Çok Kutuplu Dünyada Türk Dış Politikasının Avrupalılaşma sürecinden uzaklaşması

Year 2025, Issue: 41, -

Zelal Başak Yariş

https://doi.org/10.15182/diclesosbed.1655973

Abstract

Türkiye, adaylık statüsünün verildiği 1999 Helsinki Kararları’ndan Arap Baharı’na kadar olan süreçte Avrupalılaşma sürecini, iniş çıkışlarla da olsa, hayata geçirmiştir. Ancak Arap Baharı’nın patlak vermesiyle birlikte Türkiye, hem AB sürecinden hızlı bir biçimde uzaklaşmış hem de bu süreçte gerçekleştirilmiş reform ve ilkelerden geri adım atmaya başlamıştır. Bu çerçevede çalışmanın amacı, AB’nin dış politika ilke ve normlarının referans olmaktan çıkması olarak da ifade edilen Türk dış politikasının Avrupalılaşma sürecinden ayrılma boyutlarını; Müller, Pomorska ve Tonra’nın (2021) kuramsal çerçevesine atıfta bulunarak analiz etmektir. Türk dış politikası yapım sürecinde sorumlu olan aktörlerin dış politika söylem ve tercihleri yöntemsel olarak incelenerek, Türk dış politikasının AB sürecinden kopuşunun:a) ulusal rollerin yeniden tanımlanması ,b) AB ilke ve prensiplerinden kopuş, c) AB’nin kurumsal yapısından ayrılma gibi üç boyutta gerçekleştiği bulgusuna ulaşılmaktadır.

Keywords

Türkiye-AB İlişkileri , Türk Dış Politikası , Avrupalılaşma , Arap Baharı , Avrupa Birliği

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma, Avrupa Birliği’nin Erasmus+ Programı kapsamında desteklenen "Avrupa Bütünleşmesinin Canlandırılması: Politikalar ve Aktörlük” adlı Jean Monnet Modülü çerçevesinde yürütülmüş ve Avrupa Birliği tarafından finanse edilmiştir. Bu çalışmada ifade edilen görüşler yazara aittir ve Avrupa Birliği’nin görüşlerini yansıtmamaktadır.

Supporting Institution

Avrupa Birliği

Project Number

101176698 (REVİTEU)

De-Europeanization of Turkish Foreign Policy in the Multi-Polar World

Abstract

From the Helsinki Summit of 1999, which granted Türkiye candidate status, until the outbreak of the Arab Spring, Türkiye implemented the process of Europeanization, albeit with ups and downs. However, with the eruption of the Arab Spring, Türkiye not only rapidly distanced itself from the EU process but also began to roll back the reforms and principles that had been realized within this framework. In this context, the aim of this study is to analyze the dimensions of Turkish foreign policy’s departure from the Europeanization process—also conceptualized as the diminishing role of the EU’s foreign policy norms and principles as reference points—by drawing on the theoretical framework proposed by Müller, Pomorska, and Tonra (2021). By methodologically examining the foreign policy discourses and preferences of the actors responsible for Turkish foreign policy-making, the study finds that Türkiye’s disengagement from the EU process in foreign policy unfolds along three main dimensions: (a) the redefinition of national roles, (b) disengagement from the EU’s norms and principles, and (c) distancing from the EU’s institutional structures.

Keywords

Turkey-EU Relations , Turkish Foreign Policy , Europeanization , Arab Uprising , European Union

Ethical Statement

This research is co-founded by the EU under the Jean Monnet Module on the Revitalization of European Integration: Policies and Actorness under the Process of De-Europeanization

Supporting Institution

European Union

Project Number

101176698 (REVİTEU)

