The Foreign Policy- Hegemony Nexus: Turkey’s Search for a “New” Subjectivity in World Politics and Its Implications for US-Turkish Relations

Abstract

The linkage between foreign policy and hegemony is admitted but has not been systematically analysed in the study of Turkish foreign policy. One of the key reasons for this is the absence of analytical tools that conceptualise the linkage between foreign policy and hegemony. In response to this gap, this study presents postfoundational/post-structural analytical tools to study the linkage. In addition, it applies those tools to analyse the far-reaching transformation in Turkish-American relations in the context of Turkey’s search for a new subjectivity in world politics. It argues there have been two main periods in Turkish-American relations since the AK Party came to power: an era of “lack of understanding” between the years 2002 and 2006, and the era after the parties had come to a “new understanding” since 2006

Keywords

• Post-structuralism, foreign policy, hegemony, AK Party, Turkish-American relations.

References

1. “Davutoğlu: Turkiye, ABD’nin Ekonomik Ortağı da Olmak İstiyor”, Turkish Journal, at http://www.turkishjournal.com/i.php?newsid=11479 [last visited 2 February 2012].
2. Alexander Wendt, “Collective Identity Formation and the International State”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 88, No. 2 (June 1994), pp. 384-396.
3. See, Faruk Yalvaç, “Strategic Depth or Hegemonic Depth? A Critical Realist Analysis of Turkey’s Position in the World System”, International Relations, Vol. 26, No. 2 (June 2012), pp. 165-180.
4. See, Soner Çağaptay, “Is Turkey Leaving the West”, at http://www.jukkarannila.fi/docs/ Turkki-arvio_12.12.2010_Is_Turkey_Leaving_the_West.pdf [last visited 27 November 2012]; Michael Rubin, “Turkey, From Ally to Enemy”, at http://www.michaelrubin. org/7639/turkey-ally-enemy [last visited 27 November 2012].
5. See, Kerem Öktem, Ayşe Kadıoğlu and Mehmet Karlı (eds.), Another Empire? Decade of Turkey’s Foreign Policy Under the Justice and Development Party, İstanbul, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Publishing, 2012.
6. For details of Turkey’s new foreign policy doctrine, “strategic depth”, see, Ahmet Davutoğlu, Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye'nin Uluslararası Konumu, İstanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2001; Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Türkiye Merkez Ülke Olmalı”, Radikal, 26 February, 2004.
7. See for example, Tarık Oğuzlu, “Middle Easternization of Turkey’s Foreign Policy: Does Turkey Dissociate From the West?”, Turkish Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (March 2008), pp. 3-20; İbrahim Kalın, “US-Turkey Relations Under Obama: Promise, Challenge and Opportunity in the 21st Century”, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1 (March 2010), pp. 93-108; Ali Resul Usul and Mesut Özcan, “Understanding the “New” Turkish Foreign Policy: Changes Within Continuity, Is Turkey Departing From the West?”, USAK Yearbook of International Politics and Law, No. 4 (2011), pp. 159-185.
8. For discussion of various “sociologies” and positions on the matrix of individualism- structuralism and materialism-idealism in IR, see, Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 23-29.

