TÜRKİYE VE AVRASYA EKONOMİK BİRLİĞİ ÜYE DEVLETLERİNİN DIŞİŞLERİ BAKANLIKLARININ SOSYAL MEDYA ÜZERİNDEN YÜRÜTTÜĞÜ DİJİTAL DİPLOMASİ ETKİNLİKLERİNDE ÜLKELER ARASI İLETİŞİM

Year 2025, Volume: 16 Issue: 2, 1064 - 1090, 29.12.2025

Yelda Özkoçak , Yağmur Gümüşboğa

https://doi.org/10.54688/ayd.1743259

Abstract

AEB ülkeleri ile Türkiye, tarihsel yakınlıklarının yanı sıra enerji, güvenlik ve ticaret alanlarında karşılıklı bağımlılık içeren geniş bir bölgesel etkileşim ağına sahiptir. Buna rağmen dijital diplomasi literatüründe bu iki aktörün karşılaştırmalı analizi neredeyse hiç ele alınmamıştır. Küreselleşmenin ekonomik, siyasi ve sosyal alanlarda dönüştürücü etkisini hızla artırdığı son çeyrek yüzyılda, bölgesel ekonomik birlikler uluslararası sistemin şekillenmesinde kritik rol oynamaktadır. Bu çerçevede Avrupa Birliği, yalnızca ekonomik kalkınmayı değil, insan hakları da dâhil olmak üzere çok boyutlu bir ulus-üstü yapılanmayı temsil ederken; Avrasya Ekonomik Birliği ise rekabet gücünü artırmak, ekonomilerini modernize etmek ve üye devletlerin yaşam standartlarını yükseltmek amacıyla daha çok ekonomik iş birliği ekseninde gelişimini sürdüren bölgesel bir entegrasyon yapısıdır. Avrupa Birliği’nin kurumsallaşmasını büyük ölçüde tamamlamış olması, buna karşılık AEB’nin hâlen gelişmekte olan bir yapı niteliği taşıması, dijital diplomasi uygulamalarının bu iki farklı entegrasyon modelinde nasıl konumlandığının karşılaştırmalı biçimde incelenmesini bilimsel açıdan anlamlı kılmaktadır. Bu nedenlerle, literatürde daha az ele alınan AEB üye ülkeleri örnekleme dâhil edilmiş ve çalışma, Türkiye ile AEB’nin dijital diplomasi pratiklerini nesnel bir çerçevede analiz ederek alandaki önemli bir boşluğu doldurmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Keywords

Avrasya Ekonomik Birliği (AEB) , Dijital Diplomasi , Sosyal Medya , Yumuşak Güç.

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN COUNTRIES ON SOCIAL MEDIA DIGITAL DIPLOMACY EVENTS OF THE MINISTRIES OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF TÜRKİYE AND MEMBER STATES OF THE EURASIAN ECONOMIC UNION

Abstract

In addition to their historical ties, Turkey and the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) are embedded in a broad regional network of interaction characterized by mutual interdependence in the fields of energy, security, and trade. Despite this, a comparative analysis of these two actors remains virtually absent from the literature on digital diplomacy. Over the past quarter-century, as globalization has exerted increasingly transformative effects across economic, political, and social domains, regional economic unions have come to play a critical role in shaping the international system. Within this framework, the European Union (EU) represents a multidimensional supranational structure that encompasses not only economic development but also human rights and democratic governance. In contrast, the Eurasian Economic Union has developed primarily along the axis of economic cooperation, aiming to enhance competitiveness, modernize member economies, and improve living standards. The fact that the EU has largely completed its institutionalization process, whereas the EAEU remains an evolving structure, renders a comparative examination of digital diplomacy practices within these two divergent models of integration scientifically significant. For these reasons, the study incorporates EAEU member states whose digital diplomacy practices are less frequently addressed in the literatüre into its sample. By providing an objective analysis of the digital diplomacy practices of both Turkey and the EAEU, this research aims to fill a critical gap in the existing body of scholarship.

Keywords

Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) , Digital Diplomacy , Soft Power , Social Media.