References

• Alpan, B. Z., & Öztürk, A. E. (2022a). Turkey and the Balkans: Bringing the Europeanisation/de-Europeanisation nexus into question. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 22(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2022.2034385
• Alpan, B. Z., & Öztürk, A. E. (2022b). Turkish foreign policy in the Balkans amidst ‘soft power’ and ‘de-Europeanisation’. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 22(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2022.2034370
• Atmaca, A. Ö., & Torun, Z. (2022). Geopolitical visions in Turkish foreign policy. South European Society and Politics, 24(1), 114–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2021.1992189
• Aydın-Düzgit, S., & Kaliber, A. (2016). Is Turkey a de-Europeanising candidate country? South European Society and Politics, 21(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2016.1155282
• Aydın-Düzgit, S., Kutlay, M., & Keyman, E. F. (2025). Strategic autonomy in Turkish foreign policy in an age of multipolarity: Lineages and contradictions of an idea. International Politics, 62(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-024-00638-w
• Balcı, A. (2019). Three levels of analysis of Türkiye’s crisis with the US-led order. Insight Türkiye, 21(4), 4–5. Copeland, P. (2016). Europeanization and de-Europeanization in the UK employment policy. Public Administration, 94(4), 1124–1139.
• Davutoğlu, A. (2008). Türkiye’s foreign policy vision: An assessment of 2007. Insight Türkiye, 10(1), 77–96. Demirtaş, B. (2015). Turkish foreign policy towards the Balkans: A Europeanized foreign policy in a de-Europeanized national context? Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 17(3), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2014.994283
• Ekşi, M. (2017). Regional hegemony quest in the Middle East from the balance of power system to the balance of proxy wars: Türkiye as balancing power for the Iran–Saudi rivalry. Akademik Bakış, 11(21). Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.
• Gönenç, L. (2004). The 2001 amendments to the 1982 Constitution of Türkiye. Ankara Law Review, 1(1), 89–109. Gönenç, L. (2005). Recent developments in the field of freedom of expression in Türkiye. European Public Policy, 11(2), 241–259.
• Gönenç, L. (2006). Dynamics of political reforms. Hamburg.
• Gravey, V., & Jordan, A. (2016). Does the European Union have a reverse gear? Policy dismantling in a hyperconsensual polity. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(8), 1180–1198. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1186208
• Hazır, Ü. N. (2022). Anti-Westernism in Turkey’s neo-Ottomanist foreign policy under Erdoğan. Russia in Global Affairs, 20(2), 164–183. https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6374-2022-20-2-164-183
• Heper, M. (2005). The European Union, the Turkish military and democracy. South European Society and Politics, 10(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608740500037924
• Kaliber, A., & Kaliber, E. (2019). From de-Europeanisation to anti-Western populism: Turkish foreign policy in flux. The International Spectator, 54(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2019.1668640
• Kutlu, N. (2020). Europeanization or de-Europeanization: Dynamics of Türkiye’s discourse against the EU between 2015 and 2020 (Master’s thesis). İstanbul Bilgi University.
• Ladrech, R. (1994). Europeanization of domestic politics and institutions: The case of France. Journal of Common Market Studies, 32(1), 69–88.
• Major, C. (2005). Europeanisation and foreign and security policy – Undermining or rescuing the nation state? Politics, 25(3), 175–190.
• Martin-Russu, L. (2022). Towards a theory of de-Europeanization: An elite-based approach. In Deforming the reform: The impact of elites on Romania’s post-accession Europeanization (pp. 19–90). Springer.
• Mlynarska-Marzeda, M. (2021). Europeanization of Polish historical policy – From ignorance to understanding? Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska, 6, 27–48.
• Müftüler-Baç, M. (2017). Turkish foreign policy, domestic determinants and the role of the European Union. In F. Schimmelfennig & U. Sedelmeier (Eds.), European Union enlargement and domestic change (pp. 127–144). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203721827-6
• Müftüler-Baç, M., & Gürsoy, Y. (2010). Is there a Europeanization of Turkish foreign policy? Turkish Studies, 11(3), 405–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2010.506734
• Müller, P., & Flers, N. A. (2009). Applying the concept of Europeanization to the study of foreign policy: Dimensions and mechanisms (Working Paper No. 05/2009). Institute for European Integration Research.
• Müller, P., Pomorska, K., & Tonra, B. (2021). The domestic challenge to EU foreign policy-making: From Europeanisation to de-Europeanisation? Journal of European Integration, 43(5), 519–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2021.1927015
• Öniş, Z. (2003). Türkiye and the Middle East after September 11: The importance of the EU dimension. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 2, 84–95.
• Öniş, Z. (2021). Turkish foreign policy in a post-Western order: Strategic autonomy or new forms of dependence? International Affairs, 97(4), 1085–1104.
• Orucu, E. (2005). Seven packages towards harmonization with the European Union. European Public Law, 10(4).
• Özbudun, E. (2007). Democratization reforms in Türkiye, 1993–2004. Turkish Studies, 8(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683840701312195
• Pinheiro, L., & Lina, M. R. S. (2018). Between autonomy and dependency: The place of agency in Brazilian foreign policy. Brazilian Political Science Review, 12(3).
• Radaelli, C. M. (2000). Whither Europeanization? Concept stretching and substantive change. European Integration Online Papers, 4(8).
• Radaelli, C. M. (2004). Europeanisation: Solution or problem? European Integration Online Papers, 8(16). Reuben, W. (2007). Foreign policy. In P. Graziano & M. Vink (Eds.), Europeanization: New research agendas. Palgrave.
• Smith, M. (2021). De-Europeanisation in European foreign policy-making: Assessing an exploratory research agenda. Journal of European Integration, 43(5), 637–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2021.1927012
• Thomas, D. C. (2021). The return of intergovernmentalism? De-Europeanisation and EU foreign policy decision-making. Journal of European Integration, 43(5), 619–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2021.1927013
• Tokmak, G. D. (2024). The emergence of hyper-presidentialism: A study on political opposition in Turkey’s new presidential system (pp. 45–47). On İki Levha Yayıncılık.
• Togra, B. (2001). The Europeanization of national foreign policies of the European Union member states. Manchester University Press.
• Tsuladze, L., Abzianidze, N., Amashukeli, M., & Javakhishvili, L. (2024). De-Europeanization as discursive disengagement: Has Georgia “got lost” on its way to European integration? Journal of European Integration, 46(3), 297–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2023.2278072
• Uzgel, İ. (2022). Turkish foreign policy after presidentialism (pp. 3–5). Middle East Institute.