Understanding Turkey’s Emerging “Civilian” Foreign Policy Role in the 2000s through Development Cooperation in the Africa Region

Abstract

This paper attempts to understand the gradual “civilian” shift in Turkish foreign policy in the first decade of the 2000s through its development cooperation activities in the Africa region. To this aim, by applying the “civilian power” role concept developed by François Duchêne, it first investigates how Turkey’s 1 domestic democratic and economic preconditions, 2 normative commitments, and 3 power instruments evolved throughout history to make it possible to talk about an emerging “civilian role” in Turkish foreign policy during the first decade of the 2000s. Then it looks more closely at Turkey’s civilian foreign policy practice through the “development cooperation” activities of the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency TİKA across Africa and specifically in Somalia throughout the 2000s. Finally the paper will question whether this specific development cooperation policy has so far been successful in constructing a credible “civilian foreign policy role” for Turkey in the Africa region

Keywords

• Turkish Foreign Policy, Civilian Power, Civilian Foreign Policy Role, Development Cooperation, Africa, Somalia

References

1. 1 Tarık Oğuzlu, “Soft Power in Turkish Foreign Policy”, Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 61, No. 1 (2007), pp.81-97; Eleni Fotiou and Dimitrios Triantaphyllou, “Assessing Turkey’s “Soft Power” Role: Rhetoric versus Practice”, The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 45, No. 1 (2010), pp. 99-113.
2. 2 Emel Parlar Dal, “Assessing Turkey’s “Normative” Power in the Middle East and North Africa Region: New Dynamics and their Limitations”, Turkish Studies Vol. 14, No. 4 (2013), pp.709-734.
3. 3 Ziya Öniş and Mustafa Kutlay, “Rising Powers in a Changing Global Order: the political economy of Turkey in the age of Brics”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 8 (2013), pp. 1409-1426. Tarık Oğuzlu, “Making Sense of Turkey’s Rising Power Status: What Does Turkey’s Approach within NATO Tell Us?” Turkish Studies, Vol. 14, No. 4 (2013), pp. 774-796; Tarık Oğuzlu and Emel Dal Parlar, “Decoding Turkey’s Rise: An Introduction”, Turkish Studies, Vol.14, No. 4 (2013), pp. 617-636.
4. 4 Şaban Kardaş, “Turkey: A Regional Power Facing a Changing International System”, Turkish Studies, Vol.14, No.4 (2013), pp. 637-660.
5. 5 Gökhan Bacik, and Isa Afacan, “Turkey Discovers Sub-Saharan Africa: The Critical Role of Agents in the Construction of Turkish Foreign-Policy Discourse”, Turkish Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3 (2013), pp. 483-502. Mehmet Özkan and Birol Akgün, “Turkey’s Opening to Africa”, Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 48, No. 4 (2010), pp. 525– 546. Mehmet Ozkan and Serhat Orakçı, “Viewpoint: Turkey as a “Political” Actor in Africa – An Assessment of Turkish Involvement in Somalia”, Journal of Eastern African Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2 (2015), pp. 1-10.
6. 6 Karen E. Smith, “Beyond the Civilian Power Debate”, Politique Europeénne Vol. 1, No. 17 (2005), pp. 63-82.
7. 7 See François Duchene, “The European Community and the Uncertainties of Interdependence” in Max Kohnstamm and Wolfgang Hager (eds.), A Nation Writ Large? Foreign-Policy Problems before the European Community, London, Macmillan, 1973, pp. 1-21.
8. 8 See Sebastian Harnisch, and Hanns W Maull, Germany as a Civilian Power, the Foreign Policy of the Berlin Republic, Manchester, Manchester Uni. Press, 2001. Jonas, Wolff, “Democracy Promotion and Civilian Power: The Example of Germany’s ‘ValueOriented’ Foreign Policy”, German Politics, Vol. 22, No. 4 (2013), pp. 477-493. Silvia

