Search

Turkey's decision on its role in the Iraq war in 2003 illustrates the power -- and limits -- of parliaments as actors in foreign policy. Traditionally, national assemblies are not seen as important players in the foreign policies of parliamentary democracies. Instead, the cabinet is generally considered the locus of policymaking authority. Parliaments are seen as forums for debate, and if the government enjoys a parliamentary majority, legislatures are expected to support the cabinet, if they are brought into the process at all. In Turkey, the president and the military have also been considered more important actors than parliament. But the March 1, 2003 vote by the Turkish parliament to not allow the United States to use Turkey as a base challenges this conventional wisdom on parliamentary influence (in addition to interest-based explanations of foreign policy). This paper examines this decision in the context of the role of legislatures in the foreign policies of parliamentary democracies and explores the relationships between parliamentary influence, leadership, intraparty politics, and public opinion. This paper uses this case to offer ideas on when and how parliaments are influential in foreign policy. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the run-up to the European Union's "big-bang" enlargement of 2004, there was significant debate about the cultural unity of Europe. Popular and scholarly observers routinely suggested that a cultural chasm separated cosmopolitan and post-religious western Europeans from provincial and devout eastern Europeans. The east-west cultural divide portended a dark future for the EU. On this view, westerners and easterners in an enlarged EU would have a hard time understanding each other (literally and figuratively) and east Europeans would have a hard time availing themselves of the perquisites (e.g., free movement, increased educational opportunity) of membership.David Laitin (2002) framed an ambitious empirical analysis of culture and politics in the enlarging EU against the backdrop of this debate. His findings cut against the prevailing wisdom: both westerners and easterners, he found, participated in an emerging pan-European cosmopolitan culture. Rather than precluding mobility and political consensus after 2004, he suggested, culture might encourage east European mobility and promote compromise between incumbent member states and new member states.The purpose of the current paper is to utilize Laitin's conceptual framework to test more contemporary assertions of cultural difference in Europe. Today, assertions of Turkish otherness are even more common than assertions of eastern otherness were before 2004. This common view suggests that Turks are from Venus, while Europeans are from Mars. But might empirical comparison of Turkish and incumbent culture undercut this conventional wisdom, just as Laitin's analysis undercut the east-west conventional wisdom? And what are the political implications of cultural (non)overlaps between Turks and citizens of the EU-27? The paper analyzes updated data on language use, religion, and popular culture in EU member-states and Turkey to address these questions. It suggests that Laitin's pan-European cosmopolitan culture is deepening within the EU-27 but that most Turkish citizens remain outside of this culture. This time around, the conventional wisdom is generally supported rather than challenged. The paper's findings raise concerns about the prospects for cooperation in an EU that includes Turkey and questions the extent to which Turkish Eurocitizens would be able to take advantage of the opportunities opened by EU membership. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many recent events seem to indicate a change in Turkey's foreign policy orientation: Turkey's reactions to the occupation of Iraq by the United States, the notable deceleration in Turkey's adoption of the EU acquis, rapprochement with countries in the Middle East, especially with Syria and Iran, and a much stronger criticism of Israel's foreign policy, which led to repetitive crises with Israel. All these have engendered doubts regarding Turkey's long-cherished association with the West. This paper argues that Turkey's Middle Eastern-centered foreign policy does not mark a departure from Western orientation that has been pursued since the wake of the Cold War. Turkey's location in the Middle East has long been used as a bargaining chip in Turkey's relations with the West. The marketing of Turkey's location, identity, and status in the region is one of the continuous elements of Turkish foreign policy. While Turkey hoped to obtain a place within the West by playing on its geopolitical location and links with the countries outside West's reach, what has driven Turkey towards these measures has been Turkey's uneasy identification with the West/Europe as well as the difficulties Turkey has faced in reconciling domestic and international challenges. During the last decade, Turkey has reconfigured its alignment within its Westernist axis by orienting its foreign policy towards the goal of EU membership rather than giving an unconditional support to the U.S. policies. On the other hand, Turkey's new configuration seems to have its own limits so long as Turkey continues to rely on its traditional tactics to enhance its geostrategic importance at the expense of domestic reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper will examine the future of Transatlantic relations from a Turkish perspective ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper will discuss the following questions: Why does the Justice and Development Party (JDP) attach importance to European politics? and Which kinds of factor direct the JDP towards EU? The JDP, which for the first time came into the power in 2002 an ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Turkey had followed a very conservative and narrowly defined foreign policy during the Cold War in accordance with the Cold War discipline. The end of the Cold War enlarged the space for maneuver for Turkish foreign policy. However, Turkey failed to successfully transform its foreign policy in accordance with the post-Cold War conjecture in the 1990s. After the 2002 general elections, AKP (Justice and Development Party) came to power where Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan Turkey started to follow new principles of foreign policy making. According to, Prof. Ahmet Davutoglu, the chief adviser of foreign policy to the Prime Minister, the new Turkish foreign policy is designed on 5 fundamental principles: 1. Balance between freedom and security.2. Zero problems with the neighbors. 