İki Savaş Arası Dönemde Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'nin Ontolojik Güvenlik Arayışlı Dış Politikası

Öz

Kurtuluş Savaşı’ndan sonra, temel kaygısı içeride gücünü pekiştirmek ve dışarıda modern olarak tanınmak olan Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin kurucuları, yeni devletlerinin cumhuriyetçi ideallere dayalı bir ulus-devlet olarak devam edeceğini göstermeleri gerekiyordu. 1920’ler ve 1930’larda Türk toplumunda hukuk, toplumsal hayat, kültür ve eğitim alanlarında büyük bir dönüşüm yaşanmıştı. Bu dönüşüme uluslararası düzeyde yeni bir devlet kimliğinin inşa edilmesi eşlik etmiştir. Cumhuriyetin kuruluşundan sonra Türk politikacılar, karşılıklı şüpheleri ortadan kaldırmak ve diğer devletlerle ikili ilişkiler kurmak amacıyla öncelikle komşularıyla ilişki kurdular. Türkiye aynı zamanda kolektif güvenlik idealine yaptığı katkılarla uluslararası toplumun aktif bir üyesi haline gelmeyi tercih etmiştir. Bu sayede izolasyondan uzak durmuş ve uzun savaşlara rağmen mağdur ülke rolü oynamayarak da revizyonizmle arasına mesafe koymuştur. Bu makalenin ele aldığı temel araştırma sorusu, Türk siyasetçilerin siyasi hedeflerine ulaşırken, kolektif güvenlik idealini sürdürürken ve statükocu bir duruş sergilerken yeni uluslararası koşullarla nasıl başa çıktıklarıdır. Bu soruya verilen cevap, 1930’larda Cumhuriyet elitinin yeni Cumhuriyet için bir hayatta kalma ve başarı anlatısı oluşturarak, diğer ülkelerle güvene dayalı bir ilişki ağı kurarak ve yeni uluslararası koşullardan kaynaklanan tehditlerle mücadele ederken kendi bütünlüğünü koruyarak ontolojik olarak güvenli bir öz kimlik sürdürdüğü argümanına dayanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Atatürk dönemi
• Türk Dış politikası
• ontolojik güvenlik
• devlet olma
• öz-bütünlük

An Ontological Security-Seeking Foreign Policy of The Turkish Republic During The Interwar Era

Öz

After the Liberation War, the founders of the Republic of Türkiye, whose main concern was to consolidate its power at home and to be recognized as modern by others, had to demonstrate that their new state would continue as a nation-state based on republican ideals. There had been a great transformation of law, social life, culture, and education within Turkish society in the 1920s and 1930s. This transformation was accompanied by a new state identity at the international level. After the foundation of the Republic, Turkish policymakers primarily engaged with their neighbors in order to eliminate mutual suspicions and build reciprocal relations with other states. Türkiye also preferred to become an active member of the international society with its contributions to the ideal of collective security. In this way, it avoided isolation and distanced itself from revisionism by not playing the role of a victim country despite long wars. The main research question addressed by this paper is how the Turkish politicians coped with new international circumstances while achieving their political objectives, keeping up with the ideal of collective security and maintaining a status-quoist stance. The answer given to this question draws on the argument that the Republican elite during the 1930s upheld an ontologically secured self-identity by crafting a narrative of survival and success for the new Republic, by forming a web of relations with other countries based on trust, and by preserving its self-integrity while tackling threats emanating from the new international circumstances.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Atatürk's era
• Turkish foreign policy
• ontological security
• statehood
• self-integrity

Etik Beyan

Etik izne gerek yoktur.

