A Government Devoid of Strong Leadership: A Neoclassical Realist Explanation of Turkey’s Iraq War Decision in 2003

Abstract

This study deals with Turkey’s Iraq War Decision that led up to the March 1 Parliamentary Motion Crisis in 2003 from the perspective of neoclassical realism, which analyzes the interaction between systemic and unit-level variables. The United States requested Turkey’s collaboration in the war against Iraq. The Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government initially sought a peaceful settlement but eventually decided to align with the United States. Systemic and structural factors made cooperation with the United States an imperative for Turkey, which may be classified as a secondary state in the regional context. While the domestic political environment was favorable for the Turkish government to reach such a decision, it was hindered by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (GNAT). In this framework, the study has two primary purposes. The first is to prove that in restrictive international environments where opportunities and threats are clear and the decision-making process is constrained by time, domestic divisions may matter in foreign policy and prevail over the systemic imperative, contrary to conventional expectations. The second is to demonstrate that in a restrictive international milieu, strong leadership, a factor underappreciated by neoclassical realists, is essential even for single-party governments, which are normally expected to have greater autonomy in democratic parliamentary systems, to formulate foreign policy.

Keywords

• Neoclassical Realism
• Turkey’s Iraq War Decision
• Justice and Development Party
• March 1 Motion

References

1. Aksoy, Sevilay Z. “The Turkish Stance toward the US Requests for the 2003 Iraq War: A Case of Norms versus Interests?” Ortadoğu Etütleri 10, no. 2 (2018): 8–47.
2. Akyüz, Abdullah. “Türk-Amerikan ilişkilerinde sivil toplum kuruluşlarının rolü.” In Sivil toplum ve dış politika: yeni sorunlar, yeni aktörler, edited by Semra Cerit Mazlum and Erhan Doğan, 209–33. İstanbul: Bağlam, 2007.
3. Babacan, Abdurrahman. “AK Parti dönemi ilk küresel karşılaşma: 1 Mart 2003 tezkeresi.” Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 51 (2018): 21–38.
4. Balci, Ali, Tuncay Kardaş, İsmail Ediz, and Yildirim Turan. “War Decision and Neoclassical Realism: The Entry of the Ottoman Empire into the First World War.” War in History (2018): 1–28. doi: 10.1177/0968344518789707.
5. Bila, Fikret. Ankara’da Irak savaşları: Sivil darbe girişimi ve gizli belgelerle 1 Mart tezkeresi. 6th ed. İstanbul: Güncel, 2007.
6. Bölükbaşı, Deniz. 1 Mart vakası: Irak tezkeresi ve sonrası. 4th ed. İstanbul: Doğan Kitap, 2008.
7. Cuhadar, Esra, Juliet Kaarbo, Baris Kesgin, and Binnur Ozkececi-Taner. “Examining Leaders’ Orientations to Structural Constraints: Turkey’s 1991 and 2003 Iraq War Decisions.” Journal of International Relations and Development 20 (2017): 29–54.
8. Dal, Emel Parlar. “Conceptualising and Testing the ‘Emerging Regional Power’ of Turkey in the Shifting International Order.” Third World Quarterly 37, no. 8 (2016): 1425–453. Dueck, Colin. “Ideas and Alternatives in American Grand Strategy, 2000-2004.” Review of International Studies 30, no. 4 (2004): 511–35.