3. Multi-dimensional and multi-track policies.4. A new diplomatic discourse. 5. Rhythmic diplomacy.In this paper, I attempt to describe these fundamental principles of foreign policy making and evaluate them as to how much they have been implemented and become entrenched in the current Turkish foreign policy making. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EU's common foreign and security role is tied to the EU's normative role and this has been one of the critical aspects of the debate concerning Turkey's accession. Turkey's membership negotiations are critical in terms of the future of the European integration process, specifically with respect to the EU's role as a global actor. How Turkey perceives the EU's CFSP is critical in assessing Turkey's potential role in the larger integration process, as well as the future development of the EU's international role. The article investigates whether there are wide differences among the Turkish public vis-a-vis the EU's CFSP and to what extent these differences are visible in Turkey's negotiation talks with the EU. The paper explores the extent to which European norms in foreign policy has diffused into Turkey and how this diffusion might have impacted the process of foreign policy making in Turkey. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper looks at EU-Turkish relations. It pays special attention to the Report issued by the European Commission in October 2004 recommending opening of accession negotiations with Turkey. A final decision for the commencement of accession negotiations was made by the European Council in December 2004. The Commission suggested that a three pillar approach should be followed during the accession negotiations in order to guarantee that harmonization with the acquis communautaire and the political reform process are consolidated, broadened and properly implemented by Turkey. It also pointed out that accession negotiations are an open-ended process that will be suspended if Turkey breaches basic EU principles like democracy and respect for human rights. The article argues that the case of Turkey is different and more challenging from previous accessions for several reasons. A major issue is whether the internal sociopolitical dynamics and external orientations of Turkey can be compatible with the changing dynamics of the European integration process. It concludes that during the protracted period of accession negations Europe and Turkey will find out whether they can share a common future that will reconcile their different pasts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the conference paper "Turkish-Russian Relations and the Evolution of Identities, Images and Perceptions," prepared for the "46th Annual International Studies Association Convention" held from March 1 to 5, 2005 in Honolulu, Hawaii. It says that the improvement of economic relations and intensification of cultural interaction help in the effort of two countries to understand each other. It also mentions that the efforts affect the perceptions of the publics and the leaders of both countries.

The leaders of both Japan and Turkey have recently made headlines with their refusal to acknowledge past atrocities committed by their states. In the case of Japan, the refusal centers on the Japanese state’s role in forcing Korean women into prostitution during WWII. In the case of Turkey the refusal is an outright denial of the Armenian genocide. It would be easy to dismiss these actions as the product of irrational nationalist bravado, put on for the benefit of a domestic audience. However, given the international character of these disputes, and their very serious consequences for the diplomatic credibility of the countries in question, international relations scholars have an obligation to explain why states act in ways which are contrary to their short-term self-interests. I argue that because of the social status hierarchy in the international system, admitting to past atrocities is more difficult for those states which are not naturally or inherently favored by the norms of the international system. In other words, it is not an accident that two Asian states with the highest aspirations to join the Western the world are also the states which have the most difficulty facing their past. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Turkey's relations with the European Union date back to 1959 when Turkey made its application for an associatin with the then EEC. The relations have passed through verious stages, periods of suspension, aloofness, crisis and reinvigoration. The 1999 Helsinki European Council marked a turning point in that Turkey was güven the perspective of candidacy to the EU. Turkey went through a comprehensive and accelerated legal reform process to meet the political Copenhagen criteria and started negotiations for accession as of 3 October 2005. The negotiations have been suspended in 8 chapters of the acquis due to Turkey's non-recognition of Cyprus and not widening the customs union to include that new member state. Recently, the optimistic mood in the relations gave way to even a graver condition with the change leadership in two of the fundamental states of the EU, Germany and France, and the repugnance of the new leaders to Turkey's membership prospects. The paper aims to discuss the question of the recent turn in Turkey-EU relations by analyzing the rhetoric on both sides on such issues as Turkey's eligibility for EU membership, its Europeanness and the Copenhagen criteria. The paper will study the arguments developed both in Turkey and the EU, and try to assess the role of the speech acts involved in the process of defining Turkey's status in and vis-a-vis Europe and the EU and the logic of appropriateness that is at work in the process of interaction. Overall, the paper will aim at reaching a conclusion on the applicability of the theory of communicative action to Turkey-EU relations. