Contemporary Security Discourse of the Turkish Foreign Policy

Contemporary Security Discourse of the Turkish Foreign Policy This is a very preliminary draft. Please do not quote Gizem Bilgin Aytac University of Istanbul Faculty of Economics, Department of Political Science and International Relations Research Assistant-PhD Candidate gizembilgin@gmail.com gizembil@istanbul.edu.tr Abstract: 2003 intervention in Iraqi territories is an important consequence for the new security threats and regional conflicts. On the other hand, from 90 s in case of the state based understanding of global security, new approaches came to issue by the societal and individual perspectives. Identity, poverty, ecology, food are all became crucial items of global security. Regional Arabic and non-arabic societies raise their influence in the world politics. Therefore Turkey turned into an important actor for the region for mediating Islamic countries and their people. Also its foreign policy issues directly linked in to it from Parliamentary crises in sending troops to Iraq to Gaza issue and till the last NATO Lisbon Conference, in the sense of regional cooperation and strategic partnership. According to new approach, security achievement is based on zero problem with neighbors in Turkish foreign policy. Hence this study wants to search the idea of the security approach comprising also the theoretical studies. Is it a new realistic geopolitical strategy forming a new regional security cooperation including the regional states and her continuing harmony with NATO and Europe? Or is it a shift in the axis? Or is Turkey de-securitizing regional process concerning several countries like Iran and Iraq and focusing more on societal dimension? Since in this study methodology will based on an analyze of security discourses of the foreign policy decision actors from foreign Affairs ministry daily s to session of the parliament in foreign ministry budget discussions and speeches of the President of Turkish Foreign Affairs Minister Ahmed Davutoglu. 1

Introduction Turkey s Foreign Policy trends from the foundation of the Turkish Republic generally constructed on western conjunctures especially concerning strategic assumptions of the global powers. During Cold War, Turkey has been an important ally for the West bloc. Communism and Soviet imperialism were the important security threats. Only in 1970 s bothered with tensions of Cyprus and military embargo of US. Though with the end of 80 s, Turkey shift its agenda more on regional concerns since the conflicts became more regional and multi dimensional beyond the inter-bloc conflicts of Cold War. As Turkish foreign policy has altered also its security perceptions have been reformed too. Military s accelerating autonomy after 1980 intervention has been an important dynamic from 1980 s to the last part 1990 s. Turkey has dominantly formed her security agenda with the PKK threat with the affect of the first Gulf crises in Middle East. From 1995, Turkey faced a temporary peace for PKK conflict and with the Wealth Party s increasing votes military shifted much more on Islamic fundamentalism as a threat to the founder ideologies of the republic. This process finalised with 28 th February semi intervention in 1997. Till 2002 Turkey s security concepts have transformed in two dimensions: First one is the; 2001 civil transformation on 1982 Constitution by the close integration period to European Union. This continued with new civil institutionalisation in National Security Council (Non-Military member as Secretary of National Security Council). Also legal reforms like confinement of State Security Courts (DGM) basing on enlargement of human right regime also became an important part of Turkey s relations with international organizations like EU, UN and NATO. With parallel processes Turkey also influenced with Post September security trends of the world politics. Fight against global terrorism, controlling nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction turn in to common collective security issue that reshape Turkey s relations with USA and NATO. 2003 Iraqi intervention have meant an important cornerstone for Turkish foreign policy. Unlike its indirect involvement to the 1991 intervention, Turkish parliament rejected the permit of using Turkish territories for American troops in 2

invasion of Iraq at 1 March 2003. Justice and Development Party s newly formed government faced an important challenge inside the party, from their basic supporters and also from opposition in the street against war. This process made domestic policies influence much clearer on foreign policy issues, which led to contemporary decision-making process in Davutoglu s Foreign Minister period. This study is going to search Davutoglu s new security discourse as a new theoretical shift beyond realist approach or the reconstruction of core realist strategy especially concerning the regional relations with Middle East. Theoretical analyse of the Turkish security perception Post Cold War environment has showed theoretical debate clearer in International Relations. In sub-disciplinary content like security studies this debate turned into a crucial development challenging the main actor issue of the world politics. In classical realist security thought, state is the main provider of security concerning the survival of the state as a dominant factor of the national security. National security perceived as even to security of the people living on the territory of the state and this could be provided by the determination of the main threats to the nation or state. Realists depends the insecurity of the world on anarchic system. Security dilemma is unavoidable later as Herz emphasized the formation of nation states had also changed states to competing actors by the idea of national or racial inequality and superiority. 1 Most realists Cold War assumptions continues in post cold war and after September eleven world politics. Fight against terrorism constructed with the determination of a global threat. Illegal organizations contribution as an actor to IR forced states to accelerate their defence spending. Harvey criticise this situation by explaining homeland security dilemma. the more security you have, the more security you will need, not because enhancing security makes terrorism more likely although the incentive for terrorists to attack may increase as extremists feel duty bound to demonstrate their on-going relevance!, but because 1 J. Herz; Idealist Internationalism and Security Dilemma, World Politics, Vol: 2 No: 2 Jan 1950, s:163 3

