The Concept of “Middle Power” and the Recent Turkish Foreign Policy Activism

Öz

This study examines the concept of “middle power” and the possible applicability of this concept within the framework of Turkish foreign policy. An increasing number of publications on the subject of Turkish foreign policy attempt to frame it by using different characterizations. One of these is related to the concept of “middle power.” The new activism of Turkey in its immediate neighborhood is generally considered as an indication of a transformation in its foreign policy orientation and behavior. As a contribution to this kind of effort, this study tries to develop a comprehensive definition of the term of “middle power” and explores how this fits in with the so called “new Turkish foreign policy.” It argues that Turkey, as a regionally significant actor that permanently accumulates material power capabilities, has tried to gain a central role in the dominant international system through its role as a middle power. The study further claims that the new definition of Turkey by foreign policy elites as a “pivotal” state clearly fits the expectations of a state with ‘middle power status’. However, it also highlights that the desire of Turkish foreign policy elites is not independent from the material power capabilities that the state possesses. Recent increase in Turkish material capabilities constitutes a significant factor in shaping Turkey’s foreign policy desires

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Middle Power, Turkish Foreign Policy, Pro-Active Diplomacy

Kaynakça

1. Barlas, D., (2005). “Turkish Diplomacy in the Balkans and the Mediterranean: Oppor- tunities and Limits for Middle Power Activism in the 1930’s”. Journal of Contem- porary History, 40(3), 441-464.
2. Barnett, M. and Duvall, R., (2005). “Power in International Politics”. International Orga- nization, Winter, 59(1), 39-75.
3. Brooks, S. G. and Wohlforth, W. C., (2008). World out of Balance: International Relations and the Challange of American Primacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
4. CIA, World Factbook, Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/geos/tu.html
5. Cooper, A., (1993). Leadership, Followership, and Middle Powers in International Poli- tics: A Reapriasal. In: A. F. Cooper, R. A. Higgott and K. R. Nossal, eds. Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order. Vancouver: UBC Press.
6. Davutoğlu, A., (2001). Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Konumu. İstanbul: Küre.
7. Davutoğlu, A., (2008). “Turkey’s Foreign Policy Vision: An Assessment of 2007”. Insight Turkey, 10(1), 77-96.
8. Erickson, E. J., (2004). “Turkey as Regional Hegemon-2014: Strategic Implications for the United States”. Turkish Studies, 5(3), 25-42.

9. Evans, G. and Grant, B., (1991). Australia’s Foreign Relations. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
10. Fukuyama, F., (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.
11. Gunter, M. M., (2005). The US-Turkish Alliance in Disarray. World Affairs, Winter, 167(3), 113-123.
12. Hale, W., (2000). Turkish Foreign Policy, 1774-2000. London: Frank Cass.
13. Hale, W., (2009). “Turkey and the Middle East in the New Era”. Insight Turkey, 11(3), 143-159.
14. Hickok, M. R., (2000). “Hegemon Rising: The Gap between Turkish Strategy and Mili- tary Modernization”. Parameters, Summer, 30(2), 105-120.
15. Holbraad, C., (1971). “The Role of Middle Powers”. Cooperation and Conflict, March, 6(1), 77-99.
16. Kibraki, Y., (2008). Karamanli’le Dosluk Ruzgari Esti. Radikal, 24 January.
17. Kirişçi, K. and Rubin, B., (2002). Turkey in World Politics: An Emerging Multiregional Power. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
18. Larson, D. W. and Shevchenko, A., (2010). Status Seekers: Chinese and Russian Re- sponses to U.S. Primacy. Insternational Security, Spring, 34(4), 63-95.
19. Lukes, S., (2005). Power: A Radical View. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.
20. MFA, Turkey, available at:http://www.mfa.gov.tr/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Synopsis/SYN- OPSIS.htm
21. Muftuler, M. and Yuksel, M., (1997). Turkey: A Middle Power in the New World Or- der. In: Niche Diplomacy: Middle Powers after the Cold War. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
22. Oğuzlu, T., (2008). Turkey’s Northern Iraq Policy: Competing Perspectives. Insight Tur- key, 10(3), 5-22.
23. Öniş, Z., (2003). “Turkey and the Middle East after September 11: The Importance of the EU Dimension”. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 2(4), pp. 83-92.
24. Öniş, Z., (2011). “Multiple Faces of the “New” Turkish Foreign Policy: Underlying Dy- namics and a Critique”. Insight Turkey, 13(1), 47-65.
25. Oran, B., ed., (2001). Türk Dış Politikası. Ankara: İletişim Yayınları.
26. Organski, A. F. K. and Kugler, J., (1980). The War Ledger. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
27. Özkan, M., (2010). “Turkey’s Rising Role in Africa”, Turkish Policy Quarterly, Winter, 9(4), 93-105.
28. Ravenhill, J., (1998). Cycles of Middle Power Activism, Constraint and Choice in Aus- tralian And Canadian Foreign. Australian Journal of International Relations, 52(3), 309-327.
29. Renda, K. K., (2011). Turkey’s Neighborhood Policy: An Emerging Complex Interde- pendence?. Insight Turkey, 13(1), 89-108.
30. Rudd, K., (2006). Leading not Following: The Renewal of Australian Middle Power Diplo- macy. Melbourne, s.n.
31. Taşpınar, Ö., (2011). The Rise of Turkish Gaullism: Getting Turkish-American Relations Right. Insight Turkey, 13(1), 11-17.
32. Turan, I., (2010). Turkey’s Iran Policy: Moving Away from Tradition. GMF Analysis on Turkey, 25 June.
33. Walt, S., (1987). The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
34. Waltz, K. N., (1979). Theory of International Politics. Reading(Mass.): Addison-Wesley.
35. Welsh, J. M., (2004). Canada in the 21st Century: Beyond Dominion and Middle Power. The Round Table, September, 93(376), 583-593.
36. Wight, M., (1978). Power Politics. London: Leicester University Press.
37. Winrow, G., (2005). Turkey’s Changing Regional Role and Its Implications. Istanbul, Koc University.
38. Wohlforth, W. C., (1999). The Stability of a Unipolar World. International Security, Sum- mer, 24(1), 5-41.
39. Yeşiltaş, M., (2009). Soft Balancing in Turkish Foreign Policy: The Case of 2003 Iraq War. Perception: Journal of International Affairs, Spring-Summer.