Constructing Turkic Identity in the International Relations of the Turkic States

Year 2026, Volume: 15 Issue: 1 , 709 - 723 , 31.03.2026

Hakan Çora , Elnur Hasan Mikail , Sahib Ramazanov

https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1825787

https://izlik.org/JA84AU68RJ

Abstract

This article examines the construction and utilization of Turkic identity in the international relations of the Turkic states in the post-Soviet era. Building on the insights of constructivist International Relations (IR) theory, it argues that identity, far from being an abstract cultural legacy, has become a practical tool for diplomacy, regional cooperation, and geopolitical positioning. The study focuses on the activities of key institutions, including the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), TÜRKSOY, and educational initiatives such as the Orhun Exchange Program, which collectively serve to institutionalize cultural affinity and transform it into social capital. Methodologically, the research employs qualitative discourse analysis, examining summit declarations, treaties, and policy documents, supplemented by secondary scholarship, in order to trace how identity narratives are articulated and operationalized. The findings reveal that Turkic identity plays three interrelated roles: it fosters cultural solidarity across diverse national contexts, operates as a form of soft power in diplomacy, and provides a strategic framework for balancing external pressures from great powers such as Russia and China. Yet, significant variation exists among member states. Türkiye emphasizes leadership by invoking historical continuity and cultural centrality, while Central Asian republics adopt a more pragmatic stance, engaging in Turkic identity projects selectively to safeguard sovereignty and pursue multi-vectoral foreign policies. By situating Turkic identity within broader debates on constructivism, soft power, and regionalism, the article contributes to IR scholarship and highlights the implications of identity-based diplomacy for the evolving geopolitics of Eurasia.

Keywords

Turkic Identity , Social Constructivism; , Organization of Turkic States , Soft Power , Regionalism

Ethical Statement

“This study, as indicated in the title above, does not require Ethics Committee approval.”

Türk Devletlerinin Uluslararası İlişkilerinde Türk Kimliğinin İnşası

https://izlik.org/JA84AU68RJ

Abstract

Bu makale, Soğuk Savaş sonrası dönemde Türk devletlerinin uluslararası ilişkilerinde Türk kimliğinin inşası ve kullanımını incelemektedir. Yapılandırmacı Uluslararası İlişkiler (IR) teorisinin içgörülerinden yola çıkarak, kimliğin soyut bir kültürel miras olmaktan uzak, diplomasi, bölgesel işbirliği ve jeopolitik konumlandırma için pratik bir araç haline geldiğini savunmaktadır. Çalışma, Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı (TDT), TÜRKSOY ve Orhun Değişim Programı gibi eğitim girişimleri dahil olmak üzere, kültürel yakınlığı kurumsallaştırmak ve bunu siyasi sermayeye dönüştürmek için toplu olarak hizmet eden kilit kurumların faaliyetlerine odaklanmaktadır. Metodolojik olarak, araştırma, kimlik anlatılarının nasıl ifade edildiğini ve işlevselleştirildiğini izlemek için, zirve deklarasyonlarını, antlaşmaları ve politika belgelerini inceleyen nitel söylem analizini kullanmakta ve bunu ikincil akademik çalışmalarla desteklemektedir. Bulgular, Türk kimliğinin birbiriyle ilişkili üç rol oynadığını ortaya koymaktadır: farklı ulusal bağlamlarda kültürel dayanışmayı teşvik etmek, diplomasi alanında bir tür yumuşak güç olarak işlev görmek ve Rusya ve Çin gibi büyük güçlerin dış baskılarını dengelemek için stratejik bir çerçeve sağlamak. Bununla birlikte, üye ülkeler arasında önemli farklılıklar bulunmaktadır. Türkiye, tarihsel sürekliliği ve kültürel merkeziyetçiliği öne sürerek liderliği vurgulamaktadır, Orta Asya cumhuriyetleri ise daha pragmatik bir tutum benimseyerek, egemenliği korumak ve çok yönlü dış politika izlemek için Türk kimliği projelerine seçici bir şekilde katılmaktadır. Türk kimliğini yapısalcılık, yumuşak güç ve bölgeselcilik üzerine daha geniş tartışmaların içine yerleştirerek, makale uluslararası ilişkiler bilimine katkıda bulunmakta ve kimlik temelli diplomasinin Avrasya'nın gelişen jeopolitiği için olan etkilerini vurgulamaktadır

Keywords

Türk kimliği , Sosyal Yapılandırmacılık , Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı , Yumuşak Güç , Bölgeselcilik

Ethical Statement

“Yukarıda başlığı olan Bu çalışma Etik Kurul Onayı Gerektirmemektedir."