enormous investments in security inevitably raise public expectations and amplify public outrage after subsequent failures. 2 September 11, brought culture and identity as an important security item to the agenda. 1980 s theoretical turn in security studies with Copenhagen School designed an important study field. Identity became a crucial subject of the security especially concerning the regional ethnic conflict experienced in Balkans, Middle East and Post Soviet Territories in Caucasia. Individual security, challenges with states general defence and military power mechanism since environment, poverty, cultural identity and political rights are the important issues start to be taken serious by the international community and by the scholars. Classic realist paradigm looks to the security in respect to threat or fear. That s because in this respect Weaver emphasizes that, the more security became the better for the state. The core meaning of security is uncontested. Hence Weaver points out the important problem for widening the security in the IR literature by widening the concept in the matter of individual security would comprise all subjects in the society that can create threat to individual. So Weaver points out, Buzan s attempt to redefine national security. This term is beyond the definition of international security nonetheless different from a unique state s security problem all the states affected by the international security issues. 3 Especially Weaver highlights the how states label security issues beyond the main military problems. For example detent period in Cold War shows this process clearly. After Western bloc formed its stability more with pronouncing human rights regime in this period, East bloc states saw the societal interaction with West as an instability factor and as a vehicle of interference to their domestic policy. That s because they securitize this social interaction channels and tried to avert it. 4 Hence Buzan and Weaver argue that securitizing societal security issues can also can activate reactionary solutions. For example securitizing immigrants or refugees - labelling these issues under security politics- can create European integration as a threat too in this context. 5 2 Frank P Harvey, The Homeland Security Dilemma: Imagination, Failure and the Escalating Costs of Perfecting Security, Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol 40, Issue 2 (ss: 283-316) p: 286 3 Ole Weaver; Securitization and De-Seuritization, International Security-Widening Security Vol III. Ed Barry Buzan and Lene Hanson, p: 68-70 4 Ibid. p: 77-78 5 Ibid. p: 82 4

De-securitization of issues like culture and economic challenges can create a field especially like economic cooperation besides the core state based security politics for the Copenhagen school. For human right regime in 80 s have created a security field and also a new interaction field in the Cold war process especially West Federal Germany Social Democrats used this issue in 80s. Hence societal security fits generally for theorizing European security beyond realist paradigms and created a field for explaining the identity as societal processes challenged sovereignty of states. This meant a crucial contribution for the evolution for the security studies in Post 1980 s. In this study our aim is to state the importance of this contribution also to the regional crises in the Middle East. Consequently in this presentation I would like to analyse the contemporary security discourse of Turkey especially from 2009 till today by analysing Davutoglu s speeches. Davutoglu is the present Foreign Minister of Turkey as an important decision maker and also an IR scholar. His former mission was the chief advisor of Prime Minister R.T. Erdogan from 2002 to 2009. He is also known as from his important book Strategic Depth that is first published in 2001. Contemporary Turkish Security discourse in Turkish Foreign Policy Davutoglu s significant foreign policy axis is centred on the culture since he evaluated it as a permanent element of the society like geography and history. Especially for post September 11 world, this is vital for all states to follow their permanent variables. In case, by some scholars this emphasis on culture made an important change especially in Turkey s security approach. Though this study going to analyse his continuity in securitizing the culture also as an important element of the its foreign policy view and in case of a general shift we will analyse the continuity of its realist security approach. In order for examining his general point of view for the new parameter of the Post Cold War Era we need to at his two speeches one in the parliament and one as a guest speaker in Washington a Turkish NGO s Organization SETA. First of all, In 1990 s while regional crises was on the agenda, in 2000 s just after September 11 serious political tension succeeds in the global political system. Second on global economic field global economic order faced important problems. 90 s Russia and Asia regional based crises turned in to global crises in 2000 s. When we look to the global 5