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is an inquiry into the ubiquity of ‘geopolitics’ in myriad actors’ discourses in post-Cold War Turkey. In accounting for the centrality of geopolitics in the Turkish context, the paper offers the concept of ‘geopolitics dogma’, defined as a structure of well-established assumptions as to ‘what geography tells one to do’ and ‘why this makes sense’. Section 1 outlines the main features of Turkey’s ‘geopolitics dogma’ and points to its centrality to the ‘security imaginary’. Section 2 is intended as an exposé of the ubiquity of appeals to geopolitics in post-Cold War Turkey. The analysis of ‘external’ and ‘internal’ dynamics in Section 3 is offered as evidence to the argument that such ubiquity should be understood as a corollary to not only the aforementioned ‘external’ dynamics but also to the ‘geopolitics dogma’, the structure of cultural resources that helps to make sense of those very dynamics. If geopolitics has come to occupy such a central place within Turkey’s security imaginary, the paper suggests, this has transpired as an unintended outcome of the confluence of two factors: the Turkish Military’s active dissemination of geopolitics as a ‘privileged perspective’ (with itself as the ‘master’ of this perspective), and the relative weakness of alternative ways of making sense of world politics. Whereas the former was an upshot of the Military’s post-WWII attempt to re/entrench its position in shaping Turkey’s intra-national relations, the latter has to do with the study and discourse of International Relations in Turkey. In the concluding section, the argument comes back full circle and looks at the uses of geopolitics, i.e. those discursive practices that help (re)produce the geopolitics dogma. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The examination of metaphors has become one of the most important ways to gain an insight into the thinking of the policy makers. This paper analyzes the metaphors used by the Turkish elites while discussing issues regarding Turkish foreign policy. Since the end of World War II, when Turkey decided to anchor itself into the Western alliance, three important metaphors in an alternating manner have been frequently used to highlight Turkey’s foreign policy orientation: bridge, barrier and crossroad. Based on discourse analysis examining the speeches of the high ranking Turkish officials who formulate and implement Turkish foreign policy, this paper will answer questions such as: why these metaphors are used? When are they used? Who uses them? Does military who defines what constitutes as a threat for Turkey use metaphors differently than the civilians? Does the agenda have an impact on the choice of metaphor? Why do various metaphors alternate? By answering all these questions the paper aims to deconstruct the way that Turkish foreign policy makers construct Turkey’s international role in the world. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most studies on Turkish Foreign Policy have paid significant attention to Turkey’s geo-strategic location, the role of international systemic factors and the like, leaving not only the domestic determinants, but also the decision-making process components of foreign policymaking understudied. Even though we recognize that there are increasing number of studies that focus on the role of certain domestic factors in TFP, such as the military (Gencer 2001) and the public opinion (Carkoglu 2003), the same cannot be argued for systematic examination of the decision-making processes in Turkish foreign policy. For instance, although there is a lively debate around leader dominance in Turkish politics, there is hardly any systematic research on how these powerful individuals influence the decision-making process and the policy outcome. Similarly, for a country being frequently ruled by coalition governments since the 1970s, there are hardly any significant studies on the influence of coalition decision-making structures in Turkish foreign policymaking. Towards fulfilling this gap, in this paper we delve into the dynamics of decision-making in Turkish foreign policy especially considering the interaction between the structural factors and agency factors. We argue that with regard to foreign policy cases, conflicts among the authorized decision-making bodies arise due to a combination of or interaction between the structural factors that emanate from the Constitution (especially when the executive body is divided and requires a coalition of autonomous actors) and agency factors that emanate from the leadership styles. The paper explores under what kind of conditions the interaction between the structure and agency factors bear what kind of foreign policy outcomes. In order to elaborate on this idea, we examine the decision-making process in four decision occasions in depth in a comparative perspective. Two of these decision occasions take place during the first Gulf War of 1991 and the other two take place during the second Gulf War in 2003. The data for the cases are gathered through both primary and secondary sources in addition to interviews. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since October 2005, Turkey's path towards full membership in the European Union (EU) has become official. Though practical and political obstacles in Turkey and the EU could still prevent eventual membership, the relationship in the years to come will be cast under the auspices of membership negotiations. As with previous rounds of EU enlargement, the negotiation process reveals underlying fissures in national polities of accession countries. Regarding Turkey's accession, this paper intends to examine the consequences of concurrent negotiations on Turkish identity politics.In conceptual terms, the Turkish debate mirrors the European controversy over the Union as such: striving to reconcile the particularistic identities of its constituents with a universalist political project. However, whereas Europe struggles to balance regional and national identities with an idealistic, supranational vision, Turkey's battle is between its unitary nation-state identity and its pluralistic reality. This paper will examine thisbattle by explaining the rise of pluralistic identities in the context of the construction and subsequent decline of Kemalism, the forces of globalization and the direct impact of the EU accession process. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper will analyze Turkish foreign policy toward the conflicts that took place in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia in the 1990s in order to understand the impact of Turkish search for a new identity in the post-Cold War era on its foreign policy formulation. It will examine Turkey?s approach to the Yugoslav dissolution process beginning from the Yugoslav attack in Slovenia to the Kosovo War in 1999. Turkish policy toward each conflict in the Balkans in the 1990s, i.e. Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, will be analyzed separately.Although Turkey supported the integrity of Yugoslavia in the previous phases of the conflict, as international efforts failed to maintain the territorial integrity of the Yugoslav Federation, Turkey, together with other countries, tried to establish friendly relations with the breakaway republics. However, with the beginning of the war in Bosnia, one of the main aims of Turkish foreign policy turned out to play an important role in the solution of the conflict. Turkey tried to encourage the Western world to take every necessary measure, including military ones, to end the bloodshed. Ankara was careful not just to follow footsteps of Western countries, but to take part in formulating effective policies. Turkey also aimed at becoming a bridge between Bosnia and the international community. During the Kosovo conflict, Turkey pursued a lower profile policy compared to its policies in the Bosnian war. The former was regarded as an internal ethnic problem within the Yugoslav Federation. In the case of Bosnia, however, it was a war between two independent countries. In the Kosovo conflict, Turkey was cautious of any similarities being drawn with the Kurdish and Albanian problems. It did not actively call for an international military intervention, but made clear that if any intervention took place, it would not hesitate to participate. Turkish foreign policy during the Kosovo crisis was not as active as it had been during the Bosnian War. I argue that Turkish policies toward the Yugoslav conflicts were a sign of its search for a new identity. Losing its traditional alliance role of the Cold War era, it was now seeking to find a new role for itself that would prove its geo-strategic importance for the Western world. It was trying to establish itself as a regional power that had the ability to play a substantial role in the solution of conflicts that were taking place in its neighboring regions. Moreover, it was trying to be a bridge between the Islamic and Western world. Its initiatives within the framework of the Organization of Islamic Conference, as well as its guardianship of rights of Balkan Muslims, were characterizing this attempt. The ultimate aim of Turkey, however, was to strengthen its place in the Western world. The paper will also shed light on different Turkish approaches toward the cases of Bosnia and Kosovo by looking at the internal and external dynamics. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper tries to understand mainly the EU policies toward Middle East with particular focus Turkey?s role in the region. The possibility of Turkey joining the European Union has spurred heated debate within the EU, but it is also fascinating the entire Middle East. This interest has been interpreted in Turkey as a clear signal that Ankara has emerged as a powerful regional actor. The change in Turkish policy-makers? language and rhetoric is clearly visible and bears considerable influence on foreign policy. In this line of thought, Turkey?s reform process paved the way for a number of structural changes in domestic landscape, which also changed the foreign policy attitudes toward the Middle East. What has suddenly given formerly inward-looking Turkish politicians this newfound self-assurance that they can influence regional politics? What promise does Turkey hold for the region? Did Turkey?s perception of the Middle East change? What will be the priority areas in Turkey?s new policy toward the Middle East? Can Turkey really contribute to the EU policies of enhancing regional security and stability? Why would the EU care about Turkish positions in the Middle East?Indeed, Turkey?s new ruling elite is confident that their country can play an active peace-making role in the Middle East. In this paper, one will focus on the role of Turkey?s aspirations for the EU membership and, consequently, political transformation and reform in the emergence of the new policy attitudes in the Middle East. The process that one will focus in this article is the Europeanization of Turkey?s policy toward a number of Middle Eastern problems. While studying this change of policy line, one will build a framework which puts emphasis on both historical background and current developments to understand Turkey?s decision to follow European perspectives in a number of critical regional problems. Although Turkey?s EU aspirations and progress gained momentum in past several years, an historical analysis denotes that Turkey has been closer to the EU positions in some issues, contrary to the widespread idea that Ankara followed a pro-U.S. stance in the Middle East for a long time. Within the limits and scopes of the article, one choose Arab-Israeli conflict and, more specifically, Palestinian Question vis-à-vis the development of Turkish foreign policy in the region. Following the historical analysis, which will put more focus on the developments in recent era, one will also discuss Turkey?s possible role in enhancing a more active, dynamic, timely and influential EU policy toward the Middle East. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The significance and impact of belief systems, ideas and ideologies in foreign policy analysis remains an under-researched area, especially with regard to the foreign policies of states in the Middle East. This paper will argue that ideas and issues of identity, rather than material resources of power, can help explain foreign policy and will specifically analyze the importance of symbolism in a state?s foreign policy. This paper will look at the dialectical relationship between three competing, domestic belief systems in Turkey held by the Kemalists, Islamists and Leftists and how this impacts foreign policy in Turkey. This paper will examine the relationship each group has with the state, the belief systems and ideas they put forward for Turkey?s role in the international system and how each group has affected the foreign policy adopted by the state. This paper will attempt to answer the questions of how do divergent ideas in the domestic realm impact a state?s foreign relations? What issues in foreign policy are the focus of ideological competition? And, why is foreign policy in Turkey a contested domain between Kemalists, Islamists and Leftists? ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why does Turkey want to be a member of the European Union? The existing literature, in an attempt to answer this question, has pointed to interests and identity as driving Turkey?s membership quest. This paper suggests an alternative explanation by showing how the quest for EU membership is a result of the development trajectory that it has been following for almost two centuries. Using historical institutionalist approach and its analytical tools, like path dependency, the authors will show that the accumulative effects of policy choices of almost two century and especially of policy choices after the Turkish Republic was found have created momentum that has led Turkey to seek EU membership. The Turkish path of development, especially after the founding of the Turkish Republic, has been very strongly colored by a desire to be a European nation. The logic of 'westernization' informing the Turkish path of development has profoundly shaped its domestic and foreign political choices. This paper will historically trace how the policy choices of the past have made EU membership much more likely option than other possible forms of international alignment. Although this paper does not deny the role of interests and identity, it draws attention to the historical institutional dynamics wielding causal weight on current choices and even shaping contemporary interest and identities. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Turkey became a major regional power in post-Soviet Central Asia. My paper studies Turkey’s role in Central Asia within a three-level analytical framework. The three levels are causally interlinked. The first level is Turkey’s bilateral relations with the ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Influence of the EU on the Making of Turkish Foreign PolicyThis paper focuses on the influence of the EU on foreign policy making in Turkey since 1999, when Turkey was declared as a candidate country to the EU. Traditional Turkish foreign policy i ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper will examine the possibility of Turkey’s membership in the EU on the basis of the identity-related factors. Unless the ideational attributes of the parties converged on some fundamental points, Turkey’s EU dreams would likely remain unfulfilled. This is so because the EU’s approach towards Turkey’s accession to the EU has now been increasingly shaped by the logic of identity, rather than the logics of interests/pragmatism/utilitarianism or the logic of cosmopolitanism/human rights. Whether Turkey is still a secular state or gradually transforming into an Islamic state is gradually becoming the most important variable shaping the EU's attitude towards Turkey. The more the Europeans think that Turkey is evolving into an Islamic state, the more the opinions of those who tend to argue against Turkey’s membership on the basis of ideational differences would be justified. Another important question in this regard is to what extent ideational factors, such as religion and culture, have begun to shape the EU’s evolving international identity. The post September 11 era developments point out to an increasing tendency on the part of some Europeans to define the EU’s identity alongside ideational attributes. In such a context, the ones who are traditionally in favour of Turkey’s accession would find it difficult to explain why Turkey’s membership would be in the economic and security interests of the EU as well as a legitimate course of action within the framework of EU’s cosmopolitan principles. The worry here is that given these trends Turkey’s membership in the EU would never materialize. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do Islamic movements operate in secular democracies? Are Islamic visions of politics and society compatible with liberal democracy? The resurgence of religious organizations into public sphere in the recent years has given special urgency to these questions. The appropriate role of religion in secular democratic states has rapidly emerged as an extraordinary divisive issue globally. The answer given to this question sheds light on the role of Islam in the process of defining the norms that regulate public life and the values that institute the political community. Some scholars have argued that the undemocratic nature of Islamic notions of society and politics are not compatible with the notions of democracy and human rights. Others have argued that notions of democracy and human rights are established in the Islamic political discourse and their exposition depends on history, social structure and context. Although this debate have produced fruitful outcomes that help us framing the role of Islam in the public