Making Sense of 1 March: A Proactive Strategy of Avoidance

Abstract

This study examines the Turkish decision not to ally with the United States on 1 March 2003. It argues that Turkey, motivated by the struggle for autonomy, developed a proactive strategy of avoidance against the US’s demands mainly because of its concerns on the possible consequences of the instability that was expected as an outcome of a US war in Iraq. This was neither a balancing nor a bandwagoning behaviour. Through the use of diplomatic channels on different levels, Turkey attempted to decrease the harmful effects of the approaching instability. Five diplomatic tracks show that the Turkish behaviour was a proactive avoidance strategy

Keywords

• Unipolar structure, international alignment, US-Turkish relations.

References

1. No references and citations are provided for these publicly discussed but not published arguments.
2. For some examples see: Mark Parris, “Allergic Partners: Can US-Turkish Relations Be Saved?”, Turkish Policy Quarterly, Vol 4, No. 1 (Spring 2005); Soner Çagaptay, “Where Goes the US-Turkish Relationship?”, Middle East Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 4 (Fall 2004), pp. 43- 52; Gareth Jenkins, “Muslim Democrats in Turkey”, Survival, Vol. 45, No. 1 (Spring 2003), pp. 45-66; Joshua W. Walker, “Reexamining the US-Turkish Alliance”, The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Winter 2007-2008), pp. 93-109.
3. Michael Rubin, “A Comedy of Errors: American Turkish Diplomacy and the Iraq War”, Turkish Policy Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Spring 2005); Michael Gunter, “The US-Turkish Alliance in Disarray”, World Affairs, Vol. 167, No. 3 (2005), p. 113-123.
4. Murat Yeşiltaş, “Soft Balancing in Turkish Foreign Policy: The Case of 2003 Iraq War”, Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Spring-Summer 2009), pp. 25- 51; Judith Kelley, “Strategic Non-cooperation as Soft Balancing: Why Iraq was not Just about Iraq?”, International Politics, Vol. 42, No. 2 (June 2005), pp. 153-173.
5. For an evaluation of the JDP and its distinctiveness on the tactical level see: Hasan B. Yalçın, “Yeni Dönemde Türkiye’nin Temel Dış Politika Eğilim ve Davranışları: Yapısal Realist Bir Okuma”, Bilgi, Vol. 13, No. 2 (2011), pp. 35-60.
6. Fikret Bila, Sivil Darbe Girişimi ve Ankara’da Irak Savaşları, Ankara, Ümit Yayıncılık, 2004. 7 Ibid., p. 192.
7. “Gül-Özkök Irak’ı Ele Aldı: Görüş Ayrılığı Yok”, Türkiye Gazetesi, 14 January 2003.
8. “Asker Rahatsız”, Milliyet, 26 February 2003.