cultural order, in 90 s identity based regional crises turned into global crises field especially clash of civilization thesis triggered these events after post 9/11. Today our country, is an intervener to political crises as a member of UN Security Council 6, to economic crises as a member of G20 countries, to cultural crises as a implementer of allies of civilization. 7 Especially the term allies of civilization is an important discourse for the AKP (Justice and Development Party Government) for centring Muslim identity as the bases of political discourse. Davutoglu were, in SETA meeting at Washington. Second important Post cold war analyses of Today, and in the last 6 years, our methodology is a visionary approach, not a crisis oriented approach. During the cold war because of the characteristic of the cold war, we were in a crisis, because of one big clash with the Soviet Union, so the issue was managing the crisis. Now, we are implementing a vision-oriented foreign policy. 8 Davudoglu s Cold war discourse legitimizes the continuity of integration in NATO policies after Post Cold War era too. He answers the shift of axis and neo Ottomanism critics in Washington: A shift of axis could be only legitimized, if it happens in the reinterpretation of the geography and history. EU and NATO are the main fixtures in Turkish foreign policy. 9 I reject the concept on neo-ottomanism. But I say that Ottoman history, and also our Republican history, the former bi-polar world, these are permanent parameters that cannot be changed. They are an essential part of Turkish identity. All of these developments. The history of bi-polarity in Turkey- US relations, comes with at least half a century or relationship between Turkey and NATO, Turkey and the EU and elements of continuity in Turkish foreign policy because they are relevant in the current international context. But we cannot say our axis is Baghdad pact, for example, because it has passed 10 6 2009-2010 Turkey became a provisional member of UN Security Council. 7 Parliament Speech in Budget Meeting for the Ministry of Turkish Foreign Affairs; Un official translation by the author; DÖNEM: 23 CİLT: 56 YASAMA YILI: 4 TÜRKİYE BÜYÜK MİLLET MECLİSİ TUTANAK DERGİSİ 35 inci Birleşim 18 Aralık 2009 Cuma, p: 72 8 Ahmed Davutoglu's Speech, Unofficial Transcript of Foreign Minister, administrator, PRINCIPLES OF TURKISH FOREIGN POLICY, Address by His Excellency Foreign Minister of Republic of Turkey Ahmet Davutoğlu, SETA Foundation s Washington D.C. Branch, Grand Ballroom, Mayflower Hotel, Washington D.C., December 8, 2009, 12.15pm EST 9 Ahmed Davutoglu's Speech, Unofficial Transcript of Foreign Minister, administrator, PRINCIPLES OF TURKISH FOREIGN POLICY 10 Ahmed Davutoglu's Speech, Unofficial Transcript of Foreign Minister, administrator, PRINCIPLES OF TURKISH FOREIGN POLICY 6

Contemporary Turkish Foreign Policy zero problem with neighbours policy as Davutoglu mentions frequently depends on these considerations growing as a dominant political economical and cultural power of the region without sacrificing with the continuing strategic allies of Turkey like USA and NATO. In 2010 Parliament Budget talks he mentions four principles for the regional policies in economic political and cultural way with Balkans, Middle Asia and Middle East. Fourth are cultural relations. These territories these regions we share the common history. How try to protect the rights of the Turkish citizens is the mission for the Turkish Republic, to protect our bonds with the regions of our common history is Turkish nation mission. 11 Consequently especially relations with Iran created an important sceptism from the western world. Hence Davutoglu pronounced this doubt in his press meeting after the Barter agreement Turkey Brazil and Iran 17 May 2010. Brazil withdrew from this agreement after the suspicion grew higher on June 2010. We must consider good will and political determination of Iran, Ahmadinejad s flexibility and Obama s multi dimensional diplomacy as a consequence of this agreement 12 Davutoglu especially was criticized on Turkey s integration process with EU. In his general speeches generally he emphasized the importance of the relations under Turkey s continuing good relations. But he also criticizes organizations approach with their power politics. The third methodological principle, is trying to have a new style, in the sense of political rhetoric and tools; an instrument. In one word I will call it, "Soft Power. Today, Turkey is using more soft power than hard power. Twenty-thirty years ago we didn't have this. This is something new. Is this compatible with EU values? Why did the EU emerge? Because the EU emerged, in context of hard and soft powers in Second World War. No Turkish leaders have used any terminology in any plane that has threatened the use of hard power. All soft power. But, we are of course, proud of our hard power, our military force, because this is also a changing variable based on technological advancement. But, which power will be used, in which contrast? The balance between soft and hard power This is important. 11 Parliament Speech in Budget Meeting for the Ministry of Turkish Foreign Affairs; Un official translation by the author; DÖNEM: 23 CİLT: 56 YASAMA YILI: 5 TÜRKİYE BÜYÜK MİLLET MECLİSİ TUTANAK DERGİSİ 37 inci Birleşim 20 Aralık 2010 Pazartesi, p:45 12 Press Meeting in 18 May 2010 after Barter Meetin with Iran Dışişleri Bakanı Davutoğlu'nun İran ile varılan nükleer uzlaşı ile güncel gelişmeleri hakkında basın toplantısı metni / T.C. Dışişleri Bakanlığı- Unofficial translation by the author. 7

All three of these principles: vision orientation; a systematic framework; using soft power. They are all compatible with European values and transatlantic orientation. Otherwise, to be frank, you should criticize those organizations who are critical of Turkey, if they are not compatible. These are the humanitarian aspects. 13 Davudoglu s general policy depends on its soft power integration with cultural emphasis in the region that created the hesitation like shift of axis in the western world. Generally he explains this with Turkey s loyal relations with all organizations and with West. Especially Turkey s relations with NATO and US are important examples. But he notes the cultural and historical common values as permanent variables with its region by using realist security discourses like soft power diplomacy. 13 Ahmed Davutoglu's Speech, Unofficial Transcript of Foreign Minister, administrator, PRINCIPLES OF TURKISH FOREIGN POLICY 8