Kaynakça

1. Adısönmez, U. C., & Al, S. (2024) Kitlesel Şiddet, Travma Ve Hafıza: Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türkiye’sinde ‘Beka’nın İzini Sürmek. Mülkiye Dergisi 48(3), 553–581. https://doi.org/10.25064/mulkiye.1437384
2. Adisonmez, U. C. (2019) When Conflict Traumas Fragment: Investigating the Sociopsychological Roots of Turkey’s Intractable Conflict. Political Psychology 40, 1373–1390. https://doi.org/10.1111/ pops.12631
3. Ahmad, F. (1988) War and Society Under The Young Turks, 1908-18. Review (Fernand Braudel Center) 11(2), 265–286. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40241096
4. Ahmad, F. (1993) The Making of Modern Turkey. London & New York: Routledge.
5. Ahmad, F. (2004) The Historical Background of Turkey’s Foreign Policy. In L. G. Martin & D. Keridis (eds.), Future of Turkish Foreign Policy (9–33). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
6. Atatürk, M. K. (1981) A Speech Delivered by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Ankara: Başbakanlık Basım Evi.
7. Atatürk, M. K. (1987) Atatürk’ün Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisini Açış Konuşmaları. Ankara: TBMM Kültür Sanat ve Yayın Kurulu Yayınları.
8. Atatürk, M. K. (1997a) Atatürk’ün Söylev ve Demeçleri – II (1906–1938). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.