References

• Ağır, O., & Ağır, Ö. (2017). Comparison of the establishment processes of the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union. Turkish Journal of Social Research, 21(1), 103-128.
• Aktaş, H., & Tüfekçi, Ö. (2013). Geopolitics of Trabzon in the Caucasus Belt. Journal of Ekoavrasya, 6(22), 22-30.
• Alanka, Ö., & Çimen, Ü. (2023). Twitter as a digital channel of public diplomacy in Turkey. In Maintaining International Relations Through Digital Public Diplomacy Policies and Discourses, 176-189. IGI Global.
• Arıkan, R. (2004). Araştırma teknikleri ve rapor hazırlama. Ankara: Asil Yayın.
• Arlı, M. ve Nazik, H. (2001). Bilimsel araştırmaya giriş. Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
• Bjola, C., & Jiang, L. (2015). Social media and public diplomacy: Comparative analysis of the digital diplomatic strategies of the EU, US and Japan in China. In C. Bjola & M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital diplomacy: Theory and practice, 71-88. New York: Routledge.
• Çeçen, A. (2015). Türkiye and Eurasia (2nd ed.). Istanbul: Doğu Kütüphanesi.
• Dugin, A. (1999). Russian geopolitics: Eurasian approach (V. Vügarimanov, Trans.). Istanbul: Küre Publications.
• Euronews. (2024, March 26). Iran signed a free trade agreement with the Eurasian Economic Union chaired by Putin. Retrieved from https://tr.euronews.com/2023/12/26/iran-putinin-baskanlik-ettigi-avrasya-ekonomik-birligi-ile-serbest-ticaret-anlasmasi-imzal
• Gürdal, E. (2021). Digital diplomats: The new generation in digital diplomacy. Academic İzdüşüm Journal, 6(1), 114-127.
• Hamzaoğlu, H. (2020). Historical development of the Eurasian Economic Union. Journal of Social Human and Administrative Sciences, 3(6), 463-473.
• Hanson, F. (2012). Baked in and wired: eDiplomacy@State. Foreign Policy Paper Series, 1-41. Brookings Institution.
• Holmes, M. (2015). The future of digital diplomacy. In C. Bjola & M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital diplomacy: Theory and practice, 13-32. New York: Routledge.
• İncekara, R., & İncekara, B. (2015). Eurasian Economic Union and political economic effects. Nisantasi University Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1).
• Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Sage.
• Melissen, J. (2013). The new public diplomacy: Soft power in international relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• MFA Russia. (2024). Official X Account of MFA Russia. Retrieved from https://x.com/mfa_russia
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia. (2024). Official Website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia. Retrieved from https://www.mfa.am
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Belarus. (2024). Official Website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Belarus. Retrieved from https://www.mfa.gov.by
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan. (2024). Official Website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan. Retrieved from https://www.mfa.gov.kz
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kyrgyzstan. (2024). Official Website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kyrgyzstan. Retrieved from https://www.mfa.gov.kg
• Mullainathan, S., & Spiess, J. (2017). Machine learning: An applied econometric approach. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 87-106. https://doi.org/10.1257/JEP.31.2.87
• Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs.
• Öztürk, Y. (2013). Eurasian Union project and its reflections on Turkish foreign policy. Çankırı Karatekin University International Journal of Eurasian Strategy, 2(2), 223-244.
• Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (n.d.). Official Website of the Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.mfa.gov.tr
• Sandre, A. (2013). Twitter for diplomats: A guide to the fastest growing digital diplomacy tool. Diplo. Available at: https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/twitterdiplomats-guide-fastest-growing-digital-diplomacy-tool. [Accessed 29 March 2024].
• Sandre, A. (2015). Introduction: The road to diplomacy 3.0. In A. Sandre (Ed.), Digital diplomacy: Conversations on innovation in foreign policy (pp. xvii-xxxvi). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Shen, Y., Heacock, L., Elias, J., et al. (2023). ChatGPT and Other Large Language Models Are Double-edged Swords. Radiology, 307(2), e230001.
• Soft Power 30. The Soft Power 30: A global ranking of soft power. Retrieved from https://softpower30.com/. [Accessed 25 March 2024]
• Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (2014). Basics of qualitative research techniques. New York: Sage Publications
• Syed, S., & Spruit, M. (2017). Full-Text or abstract? Examining topic coherence scores using latent dirichlet allocation. 2017 International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics, DSAA 2017, 2018, 165-174. https://doi.org/10.1109/DSAA.2017.61
• Tassilova, A., Zhappasov, Z., Shyngyssova, N., Sarybayev, M., Sadenova, A., Tasylova, N., & Kozgambayeva, G. (2018). Comparative analysis on digital diplomacy: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. Astra Salvensis, 11, 321-332.
• Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science, 379(6630), 313.
• Tüysüzoğlu, G. (2014). A regional hegemony initiative: Eurasian Economic Union. Available at: http://www.aljazeera.com.tr/gorus/bolgesel-bir-hegemonya-girisimi-avrasya-ekonomik-birligi. [Accessed 29 September 2015].
• Uysal, N., Schroeder, J., & Taylor, M. (2012). Social media and soft power: Positioning Türkiye's image on Twitter. Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication, 5(3), 338-359
• Wang, Z., Guo, R., Sun, P., Qian, L., & Hu, X. (2024). Enhancing Diagnostic Accuracy and Efficiency with GPT-4-Generated Structured Reports: A Comprehensive Study. Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering, 44(1), 144-153.
• We Are Social and Meltwater (2023). Digital 2023 Global Overview Report. Available at: https://wearesocial.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Digital-2023-Global-Overview-Report.pdf [Accessed 24 March 2024].
• Yepsen, E. A. (2012). Practicing successful Twitter public diplomacy: A model and case study of U.S. efforts in Venezuela. Figueroa Press Paper, 6, 7-36. Available at: https://www.uscpublicdiplomacy.org/sites/uscpublicdiplomacy. [Accessed 29 March 2024].
• Yunus Emre Enstitüsü. (2024). Yunus Emre Enstitüsü Resmi Web Sitesi. Erişim adresi: https://www.yee.org.tr/tr
• Yücel, G. (2016). Digital diplomacy. TRT Academy, 1(2). 748-460