9. Jason Glynos and David Howarth, “Structure, Agency and Power in Political Analysis: Beyond Contextualised Self-Interpretations”, Political Studies Review, Vol. 6, No. 2 (May 2008), pp. 161-162.
10. Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, New York and London,Verso, 1985, p. 115. 11 Ibid, p. 98.
11. See, Yannis Stavrakakis, Lacan and the Political, London and New York, Routledge, 1999.
12. Slavoj Zizek, “Beyond Discourse-Analysis”, in Ernesto Laclau (ed.), New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time, London, Verso, pp. 49-60.
13. Ernesto Laclau, “New Reflections in the Revolution of Our Time”, in Ernest Laclau (ed.), New Reflections of the Revolution of Our Time, p. 30.
14. David Campbell, “Poststructuralism”, in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith (eds.), International Relations Theory, Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 229.
15. Jenny Edkins, Nalini Persram and Veronique Pin-Fat, Sovereignty and Subjectivity, Colorado and London, Lynne Rienner Pub., 1999.
16. Richard Devetak, “Incomplete States: Theories and Practices of Statecraft”, in John Macmillan and Andrew Linklater (eds.), Boundaries in Question: New Directions in International Relations, London and New York, Pinter Publishers, 1995, p. 20.
17. Richard K. Ashley, “Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of Anarchy Problematique”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 17, No. 2 (June 1988), pp. 227-262; R.B.J. Walker, Inside/Outside: International Relations As Political Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993.
18. Devetak, “Incomplete States”, p. 29.
19. See, David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1998.
20. Cynthia Weber, Simulating Sovereignty, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995; Thomas J. Biersteker and Cynthia Weber (eds.), State Sovereignty as Social Construct, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
21. For a similar argument, see, John W. Meyer, John Boli, George M. Thomas and Francisco O. Ramirez, “World Society and the Nation-State”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 103, No. 1 (July 1997), pp. 144-181; Takis Fotopoulos, “The Global ‘War’ of the Transnational Elite”, Democracy & Nature, Vol. 8, No. 2 (July 2002), pp. 201-240; William I. Robinson, “Gramsci and Globalisation: From Nation-State to Transnational Hegemony”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, Vol. 8, No. 4 (December 2005), pp. 559-574.
22. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, “Açılış Konuşması”, Uluslararası Muhafazakârlık ve Demokrasi Sempozyumu, Ankara, AK Parti Yayınları, 2004, p. 13.
23. “Erdoğan: Batı Artık Dünyanın Tek Merkezi Değildir”, Euronews, at http://tr.euronews. com/2012/10/13/erdogan-bati-artik-dunyanin-tek-merkezi-degildir/ [last visited 3 November 2012].
24. The White House, “The National Security Strategy”, at http://georgewbush-whitehouse. archives.gov/nsc/nss/2002/nss5.html [last visited 12 December 2012].
25. “Partnership for Progress and a Common Future with the Region of the Broader Middle East and North Africa”, USA Today, at http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/sherpa.pdf [last visited 12 November 2012].
26. Cheryl Benard, Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies, Santa Monica- CA, Arlington- VA, Pittsburgh- PA, RAND, 2003.
27. “Basbuğ: Ilımlı İslam Laik Değil”, Radikal, 20 March 2004.
28. “Loğoğlu Reacts to Statement of Powell: Turkey is a Democratic and Secular Republic”, Anadolu Agency, at http://www.hri.org/news/turkey/anadolu/2004/04-04-06.anadolu. html#23 [last visited 15 October 2012].
29. Baskın Oran (ed.), Turkish Foreign Policy-1919-2006, trans. Mustafa Akşin, Salt Lake City- UT, The University of Utah Press, 2010.
30. So it is completely different from the classical foreign policy discourse of Islamists in Turkey, see, İhsan D. Dağı, Kimlik, Söylem ve Siyaset: Doğu-Batı Ayrımında Refah Partisi Geleneği, Ankara, İmge Yayınevi, 1999.
31. Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Türkiye Merkez Ülke Olmalı”.
