Young Scholars on Turkey (YSOT) Conference 2011
Friday, 15 April 2011
The University Club
SETA Foundation at Washington D.C.
The Institute of Turkish Studies (ITS)
Ali Vural Ak Global Islamic Studies Center at George Mason University
Panel III - Turkish Foreign Policy
Moderator: David Cuthell (Institute of Turkish Studies)
Discussant: Omer Taspinar (Brookings Institution)
Nick Danforth (Georgetown University) "US Attitude toward Turkish Democracy during the Cold War"
Ryan Kennedy & Matthew Dickenson (University of Houston) "Turkish Neocons? Popular Perceptions of Foreign Policy in Turkey"
Ali Balci (Sakarya University) "Turkish-Israeli Relations: The Role of Securitization in Turkish Foreign Policy"
Summary
Nick Danforth, in his talk entitled “US Attitude Toward Turkish Democracy During the Cold War,” argued that themes had run parallel during the Cold War, one was American aid and the role it played in Turkish development, while the other was the importance economic models played over sincere, open democracy. For example, democracy was an important rhetorical device in American foreign policy; however, military coups would be justified because countries were not deemed ready for democratic elections. These two contrasting ideas were not irreconcilable, for as long as Turkish political parties supported free market policies, US would continue to support them. Citing various colorful examples from US ambassadors to Turkey in the 1960s, Danforth showed that the US policy clearly prioritized strategic partnership with Turkey over concerns about its democracy or its alleged “Islamist” politics during the Democratic Party rule.
Ryan Kennedy & Matthew Dickenson in their talk “Turkish Neocons? Popular Perceptions of Foreign Policy in Turkey ” discussed various competing arguments on Turkey’s alleged shift away from the West. They argued that there is little difference between AK Party, CHP, and MHP with respect to the Iran nuclear issue. There is also little support for the “axis shift” theory in public opinion polls. One caveat to keep in mind is that public opinion has strong influence on foreign policy, and is not divorced from the policy making process. However, we must keep in mind that opposition to the West does not necessarily translate to support for their corollaries or rivals, i.e. Hamas or Iran. One theory is that AKP galvanizes anti-Western (USA and the EU) sentiment. However, a poll taken for three major parties in the parliament has not shown a significant difference between their respective views of the US. Yet, they noted that there is increasing general suspicion about international actors in Turkey.
Ali Balci, in his talk "Turkish-Israeli Relations: The Role of Securitization in Turkish Foreign policy," argued that the 1990s was a decade where securitization defined Turkish Foreign policy. Davutoglu’s zero conflict policy changed this approach. The capture of Abdullah Ocalan, leader of the PKK, had much to do with the shift from securitization as the primary goal to engagement in the zero-conflict policy. Ironically, this caused a disturbance in Turkish-Israeli relations in recent years as their relationship was based solely on securitization in the 1990s. Last two years witnessed crisis after crisis in Turkish-Israeli relations starting with the Davos crisis and reaching its climax with the Mavi Marmara incident. Turkey, as a predominantly Muslim country, established a strategic relationship with Israel based on concerns for survival of the state, secularism, fundamentalism threat, and being surrounded by enemies such as Greece, Syria, PKK etc. This “securitization process” as part of the “politics of fear” in the 1990s gave impetus to the strategic relationship which was used against the rise of political Islam and Kurdish nationalism by the military in the 90s.
Omer Taspinar touched on the relevance of the papers on contemporary Turkish domestic, and foreign policy. In regards to the Cold War, given the 1950s were the heyday of the modernization theory, the US diplomats were obviously under the influence of that paradigm. It would be an interesting study to compare the similarities between the perceptions of the Menderes government of the 1950’s to those of the AKP government today. Another bugbear in US-Turkish relations is the idea that Turkey is slipping away from the West. While addressing public opinion through polls, we would be surprised to see that in actuality CHP strongly supports the view that the US is supporting Kurdish nationalism. Relating the panel discussion to the “Turkish Gaullism” analogy, Taspinar argued that Turkish foreign policy today is based more in independence and a newly gained confidence and a sense of grandeur. We must also keep in mind that there is a shared political culture independent of the parties themselves, which exude themselves in nationalism and sovereignty. This belief is acted out in a foreign policy that considers regional interests and leadership roles for Turkey. Lastly, Turkey’s shift from securitization to engagement with Middle Eastern neighbors has caused problems with Israel. This is due to the fact that now instead of a single variable defining bilateral relations, there are a multitude of political and economic factors that re-light cold relations with Syria and other states.
Videos
Photos from the conference