9. Atatürk, M. K. (1997b) Atatürk’ün Söylev ve Demeçleri – III (1918–1937). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
10. Aydın, M. (1999) Determinants of Turkish Foreign Policy: Historical Framework and Traditional Inputs. Middle Eastern Studies 35(4), 152–186. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4284043
11. Aydın, M. (2000) Determinants of Turkish Foreign Policy: Changing Patterns and Conjunctures During the Cold War. Middle Eastern Studies 36(1), 103–139. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4284054
12. Aydın, M. (2003) Determinants of Turkish Foreign Policy, and Turkey’s European Vocation. The Review of International Affairs 3(2), 306–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/147.535.5032000240720
13. Baba, G., & Önsoy, M. (2016) Between Capability and Foreign Policy: Comparing Turkey’s Small Power and Middle Power Status. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 13(51), 3–20. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ uidergisi/issue/39309/463071
14. Balcı, A., Kardaş, İ. T., Ediz, İ., & Turan, Y. (2020) War Decision and Neoclassical Realism: The Entry of the Ottoman Empire into the First World War. War in History 27(4), 643–669. https://doi. org/10.1177/096.834.4518789707
15. Barlas, D. (1998) Etatism and Diplomacy in Turkey: Economic and Foreign Policy Strategies in an Uncertain World, 1929–1939. Leiden & New York: Brill.
16. Barlas, D. (2004) Friends or Foes? Diplomatic Relations Between Italy and Turkey, 1923–36. International Journal of Middle East Studies 36(2), 231–252. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3880033
17. Barlas, D. (2005) Turkish Diplomacy in the Balkans and the Mediterranean: Opportunities and Limits for Middle-Power Activism in the 1930s. Journal of Contemporary History 40(3), 441–464.
18. Barlas, D., & Güvenç, S. (2010) Turkey in the Mediterranean in the Interwar Era: The Paradox of Middle Power Diplomacy and Minor Power Naval Policy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
19. Bozdağlıoğlu, Y. (2003) Turkish Foreign Policy and Turkish Identity: A Constructivist Approach. London & New York: Routledge.
20. Buzan, B. (1997) Rethinking Security After the Cold War. Cooperation and Conflict 32(1), 5–28. http://www. jstor.org/stable/45084375
21. Criss, N. B. (2017) Turkey’s foreign policies during the interwar period (1923–1939). In P. G. Ercan (Ed.), Turkish foreign policy: International relations, legality and global reach (pp. 1–14). Palgrave Macmillan.
22. Croft, S., & Vaughan-Williams, N. (2017) Fit for Purpose? Fitting Ontological Security Studies ‘Into’ the Discipline of International Relations: Towards a Vernacular Turn. Cooperation and Conflict 52(1), 12–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/001.083.6716653159
23. Çalış, Ş. H. (1996) The Turkish State’s Identity and Foreign Policy Decision-Making Process. Mediterranean Quarterly 6(2), 135–155.
24. Deringil, S. (1992) Turkish Foreign Policy Since Atatürk. In C. H. Dodd (ed.), Turkish Foreign Policy: New Prospects (1–12). England: The Eothen Press.
25. Ermihan, E., & Karamık, İ. (2025) Causal Mechanisms of Ontological (In)Security in Turkish Politics and Foreign Policy: Anxiety Transmittance From Sèvres to Lausanne. Turkish Studies, 1–24. https://doi. org/10.1080/14683.849.2025.2461083
26. Fisher Onar, N., & Evin, A. (2011) Convergence and Resistance: The European Dilemma of Turkish Intellectuals. In J. Lacroix & K. Nicolaïdis (eds.), European Stories: Intellectual Debates on Europe in National Contexts (253–276). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Flockhart, T. (2016) The Problem of Change in Constructivist Theory: Ontological Security Seeking and Agent Motivation. Review of International Studies 42(5), 799–820. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S026.021.051600019X
28. Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
29. Gönlübol, M., & Sar, C. (1996) 1919-1938 Yılları Arasında Türk Dış Politikası. In M. Gönlübol (ed.), Olaylarla Türk Dış Politikası (1919-1995) (1–133). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
30. Gulmez, B. S. (2017) Turkish Foreign Policy as an Anomaly: Revisionism and Irredentism Through Diplomacy in the 1930s. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 44(1), 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1 080/13530.194.2016.1177487
31. Gustafsson, K. (2016) Recognising Recognition Through Thick and Thin: Insights From Sino-Japanese Relations. Cooperation and Conflict 51(3), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/001.083.6715610594
32. Gustafsson, K., & Krickel-Choi, N. C. (2020) Returning to the Roots of Ontological Security: Insights From the Existentialist Anxiety Literature. European Journal of International Relations 26(3), 875–895. https://doi.org/10.1177/135.406.6120927073
33. Güçlü, Y. (2003) Turkey’s Entrance Into the League of Nations. Middle Eastern Studies 39(1), 186–206. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4284281
34. Gülbak, O. (2023) Searching for Ontological Security: Biographical Narrative of “New Turkey” in the Early Turkish Republic Period. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Dış Ticaret Dergisi 1(3), 69–79. https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo.8377936
35. Gülsah Çapan, Z., & Zarakol, A. (2019) Turkey’s Ambivalent Self: Ontological Insecurity in ‘Kemalism’ Versus ‘Erdoğanism.’ Cambridge Review of International Affairs 32(3), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1 080/09557.571.2019.1589419