References

• Acharya, A. (2014). Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the problem of regional order. Routledge.
• Akıllı, E. (2019). Turksoy, Turkic Council and cultural diplomacy: Transactionalism revisited. Bilig, (91), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.12995/bilig.9101
• Allison, R. (2014). Russian 'deniable' intervention in Ukraine: How and why Russia broke the rules. International Affairs, 90(6).
• Aydın-Düzgit, S., & Keyman, F. (2014). European integration and Türkiye's domestic transformation: A constructivist approach. South European Society and Politics, 19(1).
• Aydın-Düzgit, S., & Rumelili, B. (2021). Constructivist approaches to EU–Türkiye relations. In T. Diez et al. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of EU–Türkiye relations. Routledge.
• Bozdağlıoğlu, Y. (2003). Turkish foreign policy and Turkish identity: A constructivist approach. Routledge.
• Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (2003). Regions and powers: The structure of international security. Cambridge University Press.
• Checkel, J. T., & Katzenstein, P. J. (Eds.). (2009). European identity. Cambridge University Press.
• Çelikpala, M. (2019). The Organization of Turkic States: A new actor in Eurasian geopolitics? Insight Türkiye, 21(4).
• Cornell, S. (2011). Azerbaijan since independence. M.E. Sharpe.
• Demircan, N. (2022). Turks in the changing world order: The Organization of Turkic States. International Journal of Social Sciences.
• Erendor, M. E., & Çıtak, E. (2025). Examining the security dimension of the Organization of Turkic States by addressing border issues: Kyrgyz-Tajik border conflict. Bilig, (113), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.12995/bilig.7916
• Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4).
• Hansen, L. (2006). Security as practice: Discourse analysis and the Bosnian War. Routledge.
• Hopf, T. (2002). Social construction of international politics: Identities and foreign policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999. Cornell University Press.
• Kalın, İ. (2011). Soft power and public diplomacy in Turkey. Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, 16(3), 5–23.
• Katzenstein, P. J. (Ed.). (1996). The culture of national security: Norms and identity in world politics. Columbia University Press.
• Kavalski, E. (2010). The new Central Asia: The regional impact of international actors. World Scientific.
• Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2012). Power and interdependence (4th ed.). Longman.
• Köstem, S. (2010). Turkish foreign policy toward the Turkic world. Bilkent University Press.
• Kratochwil, F. V. (1989). Rules, norms, and decisions: On the conditions of practical and legal reasoning in international relations and domestic affairs. Cambridge University Press.
• Landau, J. (1995). Pan-Turkism: From irredentism to cooperation. Indiana University Press.
• Laruelle, M. (2015). The "Chinese factor" in Central Asia: The Uyghur question. Ashgate.
• Madi, A. (2021). Kazakhstan's multi-vector foreign policy: Continuity and change. Central Asian Survey, 40(2).
• Malamud, A. (2011). A leader without followers? The growing divergence between the regional and global performance of Brazilian foreign policy. Latin American Politics and Society, 53(3).
• Mamadjonov, A. (2025). Turkish world strategy of Türkiye's soft power in Central Asia. International Journal of Humanities and Political Studies.
• Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Milliken, J. (1999). The study of discourse in international relations: A critique. European Journal of International Relations, 5(2).
• Nabers, D. (2009). Filling the void of meaning: Identity construction in U.S. foreign policy after September 11, 2001. Foreign Policy Analysis, 5(2).
• Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. Public Affairs.
• Organization of Turkic States. (2021). Istanbul declaration. OTS.
• Peyrouse, S. (2015). Turkmenistan: Strategies of power, dilemmas of development. Central Asian Survey, 34(2).
• Purtaş, F. (2025). Türkiye and the Organization of Turkic States: Institutionalizing regional cooperation. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies.
• Roberts, S. (2020). The war on the Uyghurs: China's internal campaign against a Muslim minority. Princeton University Press.
• Rumelili, B. (2008). Constructing regional community and order in Europe and Southeast Asia. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Sobirov, J. (2020). International relations between Turkic speaking states. The American Journal of Political Science.
• Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.
• Yesevi, C. (2020). Uzbekistan and the Turkic Council: From hesitation to participation. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 11(3).
• Yıldırımçakar, E. (2022). The Organization of Turkic States as a new strategy for a more powerful Turkey in Central Asia and the Middle East. In Seljuk 6th International Conference on Social Sciences full text book (pp. 510–515). IKSAD Publications.
• Zürcher, E. J. (2004). Türkiye: A modern history. I.B. Tauris.