9. Edward J. Erickson, “Turkey as Regional Hegemon-2014: Strategic Implication for the United States”, Turkish Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Autumn 2004), pp. 39-40.
10. Pew Global Attitudes Survey, at: www.pewglobal.org/files/pdf/253topline.pdf [last visited 20 January 2013].
11. Rubin, “A Comedy of Errors”.
12. Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics, Reading, Mass, Addison-Wesley, 1979.
13. Kenneth N. Waltz, “Structural Realism after the Cold War”, International Security, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Summer 2000), pp. 5-41.
14. T.V. Paul, “Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy”, International Security, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Summer 2005), pp. 46-71; Robert A. Pape, “Soft Balancing against the United States”, International Security, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Summer 2005), pp. 7-45.
15. Keir Lieber and Alexander Gerard, “Waiting for Balancing: Why the World Is Not Pushing Back”, International Security, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Summer 2005), pp. 109-139; Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth, “Hard Times for Soft Balancing”, International Security, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Summer 2005), pp. 72-108.
16. John A. Vasquez, “The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz’s Balancing Proposition”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 91, No. 4 (December 1997), pp. 899-912.
17. Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Edited by Kenneth W. Thompson, New York, McGraw-Hill Inc., 1993, p. 199.
18. George Liska, Nations in Alliance: The Limits of Interdependence, Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1962, p. 12.
19. Richard J. Harknett and Hasan B. Yalcin, “The Struggle for Autonomy: A Realist Structural Theory of International Relations”, International Studies Review, Vol. 14, No. 4 (December 2012), pp. 499-521.
20. Waltz, Theory of International Politics.
21. Stephen Walt, The Origins of Alliances, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1987.
22. Randall L. Schweller, “Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In”, International Security, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Summer 1994), pp. 72-107.
23. William C. Wohlforth, “The Stability of a Unipolar World”, International Security, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Summer 1999), pp. 5-41.
24. Waltz, Theory of International Politics.
25. John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York, W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 2001.
26. Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1984.
27. Helen Milner, “The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1 (January 1991), p. 67-85.
28. Ahmet Davutoğlu, Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Konumu, İstanbul, Küre, 2001.
29. Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Türkiye Merkez Ülke Olmalı”, Radikal, 26 February 2004.
30. Abdullah Gül, “Turkey’s Role in a Changing Middle East Environment”, Mediterranean Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 1, (Winter 2004), p. 5.
31. Erickson, “Turkey as Regional Hegemon-2014”, p. 36.
32. Quoted in Fiona Hill and Ömer Taşpınar, “Turkey and Russia: Axis of Excluded?”, Survival, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Spring 2006), p. 88.
33. Bill Park, “Between Europe, the United States and the Middle East: Turkey and European Security in the Wake of the Iraq Crisis”, Perspectives on European Politics and Society, Vol. 5, No.3, (2004), p. 499.
34. Hill and Taşpınar, “Turkey and Russia: Axis of Excluded?”, p. 87. 36 Ibid., p. 82. 37 Ibid., p. 86.
35. Ahmet Davutoğlu, interview with the author, İstanbul, 27 May 2006. 39 Ibid.
36. Bila, Sivil Darbe Girişimi ve Ankara’da Irak Savaşları, p. 266.
37. Murat Yetkin, Tezkere: Irak Krizinin Gerçek Öyküsü, Ankara, Remzi Kitabevi, 2004, p. 133.
38. Ahmet Davutoğlu, interview with the author, İstanbul, 27 May 2006.
39. Hill and Taşpınar, “Turkey and Russia: Axis of Excluded?”.
40. Ali Balci and Murat Yeşiltaş, “Turkey’s New Middle East Policy: The Case of the Meeting of the Foreign Ministers of Iraq’s Neighboring Countries”, Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Summer 2006), pp. 18-38. 45 Ibid.
41. “Gül: Pandora’nın Kutusu açılmamalı”, NTVMSNBC, 04 January 2003.
42. Ahmet Davutoğlu, interview with the author, İstanbul, 27 May 2006.
43. Yetkin, Tezkere: Irak Krizinin Gerçek Öyküsü, p. 100.
44. “Powell: Sıra Size Geldi”, Radikal, 27 January 2003.
45. “Gül: ABD Stratejik Müttefikimiz”, Hürriyet, 13 January 2003.
46. Yetkin, Tezkere: Irak Krizinin Gerçek Öyküsü, p. 100. 52 Ibid., p. 173.
47. Deniz Bölükbaşı, 1 Mart Vakası: Irak Tezkeresi ve Sonrası, İstanbul, Doğan Kitap, 2007.
48. Yetkin, Tezkere: Irak Krizinin Gerçek Öyküsü, p. 172. 55 Ibid., p. 125.
49. Bölükbaşı, 1 Mart Vakası: Irak Tezkeresi ve Sonrası.
50. Kelley, “Strategic Non-cooperation as Soft Balancing”, p. 159.
51. Ahmet Davutoğlu, interview with the author, İstanbul, 27 May 2006.
52. Bölükbaşı, 1 Mart Vakası: Irak Tezkeresi ve Sonrası. Yetkin, Tezkere: Irak Krizinin Gerçek Öyküsü, p. 101.
53. Aylin Şeker Görener, “Turkey’s Relations with the Divided West: Changing Parameters”, Turkish Policy Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Spring 2005), p. 6.
54. Bila, Sivil Darbe Girişimi ve Ankara’da Irak Savaşları.
55. Park, “Between Europe, the United States and the Middle East”, p. 500.
56. “Jest Yoksa Tezkere de Yok”, Radikal, 25 February 2003.
57. Görener, “Turkey’s Relations with the Divided West: Changing Parameters”, p. 3.
58. Josef Joffe, “Gulliver Unbound: Can America Rule the World?”, paper presented at Center for Independent Studies, 20th Annual Conferences, 5 August 2003.
59. Park, “Between Europe, the United States and the Middle East”, p. 497.