9. Ehteshami, Anoushiravan. “Middle East Middle Powers: Regional Role, International Impact.” Uluslararası İlişkiler 11, no. 42 (2014): 29–49.
10. Erhan, Çağrı, and Ersin Embel. “Türk dış politikasında karar vericileri yönlendiren yapısal faktörler.” BİLİG, no. 72 (2015): 145–70.
11. Gözen, Ramazan. “Causes and Consequences of Turkey’s Out-Of-War Position in the Iraq War of 2003.” Turkish Yearbook of International Relations 36 (2005): 74–99.
12. Henke, Marina E. “The Rotten Carrot: US-Turkish Bargaining Failure Over Iraq in 2003 and the Pitfalls of Social Embeddedness.” Security Studies 27, no. 1 (2018): 120–47.
13. İnat, Kemal, and Burhanettin Duran. “AKP dış politikası: Teori ve uygulama.” In AK Partili yıllar, edited by Zeynep Dağı, 15–70. Ankara: Orion, 2006.
14. Isyar, Goksel Omer. “An Analysis of Turkish-American Relations from 1945 to 2004: Initiatives and Reactions in Turkish Foreign Policy.” Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations 4, no. 3 (2005): 21–52.
15. Jenkins, Garreth. “Semboller ve gölge oyunu ordu-AKP ilişkileri 2002-2004.” In Yavuz, AK parti, 235–57. Translated by Bayram Sinkaya.
16. Kardaş, Şaban. “Turkish-American Relations in the 2000s: Revisiting the Basic Parameters of Partnership?” Perceptions 16, no. 3 (2011): 25–52.
17. –––. “Türkiye ve Irak krizi: Kimlikle çıkar arasında AKP.” In Yavuz, AK parti, 359–89.
18. Kesgin, Baris, and Juliet Kaarbo. “When and How Parliaments Influence Foreign Policy: The Case of Turkey’s Iraq Decision.” International Studies Perspectives 11, no. 1 (2010): 19–36.
19. Legro, Jeffrey W., and Andrew Moravcsik. “Is Anybody Still a Realist?” International Security 24, no. 2 (1999): 5–55.
20. Lobell, Steven E., Neal G. Jesse, and Kristen P. Williams. “Why Do Secondary States Choose to Support, Follow or Challenge?” International Politics 52, no. 2 (2015): 146–62.
21. Lobell, Steven E., Norrin Ripsman, and Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, ed. Neoclassıcal Realism, The State, and Foreign Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
22. Meibauer, Gustav, Linde Desmaele, Tudor Onea, Nicholas Kitchen, Michiel Foulon, Alexander Reichwein, and Jennifer Sterling-Folker. “Forum: Rethinking Neoclassical Realism at Theory’s End.” International Studies Review (2020): 1–28. doi: /10.1093/isr/viaa018.
23. Milbrath, Lester W. “Interest Groups and Foreign Policy.” In Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy, edited by James N. Rosenau, 231–51. New York: Free, 1967.
24. Monten, Janothan. “Primacy and Grand Strategic Beliefs in US Unilateralism.” Global Governance 13, no. 1 (2007): 119–38.
25. Narizny, Kevin. “On Systemic Paradigms and Domestic Politics: A Critique of the Newest Realism.” International Security 42, no. 4 (2017): 155–90.
26. Özcan, Gencer. “Türkiye dış politikasında algilamalar, karar alma ve oluşum süreci.” In Sömezoğlu, Türk dış politikasının analizi, 829–95.
27. Özdamar, Özgür. “Dış politika karar alımı sürecinde lider merkezli yaklaşım: akılcı tercih kuramı ve Türkiye’nin Irak Savaşı’na katılmama kararı.” In Dış politika teorileri bağlamında Türk dış politikasının analizi, edited by Ertan Efegil and Rıdvan Kalaycı, 479–500. Ankara: Nobel, 2012.
28. Özlem, İpek. “Türk dış politikasında medyanın etkisi: 1 Mart 2003 tezkeresi.” Unpublished Master thes., Yeni Yüzyıl University, 2018.
29. Öztop, Fatma Anıl. “Karar birimi kuramı çerçevesinde Türk dış politikasının analizi: 1 Mart 2003 tezkeresi örneği.” Uluslararası Politik Araştırmalar Dergisi 1, no. 2 (2015): 33–45.
30. –––. Türk dış politikası yapım sürecinde karar birimlerinin etkileri. İstanbul: Gündoğan, 2018.
31. Ripsman, Norrin M. “Neoclassical Realism and Domestic Interest Groups.” In Lobell, Ripsman, and Taliaferro, Neoclassical Realism,170–94.
32. –––. Peace-Making by Democracies: The Effect of State Autonomy on the Post–World War Settlements. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University, 2002.
33. Ripsman, Norrin M., Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, and Steven E. Lobell. “Conclusion: The State of Neoclassical Realism.” In Lobell, Ripsman, and Taliaferro, Neoclassical Realism,280–99.
34. –––. Neoclassical Realist Theory of International Politics. New York: Oxford University, 2016.