32. On 11 December 2002, Erdoğan visited Washington and met George W. Bush to receive support for its “Islamic” government just before the EU’s Copenhagen Summit of 2002. At the time he was banned from politics and therefore had no official title. But the Bush government treated him as if he was a prime minister. See, “Liderliğinizden Etkilendik”, Hürriyet, 11 December 2002.
33. The crisis of representation refers to the situation of the lack of correspondence between the objectivities/identities in the domestic and international political. The non-correspondence prevents the emergence of an identity, or unity and completeness.
34. The Kemalist discourse also showed a sign of bifurcation between the Europhile Kemalists and the hardliners in the process of Turkey’s democratic openings. See, Özlem Demirtaş Bagdonas, “The Clash of Kemalisms? Reflections on the Past and Present Politics of Kemalism in Turkish Political Discourse”, Turkish Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (March 2008), pp. 99-114.
35. General Tuncer Kılınç, the Head of National Security Board in 2001, suggested in a symposium that Turkey had to look for an alternative to the EU, such as Iran and Russia. See, “Türkiye Yeni bir Arayışa Girmeli”, NTV-MSNBC, at http://arsiv.ntvmsnbc.com/ news/139442.asp [last visited 23 December 2011].
36. İhsan D. Dağı, “Amerikan Karşıtlığı Neden?”, Zaman, 23 February 2005.
37. “Dünya İstanbul’daki Tarihi Mitingi Konuşuyor”, Milliyet, 30 April, 2007.
38. Aylin Güney, “Anti-Americanism in Turkey: Past and Present”, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 44, No. 3 (May 2008), pp. 482-483.
39. “Türkiye’de ABD Karşıtlığı Artıyor”, at http://haberpan.com/turkiyede-abd-karsitligi- artiyor-haberi [last visited 8 May 2012].
40. For a classical example of this discourse, see, “Bahçeli: AK Parti Hükümeti Kullanılmak Isteniyor”, Radikal, 8 December 2011.
41. For a typical example of this discourse, see, Kadri Gürsel, “Kayma Yok, Dağılma Var”, Milliyet, 12 November 2009.
42. Dirk Nabers, “Filling the Void of Meaning: Identity Construction in U.S. Foreign Policy after September 11, 2001”, Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 5, No. 2 (April 2009), pp. 191-214.
43. Murat Yetkin, “Üs Pazarlığının Perde Arkası”, Radikal, 20 December 2012.
44. Ergun Özbudun and William Hale, Islamism, Democracy and Liberalism in Turkey: The Case of the AKP, London and New York, Routledge, 2010, p. 130.
45. “Türkiye’ye tehdit Kuzey Irak’tan”, Sabah, 29 December 2002.
46. “MGK Ocak 2003 Toplantısı”, at http://www.belgenet.com/mgk/mgk012003.html [last visited 14 May 2012].
47. “Yabancı Ülkelere Asker Gönderilmesi ve Yabancı Askerin Kabulü Konusundaki Izin Tezkeresi”, at http://www.belgenet.com/yasa/izin_250203.html [last visited 13 May 2012].
48. “Tüzmen: Barış Trenine Binmeli”, Radikal, 11 January 2003.
49. “Irak’a İşbirliği Çağrısı”, Radikal, 24 January 2003.
50. “ATA uçağının Taha Yasin Ramazan’ı Gizlice Türkiye’ye Getirmesi Gündeme Bomba Gibi Düştü”, at http://www.habervitrini.com/haber/ata-ucaginin-taha-yasin-ramazani-gizlice- turkiyeye-getirmesi-gundeme-bomba-gibi-dustu--70640/ [last visited 20 December 2012].
51. “Gündem Tezkere”, Hürriyet, 24 February 2003.
52. Özbudun and Hale, Islamism, Democracy and Liberalism in Turkey, p. 131.
53. Fikret Bila, “1 Mart Tezkeresiyle Ilgili Tartışma”, Milliyet, 6 October 2007.
54. “Tezkere MGK’dan Sonraya Kaldı”, Hürriyet, 28 February, 2003.
55. “Son Sözü Sezer Söyledi: MGK’dan Karar Beklemeyin”, Milliyet, 1 March 2003.
56. “Arınç: Tezkere Reddedildi”, Radikal, 1 March, 2003.
57. Özbudun and Hale, Islamism, Democracy and Liberalism in Turkey, p. 132.
58. “1 Mart Tezkeresinin Perde Arkası, Milliyet, 8 December 2010.
59. “Türkiye Afganistan’a Asker Gönderiyor”, at http://bianet.org/bianet/bianet/5782-turkiye- afganistana-asker-gonderiyor [last visited 22 November 2012].
60. “Türk Birliği Afganistan’a Gidiyor”, Hürriyet, 29 May 2001.
61. “1 Mart Tezkeresinin Perde Arkası”, Milliyet, 8 December 2010.
62. “Türkler Ne Yaptı Dedin?”, Vatan, 8 April 2004.
63. “ABD’nin ‘Hata Yaptınız’ Suçlamasına Hükümet ve Ordu Tepki Gösterdi”, Zaman, 8 May 2003.
