Turkey's Middle East Policy Reloaded: Rise of Pragmatism?

8/3/2019 Turkey's Middle East Policy Reloaded: Rise of Pragmatism?

1/4

Summary: Prior to the Arab

Spring, Turkey was admired

as the rising star of the region

owing to its proactive foreign

policy agenda. But the oscilla-

tions observed in Turkeys policy

during the rst few months of the

Arab Spring led some analysts

to suggest that the countrys

regional role was in complete

disarray, not least because

Ankara failed to anticipate this

contingency. Such analyses

proved hasty at best, misjudged

at worst. Turkey demonstrated

exibility in adapting to the

rapidly evolving circumstances

and has managed to gain a say

in the political processes likely to

affect the future of the regional

transformation. As the pendulum

swings back, Turkey is againbeing praised as an important

regional player. Overall, Turkey

has increasingly moved in the

direction of putting pragmatism

above idealism in the conduct of

its regional policies. Yet, a corre-

sponding change has not taken

place in the rhetorical parlance

of Turkish leaders who continue

to advocate an idealist vision of

regional order.

Analysis

Turkeys Middle East Policy Reloaded:

Rise of Pragmatism?

bySaban Kardas

October 10, 2011

Washington, DC Berlin Paris Brussels

BelgraDeankara BuCharest WarsaW

O f f i c e s

Analysis

Te popular uprisings sweeping

through the Middle East have putthe dynamics o the regional orderin ux, orcing the local powers toredene their oreign policy priorities.As the revolutionary ervor subsides,o particular interest have been theimplications o recent developmentsor urkeys Middle East policies.Prior to the Arab Spring, urkey wasadmired as the rising star o the regionowing to its proactive oreign policyagenda. But the oscillations observed

in urkeys policy during the rst ewmonths led some analysts to suggestthat the countrys regional role was incomplete disarray, not least becauseAnkara ailed to anticipate this contin-gency. Such analyses proved hastyat best, misjudgedat worst. urkeydemonstrated exibility in adaptingto the rapidly evolving circumstancesand has managed to gain a say in thepolitical processes likely to aect theuture o the regional transormation.As the pendulum swings back, urkeyis again being praised as an importantregional player.

How has urkish oreign policy aredlately as it navigated the waves orevolution? While it might be wrongto announce the death o urkeysMiddle East policy, it would be equallyproblematic to argue that urkey has

emerged untainted rom this experi-

ence. Te Arab Spring has presentedsubstantial conceptual challenges tourkish oreign policy vision, whichraised serious questions as to therelevance o the idealist thinking thatundergirded urkeys regional poli-cies. Overall, during the course o theArab Spring, urkey has conductedits policy by the dictates oRealpo-litik, and pragmatically realigned itsexternal relations. Yet, a correspondingchange has not taken place in the

rhetorical parlance o urkish leaderswho continue to advocate an idealistvision o regional order.

Turkey as a Middle Eastern

Regional Power

urkeys assertive involvement inMiddle Eastern aairs has beenan outgrowth o its oreign policyactivism on a range o regional andglobal issues. As much as the struc-tural conditions creating a permissiveenvironment, Ankaras recent orienta-tion is underpinned by a strong senseo agency, and as such it reects aneort o its leaders to play leadershiproles in their regional neighborhoodsand beyond. Indeed, urkeys regionaland global ascendance has coincidedremarkably with the rise to power o anew elite, represented by the AK Party.


2/4

Analysis

2

Analysis

Turkish leaders have at times

adopted rather rigid and

categorical foreign policy positions

informed more by their own beliefs

about the right course of action

than the actual facts on the

ground.

Turkeys regional and global

ascendance has coincided

remarkably with the rise to power

of a new elite, represented by the

AK Party.

Te intellectual ownership o new oreign policy is usually

attributed to the views articulated by Ahmet Davutoluin his academic writings, where he justies activism withreerences to the geographic and historical depth. Tatsaid, Davutolu is not alone in believing that geographicand historic imperatives require Ankara to pursue a multi-dimensional oreign policy agenda, and Prime Ministerayyip Erdoan especially has been a keen advocate o thisambitious vision.

Te discussion o the AK Partys oreign policy oenrevolved around the provocative question o the role playedby the ideational actors. Analysts have debated whetherAnkara was experiencing a shi o axis away rom its tradi-tional Western orientation, toward a more Islamist direc-tion, triggered by the ideological makeup o the ruling elite.