36. Hale, W. (2013) Turkish Foreign Policy Since 1774. London & New York: Routledge.
37. Hale, W. (2021) Turkey and Britain in World War II: Origins and Results of the Tripartite Alliance, 1935– 40. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 23(6), 824–844. https://doi.org/10.1080/19448.953. 2021.1987764
38. Hanioğlu, Ş. (2008) A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.
39. Hock, S. (2019) “Waking Us From This Endless Slumber”: The Ottoman–Italian War and North Africa in the Ottoman Twentieth Century. War in History 26(2), 204–226. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26746700
40. Içduygu, A., & Kaygusuz, Ö. (2004) The Politics of Citizenship by Drawing Borders: Foreign Policy and the Construction of National Citizenship Identity in Turkey. Middle Eastern Studies 40(6), 26–50. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4289951
41. İnönü, İ. (1992) İsmet İnönü’nün TBMM’deki Konuşmaları (1920–1973) (Vol. 1). Ankara: TBMM Kültür Sanat ve Yayın Kurulu Yayınları.
42. Kinnvall, C., & Mitzen, J. (2020) Anxiety, Fear, and Ontological Security in World Politics: Thinking With and Beyond Giddens. International Theory 12(2), 240–256. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S175.297.192000010X
43. Krasner, S. D. (1999) Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
44. Krause, K. (1998) Critical Theory and Security Studies: The Research Programme of ‘Critical Security Studies’. Cooperation and Conflict 33(2), 298–333.
45. Krickel-Choi, N. C. (2022) The Concept of Anxiety in Ontological Security Studies. International Studies Review 24(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac013
46. Krickel-Choi, N. C. (2024) State Personhood and Ontological Security as a Framework of Existence: Moving Beyond Identity, Discovering Sovereignty. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 37(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557.571.2022.2108761
47. Laing, R. D. (1969) The Divided Self. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
48. Millman, B. (1995) Turkish Foreign and Strategic Policy 1934–42. Middle Eastern Studies 31(3), 483–508. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4283738
49. Mitzen, J. (2006) Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma. European Journal of International Relations 12(3), 341–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/135.406.6106067346
50. Mufti, M. (1998) Daring and Caution in Turkish Foreign Policy. Middle East Journal 52(1), 32–50. https:// www.jstor.org/stable/4329152
51. Mufti, M. (2009) Daring and Caution in Turkish Strategic Culture: Republic at Sea. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
52. Pratt, S. F. (2017) A Relational View of Ontological Security in International Relations. International Studies Quarterly 61(1), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqw038
53. Robins, P. (2003) Suits and Uniforms: Turkish Foreign Policy Since the Cold War. London: Hurst & Company.
54. Rumelili, B. (2015) Identity and Desecuritisation: The Pitfalls of Conflating Ontological and Physical Security. Journal of International Relations and Development 18, 52–74. https://doi.org/10.1057/ jird.2013.22
55. Rumelili, B. (2020) Integrating Anxiety Into International Relations Theory: Hobbes, Existentialism, and Ontological Security. International Theory 12(2), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S175.297.1920000093
56. Soysal, İ. (2000) Tarihçeleri ve Açıklamaları ile Birlikte Türkiye’nin Siyasal Andlaşmaları I. Cilt (1920–1945). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
57. Subotić, J. (2016) Narrative, Ontological Security, and Foreign Policy Change. Foreign Policy Analysis 12(4), 610–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/fpa.12089
58. Steele, B. J. (2008) Ontological Security in International Relations: Self-Identity and the IR State. London & New York: Routledge.
59. Sula, İ. E. (2021) Turkish Foreign Policy in the Early Republican Period: An ‘International Society’ Approach. Marmara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Dergisi 9(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.14782/ marmarasbd.886649
60. TBMM Zabıt Ceridesi. (1930) Term: 3, 3rd Legislative Year, Session: 80, 17 June 1930.
61. TBMM Zabıt Ceridesi. (1931a) Term: 4, 1st Legislative Year, Session: 2, 09 May 1931.
62. TBMM Zabıt Ceridesi. (1931b) Term: 4, 1st Legislative Year, Session: 28, 15 July 1931.
63. Turan, İ. (ed.). (2003) İsmet İnönü: Konuşma, Demeç, Makale, Mesaj ve Söyleşileri 1933–1938. İnönü Vakfı. http://www.ismetinonu.org.tr/ismet-inonu-1933-1938.htm
64. Uzer, U. (2011) Identity and Turkish Foreign Policy: The Kemalist Influence in Cyprus and the Caucasus. London: I. B. Tauris.
65. Weisband, E. (1973) Turkish Foreign Policy, 1943–1945: Small State Diplomacy and Great Power Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
66. Zarakol, A. (2010) Ontological (In)Security and State Denial of Historical Crimes: Turkey and Japan. International Relations 24(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/004.711.7809359040
67. Zarakol, A. (2017) States and Ontological Security: A Historical Rethinking. Cooperation and Conflict 52(1), 48–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/001.083.6716653158
68. Zürcher, E. J. (2004) Turkey: A Modern History. London: I. B. Tauris.