sphere, both sides of the debate have generally focused on essential sources of Islam. This debate needs to be extended to the empirical realm by the study of Islamic movements comparatively. The best way to look at this is to examine the political behaviors of Islamic movements in democratic countries. This examination should consider environmental factors within which Islamic movements are located, the strategies that the movements employ, and the Islamic repertoire that the movements use in mobilizing their followers. In this paper, I examine these two questions by examining the political attitudes and behaviors of Islamic movements in public in Turkey and France. Since Turkey and France has a strong secular republican public sphere, Islamic groups’ positioning in the public debates in these countries is a good indication for whether or not they can develop democracy-friendly public reasoning. I critically examine the public discussions on democracy, secularism, cosmopolitanism and republicanism to trace the position of Islamic groups in public debates. My data comes from the interviews I conducted in Turkey and France, surveys done by other scholars, critical analysis of news media, and primary publications Islamic movements. This study makes two conclusions: (1) Even though the political discourse of Islamic groups is not normatively democratic; they develop new strategies to operate in a democratic environment, which transforms their discourse toward more democracy-friendly ones. Second, in a democratically designed environment, Islamic movements’ involvement in public debates forces them to confront and come to the terms of democratic normative structures. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Perhaps no country since the end of the Cold War has seen its position and role as quickly transformed as Turkey has in the last two decades. While Turkey?s geography has not changed during this time, the importance with which the international community has viewed this area of the world has undoubtedly been shaped by the events that have followed since the fall of the Soviet Union. Most recently, the events of 9/11 have dramatically affected Turkey both internally and externally in the regions that matter the most to Turkish foreign policymakers. The changes that have occurred both within Turkey and in its immediate neighborhood require thoughtful reconsideration for both how Ankara?s new geopolitical environment now influences its opportunities and challenges, and how various world actors now view Turkey. Turkey?s future path and progress is particularly instructive for the regions that it finds itself a part of, because Turkey?s own struggles with democracy, secularism, Islamism, and ethnic minorities represent a microcosm of the challenges facing the entire region. This presentation is an attempt to account for the transformation that Turkey has undergone since September 11, 2001, and an articulation of Turkey?s need for a new strategy for dealing with the dynamic neighborhoods in which it co-exists. Stated simply, this paper deals with Turkey?s new place in the international state system or ?global order.? Turkey no longer solely represents simply a geographic barrier against communism, but rather is transforming itself to meet the various threats emerging from its new geopolitical environment. In this context, Turkey?s global role has shifted from a Western geo-strategic military deterrent to an exemplary model of a Muslim-majority, secular, and democratic nation. By broadening its horizons and seeing the positive role that it has to play in Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia, Turkey will realize its full potential as a versatile multiregional and increasingly powerful international actor in the New World Order. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Turkey is country located in a strategically important area. However, Turkey?s strategic importance has been evaluated so far from superpowers or western perspective. In this paper, the meaning of Turkey?s strategic importance in global politics will be discussed from a third world perspective. After defining Turkey as a pivotal middle power, rather than only as a pivotal or middle power, its global influence over other regions and that of other regions? influence on Turkey will be tabled. Historically, although it gave huge leverage to Turkey, its EU and Middle Eastern vacation have never been enough for Turkey to be influential in global politics, at least to be an influential and independent player in global politics. After 9/11, it will be argued that if Turkey acts in global politics with other pivotal powers, such as South Africa, Brazil, India etc, its influence might increase in global politics dramatically. Turkey?s contribution to newly emerging global world order and global politics could be much more influential if Turkey can see its relations with the West and East (or South) as a complementary. Furthermore, international security might be more constructive, if pivotal middle powers can come together and create an informal or formal alliance that might be called as ?glocalization of globalization?. In such a case pivotal middle powers, representing their regions as leaders, cannot only build another power bloc, but also have a chance to influence global politics critically. In this presentation, Turkey?s position vis-à-vis abovementioned ideas will be discussed in details. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper deals with EU-Turkish relations. Following the commencement of accession negotiations in October 2005, Turkey is politically at the threshold of the EU. It is argued that the case of Turkey will be different and more challenging from previous accessions for several reasons. A major question is whether the internal sociopolitical dynamics and external orientations of Turkey can be compatible with the changing dynamics of the European integration process. It concludes that during the protracted period of accession negations Europe and Turkey will find out whether they can share a common future that will reconcile their different pasts. