Organizational Response to Recurring Foreign Policy Crises: The Case of Turkish Military Intervention in Cyprus

Year 2018, Volume: 3 Issue: 2, 1 - 28, 28.10.2018

Alperen Özkan

Abstract

Building on Graham Allison’s conceptual models framework, this paper presents a case in state level foreign policy analysis. To reflect on the role of organizational processes and bureaucratic bargaining in foreign policy decisions, the case of Turkish intervention in Cyprus is analyzed. Turkish parliament authorized military intervention during the Cyprus crises in 1964, 1967, and 1974. However, the respective governments in 1964 and 1967 refrained from military intervention while the 1974 authorization was followed by Turkey’s “Cyprus Peace Operation.” In order to understand the particularities of these decisions, rational policy, organizational process, and bureaucratic politics models are comparatively applied to Turkish decision-making during the respective crises. The argument is that the intervention decision can best be explained through a combination of rational calculations by consecutive Turkish governments and the gradual change in the standard operating procedures of the Turkish military and foreign policy bureaucracy. The findings have implications on the role of organizational routines in implementing foreign policy decisions as well as the basic assumptions of conceptual models framework and its explanatory power in different contexts.

Keywords

Foreign Policy Analysis, Conceptual Models Framework, Graham Allison, Turkish Foreign Policy, Cyprus

References

• Allison, Graham T. 1969. “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis.” The American Political Science Review 63 (3): 689-718.
• Allison, Graham T. 1971. Essence of decision: explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston: Little Brown.
• Arcayürek, Cüneyt. 1985. Demirel dönemi, 12 Mart darbesi: 1965-1971 [Demirel Era and the Coup of March 12: 1965-1971]. Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi.
• Art, Robert J. 1973. “Bureaucratic Politics and American Foreign Policy: A Critique.” Policy Sciences. 4 (1973): 476.
• Barutçu, Ecmel. 1999. Hariciye Koridoru [Hallways of the Forreign Affairs]. Ankara: 21. Yüzyıl Yayınları.
• Bendor, Jonathan, and Thomas H. Hammond. 1992. “Rethinking Allison’s Models.” The American Political Science Review. 86 (2): 301-322.
• Birand, Mehmet A.. 1985. 30 Hot Days. London: K. Rustem & Brother.
• Bölükbaşı, Süha. 1988. Superpowers and the Third World: Turkish-American Relations and Cyprus. New York: University Press of America.
• Criss, Nur B. 1997. “Strategic Nuclear Missiles in Turkey: The Jupiter Affair, 1959-1963.” The Journal of Strategic Studies 20 (3): 100.
• Çalmuk, Fehmi. 2000. Bir Erbakan Hikayesi: Selamûn Aleyküm Komutanım [A Story on Erbakan]. Ankara: Kim Yayınları.
• Çuhadar-Gürkaynak, Esra, and Binnur Özkeçeci-Taner. 2004. “Decisionmaking Process Matters: Lessons Learned from Two Turkish Foreign Policy Cases.” Turkish Studies, 5(2): 43-78.
• Destler, I. M.. 1972. “Can One Man Do?” Foreign Policy 5 (Winter, 1971-1972): 28-40.
• Ecevit, Bülent. 1976. Dış Politika [Foreign Policy]. Ankara: Ajans-Türk Matbaacılık Sanayii.
• Erim, Nihat. 1975. Bildiğim ve Gördüğüm Ölçüler İçinde Kıbrıs [Cyprus Issue to the Extent I Know]. Ankara: Ajans-Türk Matbaacılık Sanayii.
• Gürdeniz, Cem and Erdogan Yucelis (eds.) 2000. Cumhuriyet Donanmasi – The Fleet of the Republic: 1923-2000. İstanbul: Seyir Hidrografi ve Osinografi Daire Başkanlığı.
• Hale, William. 1994. Turkish Politics and The Military. London: Routledge. Hale, William. 2000. Turkish Foreign Policy, 1774-2000. London: Frank Cass.
• Harris, George. 1972. “Cross-Alliance Politics: Turkey and the Soviet Union.” Turkish Yearbook of International Relations 12(1972): 1-32.
• Hermann, Margaret. 2001. “How Decision Units Shape Foreign Policy: A Theoretical Framework.” International Studies Review, 3(2): 7-81.
• Jervis, Robert. 1976. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Kesgin, Barış. 2013. “Leadership Traits of Turkey’s Islamist and Secular Prime Ministers.” Turkish Studies 14(1): 136-157.
• Kibaroğlu, Mustafa, and Ayşegül Kibaroğlu. 2009. Global security watch--Turkey: a reference handbook. Greenwood Publishing Group.
• Kissinger, Henry. 1999. Years of Renewal. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Krebs, Ronald R. 1999. “Perverse Institutionalism: NATO and the Greco-Turkish Conflict.” International Organization 53(2): 343-377.
• Leffler, Melvyn P. 1985. “Strategy, Diplomacy, and the Cold War: The United States, Turkey, and NATO, 1945-1952.” The Journal of American History, 71 (4): 808.
• Mirbagheri, Farid. 1998. Cyprus and International Peacemaking 1964-1986. New York: Routledge.
• Mufti, Malik. 1998. “Daring and Caution in Turkish Foreign Policy.” Middle East Journal, 52(1): 32-50.
• Oran, Baskın. 2010. Turkish Foreign Policy, 1919-2006: Facts and Analyses with Documents. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
• Robins, Philip. 2003. Suits and Uniforms: Turkish Foreign Policy Since the Cold War. London: C. Hurst&Co.
• Rubinstein, Alvin Z. 1982. Soviet policy toward Turkey, Iran, and Afghanistan: the dynamics of influence. Praeger Publishers.
• TBMM Tutanak Dergisi [Journal of Turkish Grand National Assembly Records]. Vol. 3, 1964. 16 March, 1964.
• TBMM Tutanak Dergisi [Journal of Turkish Grand National Assembly Records]. Vol. 13, 1974. 18 July 1974.
• Slengesol, Ivar-Andre. 2000. “A Bad Show? The United States and the 1974 Cyprus Crisis.” Mediterranean Quarterly 11(2): 96-129.
• The Turkish Air Forces Official Website. https://www.hvkk.tsk.tr, last accessed on 26.05.2018
• Uslu, Nasuh. 2003. The Cyprus question as an issue of Turkish foreign policy and Turkish- American relations, 1959-2003. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
• Uslu, Nasuh. 2003. The Turkish-American Relationship between 1947 and 2003: The History of a Distinctive Alliance. New York: Nova Publishers.
• Van Hook, Laurie (ed.) 2007. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume XXX, Greece; Cyprus; Turkey, 1973–1976. Washington: United States Government Printing Office.