9. Dutrénit Bielous, “Civilian Power, Military Power and Human Rights in Recent Uruguay History”, Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue Canadienne D’études, Vol. 21, No.2 (2000), pp. 351-372. Smith, “Beyond the Civilian Power Debate”, pp. 63- 82.
10. 9 Hanns Maull, “Germany and Japan: The New Civilian Powers”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 69, No. 5 (1999), pp. 92-93.
11. 10 Hanns Maull, “German Foreign Policy, Post‐Kosovo: Still a ‘Civilian Power?” German Politics Vol. 9, No. 2 (2000), p.14.
12. 11 Maull, “Germany and Japan: The New Civilian Powers”, pp. 92-93.
13. 12 Ian. Manners, “The European Union as a Normative Power: A Response to Thomas Diez”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies Vol. 35, No. 1 (2006), p. 175. Diez and Manners, “Reflecting on Normative Power Europe”, p. 178.
14. 13 Ian Manners, and Richard Whitman, “The ‘Difference Engine’: Constructing and Representing the International Identity of the European Union”, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 10, No. 3 (2003), p. 391.
15. 14 Christopher Hill, “European Foreign Policy: Power Bloc, Civilian Model – or Flop?” In Rummel, Reinhardt, (Eds.) The Evolution of an International Actor, Boulder, Westview Press, 1990, pp. 31-55.
16. 15 Hazel Smith, European Union Foreign Policy, What It Is and What It Does, London, Pluto Press, 2002, p. 119.
17. 16 Hedley Bull, “Civilian Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1(1982), pp. 149-170.
18. 17 Stelios Stavridis, “Militarizing the EU: The concept of civilian power Europe revisited”, The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs Vol. 36, No. 4 (2001), p. 49.
19. 18 Maull, “German Foreign Policy, Post‐Kosovo: Still a ‘Civilian Power?”, p. 14.
20. 19 Harnisch and Maull, “Germany as a Civilian Power, the Foreign Policy of the Berlin Republic”, p. 4.
21. 20 Henning Tewes, “The Emergence of a Civilian Power: Germany and Central Europe”, German Politics, Vol. 6, No. 2 (1997), p. 96.
22. 21 Chaya Arora, Germany’s Civilian Power Diplomacy: NATO’s Expansion and the art of Communicative Action, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, p. 41.
23. 22 Veit, Bachmann, “The EU’s Civilian/Power Dilemma”, Comparative European Politics, Vol. 11, No. 4 (2013), p. 461.
24. 23 Adrian Hyde-Price, “Germany and the Kosovo War: Still a Civilian Power?”, German Politics, Vol. 10, No.1 (April 2001), pp. 19-34.
25. 24 Tom Dyson, “Civilian Power and ‘History-Making’ Decisions: German Agenda-Setting on Europe”, European Security, Vol. 11, No.1 (2002), pp. 27-48.
26. 25 According to the Zurich-London Agreements of 1959, Britain, Greece and Turkey undertook to guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, each of them reserving the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the Treaty. See Fusün Türkmen, “Cyprus 1974 Revisited: Was It Humanitarian Intervention?” Perceptions, Vol. 10, No.1, (Winter 2005), pp: 61-88.
27. 26 Parlar Dal, “Assessing Turkey’s “Normative” Power in the Middle East and North Africa Region: New Dynamics and their Limitations”, p. 715.
28. 27 Metin Heper and Senem Yıldırım, “Revisiting Civil Society in Turkey”, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1, (2011), p. 6.
29. 28 Bernard Lewis, “Why Turkey is the only Muslim Democracy”, Middle East Quarterly, Vol. 1, No.1 (1994), pp. 41-49.
30. 29 Ibid.
31. 30 Heper and Yıldırım, “Revisiting Civil Society in Turkey”, p. 6.
32. 31 Reşat Kasaba, “Introduction” in Reşat Kasaba,(ed.), The Cambridge History of Turkey, Volume 4-Turkey in the Modern World, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp.1-11.
33. 32 Fuat Keyman, “Modernization, Globalization and Democratization in Turkey: The AKP Experience and its Limits”, Constellations, Vol.17, No.2 (2010), p. 318.
34. 33 Teri Murphy and Onur Kazak,“Turkey’s Civilian Capacity in Post-Conflict Reconstruction” İstanbul Policy Center Paper (2012), Sabancı University, p. 3.
35. 34 Musa Kulaklikaya and Rahman Nurdun, “Turkey as a New Player in Development Cooperation”, Insight Turkey, Vol. 12, No. 4 (2010), p. 133.
36. 35 Murphy and Kazak, “Turkey’s Civilian Capacity in post-Conflict Reconstruction”