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The unliateral unleashing of a global war on terrorism has been characterized by the return of state-centric reordering of world affairs, not only by establishing a linear causality between fight against terrorism and war, but also by codifying difference as a direct or an indirect threat to security. In this paper, I suggest that there is an alternative, democratic response which puts into practice a critical and cosmopolitan international relations theory as an effective philosophical and political basis not only for our global fight against terrorism, but for the possibility of global democratic governance. Secondly, I will focus on Turkey as a case study to demonstrate the historical experience of non-Western historical and cultural settings as alternative modernities is key to searching for a democratic global governance. Turkey constitutes an alternative modernity with the possibility of consolidating multi-cultural and multi-religious characteristics. Focusing on Turkey as a case study of the co-existence rather than the clash of differences help enlarge our thinking space of international relations. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I examine the impact of contested national identity on Turkish and Japanese foreign policies. Applying a constructivist theoretical framework, I seek to explore the ways in which the national identities of Turkey and Japan are constructed, internalized and in turn externalized through their foreign policies. My principal research question is why Turkey and Japan remain ambivalent to any idea of regionalization in their non-Western neighborhood. The answer to this question lies in their historically shaped and domestically contested national identities, which imposes constraints and ambiguity for their current foreign policy choices. The lack of a national consensus in both countries as regards their sense of belonging to a geographic location has been caused by an incomplete shift of civilizational identity and ongoing debates over this shift at the domestic level. The shift was incomplete in two senses: (1) the Westernizing elites never internalized the West itself, while detaching themselves from a sense of belonging to the East; (2) such a shift of identity never became a national consensus, as rival claims to national identity remained dormant and occasionally rose to the level of power. This duality of national identities has paved the way for a contested foreign policy orientation, which continues to influence their European (Turkey) and Asian (Japan) regional integration processes today.Theoretically I further two claims. First, against realism and in line with constructivism, I argue that foreign policy decisions are informed by ideational factors such as identity and historical memory. History matters for a country?s foreign policy, both as a constraint and as an opportunity. It may limit or expand foreign policy options. Secondly, disputing the validity of structural constructivism that takes the notion of national identity as a monolithic entity formed through interaction of state actors, I argue that in both case national identity is fragmented and contested by various sub-national identities with distinct readings of national interests and security and distinct perceptions of Others of national identity. Foreign policy decisions emerge in the context of this contestation among opposing identities. Accordingly, my research demands a modification within constructivist paradigm to account for these divergent perceptions as domestic informants of foreign policy decision-making processes. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Governments react to global and domestic changes. Literature on foreign policy change emphasizes different factors affecting governments? decisions to redirect their foreign policy intentions and actions. Changes in international system, developments in domestic politics, and the changing nature of bureaucratic politics are often cited general categories in explaining change and continuity of state?s external relations. The main assumption of this study is that there has been a substantial change in Turkish foreign policy specifically in the traditionally ?sensitive? plicy areas such as the Cyprus problem, Turkish- Greek relations and the relations with the European Union. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyze dynamics of foreign policy restructuring in the contemporary Turkish foreign policy. For this purpose, foreign policy actions of the ruling AKP government and its predecessor, the DSP coalition government, will be compared and contrasted in order to illustrate the fine nuances of the policy changes that have occurred. The paper also aims to contribute to theoretical literature on foreign policy restructuring by applying the existing frameworks into a regional power context. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Turkey had followed a very conservative and narrowly defined foreign policy during the Cold War in accordance with the Cold War discipline. The end of the Cold War enlarged the space for maneuver for Turkish foreign policy. However, Turkey failed to successfully transform its foreign policy in accordance with the post-Cold War conjecture in the 1990s. This was due to both domestic problems and the failure to correctly read the international trends in the 1990s. The December 1999 European Union summit where Turkey was announced as a candidate country for full membership was an important milestone after which Turkish foreign policy started to show dramatic changes. The relations with the EU in general, with Greece in particular and Turkey?s Cyprus policy have undergone dramatic changes towards better. In addition, Turkey?s relations with the US have shifted to a healthier ground.In this paper, I attempt to describe the main contours of Turkish foreign policy during the Cold War and how they have been transformed in the 21st century from a conservative, narrowly defined uni-focal stand to a multi-focal, dynamic and pro-active character. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