What was oen less addressed, however, was the conceptualramework that undergirded urkeys new oreign policyvision. urkeys regional policy had taken largely an idealistturn, in the sense that it was based on the assumption thaturkeys national interests and the conduct o its oreignpolicy must be inormed bya priori moralistic propositionsabout urkeys identity and international role. In line withthese role perceptions, urkish leaders have laid out severalprecepts painting an ideal picture o the Middle East andother regions urkey is a part o, such as the Balkans andCaucasus and urkeys place in it. More specically, theyhave acted on the belie that they are tasked to pursue aoreign policy that upholds peace, justice and reedom bothin immediate regional neighborhoods and the global level.Tough labeling them dogmatic would be wrong, they haveat times adopted rather rigid and categorical oreign policypositions inormed more by their own belies about theright course o action than the actual acts on the ground.

Turkeys Self-Perception as an Order-Instituting Country

Te leading theme in regional engagements has beenthe idea that urkey could act as an order-institutingcountry. Just as other emerging powers, urkey has aspiredto assume a greater responsibility in the creation o morestable and prosperous orders in surrounding regions. InDavutolus parlance, the concept o order instituting hasa broader strategic value as he relates it to the concept ocentral-country. In this view, the extent to which urkeysucceeds in setting up a regional order will be crucial orits emergence as a central country in regional and, conse-quently, global politics.

In addition to such Realpolitik justications, urkeys aspi-rations or order-instituting power also rested on severalinterrelated arguments, indicating the inuence o idealism.First, juxtaposing itsel to the U.S. hard power approach tointernational problems, urkey has prioritized so powerinstruments. Likewise, urkeys policy o penetrating newmarkets and initiating economic integration projects withneighbors, accompanied by the removal o visa require-ments, added a liberal touch to Ankaras recent activism.

Echoing the Wilsonian idealism, moreover, urkey hasemphasized cooperative policies and institution-building asthe best way to advance national interests, as well as to orgea peaceul regional and international order. urkey, morespecically, has come to value diplomacy, mediation, andengagement over orce, coercion, and exclusion, believingthat the United States stood or the latter. As a corollary,


3/4

Analysis

3

Analysis

Turkeys overreliance on soft

power instruments proved

problematic as Turkey addressed

the contingencies in Libya and

Syria.

under the rubric o regional ownership, urkey has advo-

cated or local actors assuming larger roles or the creationo a regional order, which, in eect, has increasingly under-mined the ground or coordinated action with the UnitedStates.

Ironically, the emphasis on an order-instituting role reachedits climax on the eve o the Arab Spring. In a January 2011lecture, Davutolu called or a proactive oreign policy,meaning urkey should be able to anticipate potential crisesand develop appropriate preventive measures. More impor-tantly, a proactive oreign policy meant that urkey shouldbe in a lead role in the resolution o regional and global

crises, abandoning the reactive policies that had character-ized the countrys international practices.

Post-Arab Spring: Rise of Pragmatism?

Te Arab Spring has starkly presented the limits to urkeysability to understand and shape the regional securitydynamics. First, it must have reminded urkish leaders thatthe element o uncertainty inherent in international rela-tions presents a major constraint to any attempt at devisingan ambitious grand strategy. Perhaps urkey may not becriticized or ailing to anticipate a contingency such as theArab Spring, as it caught many regional and global actors

unprepared. Judged by the earlier grandiose rhetoric odevising proactive policies to ride regional transormation,however, it captures the eye that urkey was not in the leadposition in eorts to address the uprisings, except or theortunate intervention in Egypt where Erdoans call onMubarak to leave power earned him applauds.

Erdoans knee-jerk rejection o the imposition o sanctionsagainst the regime o Col. Muammar Gadda, and his vocalquestioning o NAOs possible role in Libya, were drivenless by the actual acts on the ground than his belies aboutright course o action. urkey managed to avoid being side-

lined by the pace o events only through a pragmatic changeo course, simply disregarding its categorical objections.urkey, overall, reacted to the Western agenda, ratherthan proactively determining the policy instruments andplatorms that tackled the violent uprising in Libya.