64. “Yabancı Ülkelere Asker Gönderilmesi ve Türk Hava Sahasının Yabancı Silahlı Kuvvetlerin Hava Unsurlarına Açılması Konusundaki Izin Tezkeresi”, at http://www.belgenet.com/yasa/ izin_190303.html [last visited 24 January 2013].
65. “İncirlik Yeniden Canlanıyor”, Hürriyet, 20 June 2003.
66. “Irak’a Asker Gönderilmesi”, at http://www.belgenet.com/yasa/izin_061003.html (last visited 26 December 2012).
67. “Erdoğan: Askerlerimizin Bir Kısmı Serbest Bırakıldı”, Hürriyet, 5 July 2003.
68. “Derhal Özür Dileyin”, Hürriyet, 6 July 2003.
69. “Özkök: En Büyük Güven Bunalımı”, Hürriyet, 7 July 2003.
70. “Çiçek: ABD, Ikinci Yanlışı Yapmasın”, Hürriyet, 8 July 2003.
71. “Pearson: Türk-Amerikan Görüşmeleri Olumlu”, Hürriyet, 10 July 2003.
72. “Çuval Olayı, Tezkerenin Intikami”, Haber5, 8 August 2008.
73. “ABD’den Felluce Tepkisi”, Sabah, 30 November 2004.
74. “Türkiye Stratejik Ortak Mı?”, Vatan, 12 June 2005. 76 Ibid.
75. “İncirlik Yeniden Canlanıyor”, Hürriyet, 20 June 2003.
76. “Türkiye ve ABD ‘Stratejik Ortak Vizyon’da Anlaştı” Haber Vitrini, at http://www. habervitrini.com/haber/turkiye-ve-abd-stratejik-ortak-vizyonda-anlasti-227815/ [last visited 28 May 2012].
77. Özdem Sanberk, “Türk-Amerikan Ortak Vizyon Belgesi”, Radikal, 15 July 2006.
78. Ali H. Aslan, “Shared Vision Document’ Period in US-Turkey Relations”, Today’s Zaman, 6 July 2006.
79. “ABD ile Yeni Stratejik Ortak Vizyon Belgesi Oluşturulacak”, Hürriyet, 25 April 2006.
80. Aslan, “Shared Vision Document’ Period in US-Turkey Relations”. 83 Ibid.
81. “Tezkere Meclis’te Kabul Edildi”, Sabah, 17 October 2007.
82. “Erdoğan-Bush Görüşmesi Sona Erdi”, Sabah, 5 November 2007.
83. “Turk Iraq Raids ‘Killed Hundreds”, BBC, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7159940. stm [last visited 1 June 2012].
84. “Kara Harekati Başlatıldı”, CNN-TURK, at http://www.cnnturk.com/2008/turkiye/02/22/ kara.harekati.baslatildi/430851.0/index.htm [last visited 1 June 2012].
85. “Turkey Withdraws Troops from Northern Iraq”, Reuters, at http://www.reuters.com/ article/2008/02/29/us-turkey-iraq-idUSANK00037420080229 [last visited 1 June 2012].
86. “Bush-Gül Görüşmesi Gerçekleşti”, CNN-TURK, at http://www.cnnturk.com/2008/ dunya/01/08/bush.gul.gorusmesi.gerceklesti/417536.0/index.html [last visited 3 June 2012].
87. Author’s translation. “Obama’dan Türkiye’ye ‘Model Ortaklık” (Obama Offers Turkey “Model Partnership”), Euractive, at http://www.euractiv.com.tr/3/article/obamadan- turkiyeye-model-ortaklik-005286 [last visited 3 June 2012].
88. “Davutoğlu: Türkiye, ABD’nin Ekonomik Ortağı da Olmak İstiyor”, Turkish Journal, at http://www.turkishjournal.com/i.php?newsid=11479 [last visited 3 June 2012].
89. “Türkiye’nin Üyeliği Kabul Edildi”, Hürriyet, 17 October 2008.
90. “NATO’da Rasmussen Krizi”, Vatan, 4 April 2009.
91. See, “Sorularıyla ve Cevaplarıyla Demokratik Açılım Süreci”, AK Parti Tanıtım ve Medya Başkanlıgı, at http://www.akparti.org.tr/acilim220110.pdf [last visited 14 February 2013].
92. “Obama-Erdoğan Buluşmasından Mesajlar”, CNN-TURK, at http://www.cnnturk. com/2009/dunya/12/07/obama.erdogan.bulusmasindan.mesajlar/554384.0/index.htm [last visited 5 June 2012].
93. “Türkiye “Hayır” Dedi”, Sabah, 9 June 2010.
94. “Gordon: Türkiye Hala Stratejik Ortak”, Yeni Şafak, 12 June 2010.
95. “Erdoğan: Obama ile Verimli bir Görüşme Yaptık” (We had a Fruitful Meeting with Obama), TurkishNY, 28 June, 2010. At http://www.turkishny.com/hot-news/50-hot-news/33410- erdoan-obama-ile-verimli-gorumeler-yaptk (last visited 7 June 12).
96. “Erdoğan: Görüşme Olumlu Geçti”, TRT Haber, at http://www.trt.net.tr/Haber/ HaberDetay.aspx?HaberKodu=785ea85c-3441-4dbc-9644-4594bf44b6b0 [last visited 7 June 2012].
97. See Ümit Özdağ, “Davutoğlu’nun Radikal Sünni Merkezli Ortadoğu Politikası”, Internetajans, at http://www.internetajans.com/prof-dr-umit-ozdag/davutoglunun-radikal- sunni-merkezli-orta-dogu-politikasi-kose-yazisi-3439y.html [last visited 28 November 2012]; “Kılıçdaroğlu: Savaşa Milletvekili Çocukları Gitsin”, at http://www.kanalb.com/ haber.php?HaberNo=44715#.ULYe4eRFU0o [last visited 28 November 2012].