we aim to show that a productive conversation is possible between those who study state identity and the decision making folks. We believe that this conversation is mutually beneficial because both research programs focus on a number of concepts and issu ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Turkey is home to some 20 to 25 million people of Kurdish origin, or roughly a quarter of its 70 million citizens. The numbers are hotly disputed, as is the question of how "Kurdish" they are. Although the Kurds were present at the nation's founding about ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Turkey has been playing proactive and constructive foreign policy roles in the Middle East Region for the last few years of the AKP Government. Turkey’s active involvement in the stability efforts after 33 days war in Lebanon and constructive role in over ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EU’s 1999 Helsinki Summit decision to endorse Turkey’s efforts to obtain membership was a major turning point in the evolution of Turkey’s domestic and foreign affairs. Especially in the post-September 11 context, a predominantly Muslim nation underta ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent history, describing Turkey’s foreign relations as well geographical location in terms of metaphors has been “in” and “out.” Since the arrival of the “reformed-Islamist” AKP (Justice and Development Party) government to power in November 2002, us ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

WILL TO EUROPEAN UNION VS. WILL TO SECULARISM: THE IMPLICATIONS OF TURKEY?S EU REFORMS FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM Turkey, after a long and gradual process of accession to European Union, have started membership negotiations in early October of 2005 which was considered by the public opinion as well as the Government at the time, a success of Turkish foreign policy. Such an outcome had been possible only with various reforms aiming the fulfillment of the Copenhagen conditionality composed of the political criteria (stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, human rights and protection of minorities), the economic criteria (liberal economy, competitiveness with the EU member state economies) and adoption of the acquis communitaire that refer to acceptance and implementation of all treaties and conventions of the EU as well as the decisions of the European Court of Justice. Although all phases of conditionality had exerted certain tensions in Turkish politics, specifically the political criteria on sustaining minority rights and protection of minorities had challenged the Turkey?s conventional norms of minority regime. Turkey officially recognizes only non-Muslim communities as minorities who are mainly the Armenians, Greeks and the Jews. The Lausanne Treaty of 1923 set forth the basic parameters of Turkey?s minority regime and granted educational cultural, lingual and religious rights to these non-Muslim communities. However, through-out the history of modern Turkey, there had been several shortcomings in the treatment of minorities. The minorities were made to pay extra tax during times of the WWII, encountered violent offenses, were denied ranks in the military all which played as crucial factors in their emigration out of Turkey. Hence, in the 2000s, only remained around 100,000 non-Muslims out of around 250,000 at the beginning of 1920s. It was only with the impact of globalization that paved the path for increase in the voices of multiculturalism and the EU accession process that certain reforms were made in Turkey?s traditional minority rights regime. In the seven reform packages between 2001-2004 made as a requirement of the political criteria, certain problems of the non-Muslims were eliminated and religious freedom was expanded. Yet, owing to the threat of religious fundamentalism and specifically Islamic revivalism, Turkey hesitates to further enhancement of religious rights and freedoms. This presentation reflects on Turkey?s dilemma between its will to become a EU member and will to secularism ? the two traditional pinpoints of Turkish politics. It investigates the EU demands from Turkey on religious freedom and minority rights via the regular progress reports prepared by the European Commissions. Furthermore, it makes a assessment of what these demands would imply on real grounds not in daily lives of non-Muslim citizens but also with respect religious freedom of Muslim citizens. Last but not least, Turkey?s response to these progress reports and the changes made in accordance with the EU accession process will be elaborated. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As skepticism concerning Turkey-s EU membership is deepening among both the publics and elites, the odds that have marked EU-Turkey relations for decades are becoming more insurmountable. Does the EU have a choice to say "no" to Turkey? I claim that the choice to say "no" to Turkey is constrained by historical and institutional forces. A series of policy choices that the EC/U made especially during the Cold War era concerning Turkey and its ultimate membership, which was part of a broader effort to integrate Turkey into the West European political and economic systems, has embedded Turkey in European integration. Because of Turkey?s well-established involvement into the institutional, political and economic life of the EU, the EU has trouble to say ?no? to Turkey. As such, this project presents a further extention of historical institutional approach in the EU literature. While the existing applications examine the historical and institutional forces in the vertical deepening of European integration (Pierson, 1996), historical and institutional forces driving the horizental extention or enlargement of integration remained relatively neglected. This project demonstrates that like in its vertical deepening, EU integration is constrained in its horizental extention by the policy choices made in the past, the choices that were often made in response to immediate concerns. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]