the Ottoman Empire and they were very much assisted by external great powers in their efforts seem to have led Turkish decision makers feel suspicious of Turkey’s neighbors.

Diplomatic and foreign policy issues need to be dealt with secretly and behind closed doors. Open discussion of such issues before the public is generally seen as risky. Diplomatic issues require expertise. For a long time, only the state elites nested in bureaucracy were assumed to have possessed this expertise. The participation of civil society and nonstate actors in the formulation of Turkey’s foreign policy interests has been quite limited compared to liberal democratic countries in the West. Diplomacy has always been the privilege of state elites in Turkey. It is during the process of Europeanization and democratization that civil society has finally begun to acquire an important role in Turkish diplomacy. It is now the case that both elected politicians are more knowledgeable than before about foreign policy and diplomatic issues.

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 military victories on battlefields would not accrue benefits to Turkey, should they not be entrenched through diplomacy.

Turkish rulers have also inherited an imperial mentality from the Ottoman era in that Turkey has long been seen as the continuation of the Empire. The imperial mentality also manifests itself in the way how Turkish rulers interact with their counterparts in other countries.

Pan-Turkism, pan-Ottomanism and panIslamisim - have continued to influence Turkey’s diplomatic practices during the Republican era. Despite the fact that the founding rulers of the Turkish Republic discarded all adventurist strategies from the lexicon of state and heavily invested in Turkish nationalism, all the ‘isms’ mentioned have continued to be influential in coming decades.

To Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Republic, and his comrades in arms, 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. Turkish rulers tried to help bring into existence a stable and cooperative regional environment so that developments outside the borders would never have negative consequences on the ongoing modernization and development processes at home.

In its effort to convince the Europeans to the idea of Turkey’s membership in the European Union, Turkish rulers have continuously instrumentalized Turkey’s geographical location as a bargaining chip. Turkey’s geography has recently come to the agenda in the context of the migration crisis engulfing European countries.

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 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, let alone imposing its will on to others through unilateral and coercive means. During this period, Turkey’s maneuvering capability was high and Turkey pursued a multidirectional foreign policy.

In the last few decades, Turkey has been in search for more strategic autonomy. The relative decline of Western powers, the questioning of the Western model across the globe, the concomitant rise of non-Western powers in global politics and the onset of the Arab Spring seem to have all caused a shift of axis in Turkish foreign policy away from the West to the East.

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

Desecuritization of bilateral relations with neighboring countries, 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.

Investing in public diplomacy initiatives, transforming the Turkish Airlines into one of the largest air-carriers all over the world, founding the English language TRT-World, redesigning the TRT as a multi-lingual broadcasting company, increasing humanitarian and development aids to poor and needy countries (Çelik and İşeri,
2016, 429-448), and establishing particular state institutions in charge of dealing with the problems of Turkish-origin people in the countries which host sizable Turkish communities can all be considered as important soft power initiatives.

Some examples of Turkey’s new attitude towards NATO as described above are as follows: Turkey provided military support to the peacekeeping operations carried out by NATO in the Balkans (especially in Bosnia and Kosovo); Turkey supported NATO’s expansion toward Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary; Turkey participated in and led the multinational NATO forces in Afghanistan; Turkey took part in NATO’s limited involvement in Libya in 2011; Turkey let NATO install radar facilities of the missile defense system in its territories; and Turkey encouraged the Alliance in its efforts to help radiate NATO’s values to the countries, which are not to be NATO members, within the framework of NATO’s Partnership for Peace Program.