In Libya, urkey bandwagoned with the international coali-tion, and did so only aer much bickering about UN-autho-rized sanctions and the use o orce. Despite Erdoansinitial rhetoric, which accused other powers o pursuing

neo-imperialistic policies and described urkey as the

only country with a morally-driven and righteous agenda,urkey soon recognized the rapidly changing circumstancesand redened its policy, which culminated in Erdoanstrip to the country. In Syria, again, Ankara lagged behindthe Western world which launched coercive measuresagainst the Baath regime and only recently moved inthat direction. What is also remarkable is that in both casesurkey moved to coordinate its policies with the UnitedStates, abandoning the early rhetoric o autonomous action.

Similarly, urkeys overreliance on so power instruments,which almost bred aversion to the use o coercion, proved

problematic as urkey addressed the contingencies in Libyaand Syria. On the issue o regime change, urkey basedon the idealist oreign policy vision, Davutolus earlierwritings, and the lessons learned rom Aghanistan and Iraq deended gradual transormation o existing regimes,standing against regime change through oreign interven-tion. However, urkeys so power tools were o no avail,as it sought to present an Ankara-based solution to Libyaand Syria. Syria, in particular, showcased how, aer havinginvested political capital or engaging the Assad regime,urkey ailed to turn its so power into political leverage.

Where Goes Pragmatism?Te major principles underpinning urkeys oreign policyvision beg reconsideration, having ailed to stand the test oevents sparked by the Arab Spring. At the core o urkeyspre-Arab Spring vision was a strong belie o its leaders intheir ability to understand and shape the region aer theirown image. Its leaders imagined a urkey that can leadby example and devise policies with oresight in order toprevent regional crises. Faced with ast-evolving contingen-cies, urkey rapidly responded to new conditions, though


4/4

Analysis

4

Analysis

About the Author

Dr. aban Karda works as an assistant proessor o international rela-

tions in the Department o International Relations at OBB University

o Economics and echnology in Ankara.

About GMF

Te German Marshall Fund o the United States (GMF) is a non-par-

tisan American public policy and grantmaking institution dedicated

to promoting better understanding and cooperation between North

America and Europe on transatlantic and global issues. GMF does this

by supporting individuals and institutions working in the transatlantic

sphere, by convening leaders and members o the policy and business

communities, by contributing research and analysis on transatlantic

topics, and by providing exchange opportunities to oster renewed

commitment to the transatlantic relationship. In addition, GMF

supports a number o initiatives to strengthen democracies. Founded

in 1972 through a gi rom Germany as a permanent memorial to

Marshall Plan assistance, GMF maintains a strong presence on both

sides o the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in Washington,

DC, GMF has seven ofces in Europe: Berlin, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade,

Ankara, Bucharest, and Warsaw. GMF also has smaller representations

in Bratislava, urin, and Stockholm.

About the On Turkey Series

GMFs On urkey is an ongoing series o analysis bries about urkeyscurrent political situation and its uture. GMF provides regular analy-

sis bries by leading urkish, European, and American writers and

intellectuals, with a ocus on dispatches rom on-the-ground urkish

observers. o access the latest bries, please visit our web site at www.

gmus.org/turkey or subscribe to our mailing list at http://database.

gmus.org/reaction.

its conduct was not always in tune with the idealist rhetoric.

Overall it was successul in adapting to a new MiddleEastern regional order in ux, but urkey was hardly theactor that proactively led the crisis management eorts inall cases.

urkeys change o course as observed in Libya is prag-matismpar excellence, and reects the ability to ollowdictates oRealpolitik in difcult times. What is needednow is a critical sel-reection o its leaders as to how theyreconcile the gap between rhetoric and practice. So ar,they have rerained rom engaging in a deliberate attemptat conceptualizing their practice. Instead, they insist on

the validity o the idealist vision and oer ad hoc justica-tions or their maneuvers. Erdoans presentation at the UNGeneral Assembly attests to urkish leaders belie in theirsel-righteousness and reluctance to subject the idealistvision to criticism. However, as the mismatch between therhetoric and reality becomes ever more apparent, urkeywill benet rom a more nuanced and healthy debate onthe idealist vision as the conceptual ramework guidingurkeys regional policies, since this has immense practicalimplications. At the very least, it raises questions about thegap between capabilities and expectations or sustainabilityo an idealist agenda in a uid international environment.

Tese questions are particularly relevant at a time whenurkish leaders aspire to apply the very same ideals at theglobal level.

Documents

Turkey's Middle East Policy Reloaded: Rise of Pragmatism?