Turkey's changing security discourses: The challenge of globalisation

Abstract

Abstract. The aim of this article is to analyse the ways in which Turkey's security discourses have been shaped by, and have sought to shape, the transformation Turkey has gone through in recent years. It was as a part of the process of joining the European Union (EU) that the challenge of globalised security was strongly felt in Turkey. Since the Helsinki decision of 1999 to include Turkey in the list of official candidates, there emerged an elite‐level debate regarding the security implications of the reforms demanded by the EU. Whereas the ‘Eurosceptics’ have underlined the need for a broad security agenda by making references to ‘globalised security’ while seeking to shape practices in defense of ‘national security’, the ‘pro‐EU’ actors have opened up Turkey's definition of ‘national security’ for debate thereby sowing the seeds of an alternative security discourse. The article falls into three sections. The first section discusses the relationship between security and globalisation and gives examples from the Turkish case. The second section looks at the ‘traditional’ discourse on security that has prevailed during the Republican era. The third section seeks to identify the changes in the 1990s in Turkey's security discourses by focusing on the debates on the EU. The article concludes by considering the likelihood of further changes in Turkey's security discourses.

Constructing Turkey's “Western” Identity during the Cold War

“…The emergence of an alternative security discourse employed by these new actors suggests that the intellectuals of statecraft might be compelled to face the challenge posed by the new actors' competing accounts on foreign and security policy issues. 50 The full implications of this development on policymaking remain to be seen.…”

The politics of studying securitization? The Copenhagen School in Turkey

“…During the late 1990s and early 2000s, Turkey's accession to the European Union became the foremost issue around which debates on domestic and foreign policy were shaped. Whereas Turkey's pro-EU actors mobilized notions of democracy and prosperity in efforts to make the case for Turkey's integration within Europe, the sceptics invoked geopolitical and security 'truths' to make the case against (Bilgin, 2005(Bilgin, , 2007b. Given the power of security-speak in shaping political processes, Turkey's pro-EU actors have found it difficult to push through the Turkish Parliament the changes demanded by EU conditionality.…”

The discourse of Olympic security: London 2012

“…The illocutionary force of a successful securitizing speech act is to bring about 'intersubjective understanding…within a political community' of the need for exceptional measures to tackle a particular threat (Buzan and Waever, 2003: 491;Stritzel, 2007: 358-361). Examples of security discourse which have been analyzed using this approach include: documents relating to the positioning of Turkey's security policy as it comes closer to EU membership (Bilgin, 2005); Australian discourses constituting the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and East Timor as 'failed states' (Lambach, 2006) ; and discourses of Australian environmental security in relation to that of Asian countries (Chaturvedi and Doyle, 2010). However, despite later attempts to broaden securitization theory beyond the momentary intentionality of a single actor (e.g.…”