35. Risse-Kappen, Thomas. “Public Opinion, Domestic Structure, and Foreign Policy in Liberal Democracies.” World Politics 43, no. 4 (1991): 479–512.
36. Rose, Gideon. “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy.” World Politics 51, no. 1 (1998): 144–172.
37. Roth, Ariel Ilan. Leadership in International Relations: The Balance of Power and the Origins of World War II. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
38. Sazak, Derya. “Erdoğan ikiz kuleler değişimi.” Milliyet, February 2, 2002.
39. Schweller, Randall L. “Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back in.” International Security 19, no. 1 (1994): 72–107.
40. –––. “Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing.” International Security 29, no. 2 (2004): 159–201.
41. Sever, Ahmet. Abdullah Gül ile 12 yıl: Yaşadım, gördüm, yazdım. İstanbul: Doğan Kitap, 2015.
42. Sönmezoğlu, Faruk, ed. Türk dış politikasının analizi. 3rd ed. İstanbul: Der, 2004.
43. Taliaferro, Jeffrey W., Steven E. Lobell, and Norrin M. Ripsman. “Introduction: Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy.” In Lobell, Ripsman, and Taliaferro, Neoclassical Realism,1–42.
44. Taydaş, Zeynep, and Özgür Özdamar. “A Divided Government, an Ideological Parliament, and an Insecure Leader: Turkey’s Indecision about Joining the Iraq War.” Social Science Quarterly 94, no. 1 (2013): 217–41.
45. Trice, Robert H. “Foreign Policy Interest Groups, Mass Public Opinion and the Arab-Israeli Dispute.” The Western Political Quarterly 31, no. 2 (1978): 238–52.
46. Tuncel, Gökhan. Sivil toplum ve devlet. Malatya: Bilsam, 2011.
47. Tür, Özlem. “Türkiye’nin Irak ve Suriye İlişkileri.” In XXI. Yüzyılda Türk dış politikasının analizi, edited by Faruk Sönmezoğlu, Nurcan Özgür Baklacıoğlu, and Özlem Terzi, 593–615. İstanbul: Der, 2012.
48. Türkeş, Mustafa. “NATO bağlamında ABD-Türkiye ilişkilerinde devamlılık ve değişim.” In Sömezoğlu, Türk dış politikasının analizi, 379–403.
49. Türkmen, Füsun. “Anti-Americanism as a Default Ideology of Opposition: Turkey as a Case Study.” Turkish Studies 11, no. 3 (2010): 329–45.
50. –––. “Turkish-American Relations: A Challenging Transition.” Turkish Studies 10, no. 1 (2009): 109–29.
51. Uslu, Nasuh. Çatlak ittifak: 1947’den günümüze Türk-Amerikan ilişkileri. Ankara: Nobel, 2016.
52. Uzgel, İlhan. “Dış politikada AKP: Stratejik konumdan stratejik modele.” In AKP kitabı: bir dönüşümün bilançosu, edited by Bülent Duru and İlhan Uzgel, 11–39. Ankara: Phoenix, 2010.
53. Vasquez, John A. “The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz’s Balancing Proposition.” The American Political Science Review 91, no. 4 (1997): 899–912.
54. Walt, Stephen M. “Alliances: Balancing and Bandwagoning.” In International Politics: Enduring Concepts, and Contemporary Issues, Thirteenth Edition, edited by Robert J. Art and Robert Jervis, 153–61. New York: Pearson, 2016.
55. Wohlforth, William C. “Stability of a Unipolar World.” International Security 24, no. 1 (1999): 5–41.
56. Wohlforth, William C., and Stephen Brooks. “American Primacy in Perspective.” Foreign Affairs 81, no. 4 (2002): 20–33.
57. ———. World Out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University, 2008.
58. Yalçın, Hasan B. “The Concept of “Middle Power” and the Recent Turkish Foreign Policy Activism.” Afro Eurasian Studies 1, no.1 (2012): 195–213.
59. –––. “Making Sense of 1 March: A Proactive Strategy of Avoidance.” Perceptions 18, no.1 (2013): 155–83.
60. Yavuz, Hakan, ed. AK parti: toplumsal değişimin yeni aktörleri. İstanbul: Kitap, 2010.
61. Yeşiltaş, Murat. “Peşine takılma mı yumuşak dengeleme mi? Türkiye’nin Birinci ve İkinci Irak Savaşına yönelik ABD ile müttefiklik ilişkisinin karşılaştırmalı analizi.” In Mekân, kimlik, güç ve dış politika, edited by S. Gülden Ayman, 69–110. İstanbul: Yalın, 2012.
62. –––. “Soft Balancing in Turkish Foreign Policy: The Case of the 2003 Iraq War.” Perceptions 14, no. 1 (2009): 25–51.
63. Yetkin, Murat. “Irak’ta ABD’nin yanındayız.” Radikal, February 6, 2003.
64. –––. Tezkere: Irak krizinin gerçek öyküsü. 2nd ed. İstanbul: Remzi, 2004.
65. Yılmaz, Samet. “Neoklasik realizm ve dış politika: 1 Mart tezkeresi örneği.” Unpublished Master thes. Uludağ Üniversitesi, Bursa, Turkey, 2014.