Globalization, Modernity and Democracy- Turkish Foreign Policy 2009 and Beyond

Year 2010, Volume: 15 Issue: 2, 1 - 20, 01.01.2010

E Fuat Keyman

Abstract

The end of the Cold War meant the end of the ‘buffer state’ identity of Turkish foreign policy – an identity which was based mainly on the geopolitical position of Turkey in world politics. Since the 1990s, Turkey has been in search of a new identity, which has required a much more active and constructive foreign policy behavior. Furthermore, as the world has become more globalized, more interdependent, and more risky, having “strategic depth,” this new foreign policy identity entailed the employment of not only geopolitics but also identity and economy. Thus, geopolitics, modernity and democracy have become the constitutive dimensions of Turkish foreign policy today. This development in Turkey’s foreign policy identity and behavior has been perceived in global academic and public discourse as Turkey becoming a “key and pivotal actor of world politics.” This paper explores the ways in which Turkish foreign policy would become effective and achieves its main aim, that is, to contribute to the creation of a fair, better, and democratic global governance

Keywords

Pro-active foreign policy, the post-9/11 world, globalization, democratization, modernization, Turkey-EU relations.

References

• Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives, New York, Basic Books, 1997, pp. 124-35.
• For a more detailed analysis about the recent Turkish foreign policy activities, see Lenore G. Martin and Dimitris.Keridis (eds), The Future of Turkish Foreign Policy, Cambridge, MIT Press, 2004.
• For a detailed analysis of both the nature and the end of the buffer state identity of Turkish foreign policy, see Barry Rubin and Kemal Kirişci, Turkey in World Politics, Istanbul, Boğaziçi University Publications, 2002.
• Ahmet Davutoğlu, Stratejik Derinlik, Istanbul, Küre Yayınları, 2001.
• Stephen Larrabee and Ian. O. Lesser, Turkish Foreign Policy in an Age of Uncertainty, Santa Monica, RAND, 2003.
• Lenore G. Martin, “Introduction”, in Martin and Keridis (eds), The Future of Turkish Foreign Policy.
• For the importance of September 11 on foreign policy, see Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield and Tim Dune (eds.), Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008.
• Martin, “Introduction”, p. 3.
• Graham E. Fuller, The New Turkish Republic: Turkey as a Pivotal State in the Muslim World, Washington, United States Institute of Peace Press, 2007.
• Larrabee and Lesser, Turkish Foreign Policy in an Age of Uncertainty. 13 Ibid., p. 3.
• We have elaborated this point in Keyman and Öniş, Turkish Politics in a Changing World.
• For details see, Arjun Appadurai, Fear of Small Numbers, Durham, Duke University Press, 2006; see also Ulrich Beck, Cosmopolitian Vision, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2006.
• See Frank J. Lechner and John Boli (eds.), Globalization Reader, London, Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
• Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, New York, Hamish Hamilton, 2003; Stanley Aronowitz and Heather Gautney (eds.), Implicating Empire, New York, Basic Books, 2003.
• See for example Berna Turam, Between Islam and the State: The Politics of Engagement, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 2007; Dietrich Jung and Catharina Raudvere (eds.), Religion, Politics, and Turkey’s EU Accession, New York, Palgrave Macmillan , 2008; Zülküf Aydın, The Political Economy of Turkey, London, Pluto Press, 2005.
• Keyman and Öniş, Turkish Politics in a Changing World; Esra LaGro and Knud Erik Jorgensen (eds.), Turkey and the European Union: Prospects for a Difficult Encounter, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
• Abramowitz (ed.), “Turkey’s Transformation and American Policy”.
• See, for example, Erik Cornell, Turkey in the 21st Century: Opportunities, Challenges, Threats, Richmond, Surrey,Curzon Press, 2001; Abramowitz, “Turkey’s Transformation and American Policy”; Keyman and Öniş, “Turkish Politics in a Changing World”; LaGro and Jorgensen, Turkey and the European Union; Fuller and Lesser, “Turkey’s New Geopolitics”.
• For a general account of these areas, see A. Williams, Failed Imagination? New World Orders of the Twentieth Century, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1998; Smith, Hadfield and Dunne (eds.), “Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases”.
• Charles Taylor, “Two Theories of Modernity”, in Dilip Parameshwar Gaonkar (ed.), Alternative Modernities, London, Duke University Press, 2001, pp. 172-197.
• See Şerif Mardin, Din ve İdeoloji, Istanbul, İletişim Yayınları,1999.
• Gerard Delanty, Social Theory in a Changing World, Cambridge, Polity, 1999.
• Samuel Noah Eisenstadt, “Multiple Modernities”, Daedalus, Vol.129, No.1 (Winter 2000), pp. 1-31.
• See Keyman and Öniş, “Turkish Politics in a Changing World”.
• See Ilkay Sunar, State, Society and Democracy, Istanbul, Bahceşehir University Publications, 2004; Ergun Özbudun, Contemporary Turkish Politics, Boulder, Lynne Rienner, 2000; Feroz Ahmad, Turkey: The Quest for Identity, Oxford, One World, 2003; Keyman and Öniş, “Turkish Politics in a Changing World”.
• Keyman and Öniş, Turkish Politics in a Changing World, Chapter 1.
• Özbudun, Contemporary Turkish Politics, p. 14. 32 Ibid, p. 15.
• Larrabee and Lesser, Turkish Foreign Policy in an Age of Uncertainty, p. 3.
• For a detailed analysis, see E.Fuat Keyman (ed.), Remaking Turkey, Oxford, Rowman Little, Oxford, 2008.
• See Keyman and Öniş, Turkish Politics in a Changing World, Chapter 2; Özbudun, Contemporary Turkish Politics, Conclusion.
• Senem Aydın Düzgit and E. Fuat Keyman, “Turkey and European Integration”, in E. Fuat Keyman (ed.), Remaking Turkey, Oxford, Lexington, 2007, pp. 245-259.
• Ian Lesser, “Turkey to Face Tough Foreign Policy Choices”, Today’s Zaman, 18 September 2008.
• For a detailed analysis of these system-transforming impacts, see Feyzi Baban and E. Fuat Keyman, “Turkey and Postnational Europe”, European Journal of Social Theory, Vol. 11, No.1 (February 2008), pp. 107-124.