Turkey's security policies: Introduction

Sezer, Duygu

doi:10.1080/05679328108448585

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Standard accounts on Turkey’s foreign policy toward the USSR have invariably stressed the “threat” posed by the Soviet Union in the immediate aftermath of WWII. Turkey’s move to strain its relations with the USSR and the subsequent decision to join the Western fold are explained either with reference to the military challenge posed by the Soviet Union in view of post‐WWII experiences in Central and Eastern Europe or with reference to the ideological challenge of communism, which was on the rise as a rival to capitalist models of organizing world economy (see, e.g., Erkin 1968; Sezer 1981; Bilge 1992; Gürün 1997; Tellal 2001).…”

Section: Complementing Accounts On Turkey’s Foreign Policy Toward Thementioning

confidence: 99%

Stalinâs Demands: Constructions of the âSoviet Otherâ in Turkeyâs Foreign Policy, 1919â1945

Coş¹,

Bilgin

2010

Foreign Policy Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard accounts on Turkey’s foreign policy identify Molotov’s communication of 1945 (better known as “Stalin’s demands”) as the catalyst behind Turkey’s post‐WWII decision to strain its relations with the USSR and turn to the United States (US) for defense support. The aim here is to complement these accounts which have stressed the military and ideological threat posed by the USSR as the catalyst behind Turkey’s foreign policy change, by offering an analysis that explores the conditions of possibility for such change. The aim here is not to question the seriousness of the risks involved in failing to stand firm against the USSR in the immediate post‐WWII period. Nor is it to dispute the appropriateness of Turkey’s search for “Western” allies at a time when its economic, political and military vulnerabilities were acknowledged by friend and foe alike. The following mediates through accounts that stress the military threat and those that emphasize the ideological threat and presents an analysis that looks into the production of representations of the USSR as a “threat” to Turkey and the context which allowed for the production of such representations of the USSR.

show abstract

Section: Complementing Accounts On Turkey’s Foreign Policy Toward Thementioning

confidence: 99%

Stalinâs Demands: Constructions of the âSoviet Otherâ in Turkeyâs Foreign Policy, 1919â1945

Coş¹,

Bilgin

2010

Foreign Policy Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Starting with the 1839 Tanzimat Declaration, elites equated modernization with westernization (for a detailed account, see Özbudun, 1984; Shaw and Shaw, 1977; for its economic underpinnings İslamoğlu‐İnan, 1987; Kasaba, 1988; and for Turkish elite views today, McLaren, 2000). Following World War I, these goals became a pillar of Kemalism: ‘development along the lines of the “contemporary civilization” of the West’ (Sezer, 1981, p. 3).…”

Section: History and The Fears Of Turkish Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

The Myths of Turkish Influence in the European Union*

Pahre

Ucaray-Mangitli

2009

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among the many objections to Turkish membership of the European Union lie claims that Turkey will be a powerful actor in the future EU, with a population as large as or larger than Germany. Many also claim that this power will have negative effects on the EU. We examine such claims analytically, influenced strongly by spatial models of EU policy-making. We find that Turkey's preferences lie sufficiently outside the EU mainstream that it will have little influence in day-to-day policy-making under the assent, co-decision, consultation and co-operation procedures (or the common procedure in the Constitutional Treaty). Its influence may be more evident in areas such as the CFSP or JHA, where unanimity remains the normal procedure. Still, Turkey's veto power here is no different from that of other, much smaller countries. Furthermore, veto power can only block changes and cannot be used to pull the EU in undesirable new directions. Even this veto power can be avoided if the EU-27 establish whatever policies they desire prior to Turkish membership, forcing Turkey to accept a "fait accompli". Despite these limitations to its power, Turkey may have some influence in purely intergovernmental settings such as negotiations over new treaties that might occur some decades hence. Copyright (c) 2009 The Author(s). Journal compilation (c) 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

show abstract

“…In the aftermath of the Second World War, joining NATO meant not only the entrenchment of Turkey's identification with the West, but also helped to allay the ‘fear of abandonment’ and keep at bay the ‘fear of loss of territory’ by providing both security and recognition. Still, Turkey's policy‐makers opted for caution more often than risk during the Cold War era (see Sezer 1981; Karaosmanoğlu 1988a; Sayarı 2000; Mufti 1998).…”

Section: Traditional Discourse In the Republican Eramentioning

confidence: 99%

Turkey's changing security discourses: The challenge of globalisation

Bilgin

2005

European J Political Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Turkey's security policies: Introduction

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Stalinâs Demands: Constructions of the âSoviet Otherâ in Turkeyâs Foreign Policy, 1919â1945

Stalinâs Demands: Constructions of the âSoviet Otherâ in Turkeyâs Foreign Policy, 1919â1945

The Myths of Turkish Influence in the European Union*

Turkey's changing security discourses: The challenge of globalisation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Turkey's security policies: Introduction

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Stalinâs Demands: Constructions of the âSoviet Otherâ in Turkeyâs Foreign Policy, 1919â1945

Stalinâs Demands: Constructions of the âSoviet Otherâ in Turkeyâs Foreign Policy, 1919â1945

The Myths of Turkish Influence in the European Union*

Turkey's changing security discourses: The challenge of globalisation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Stalinâs Demands: Constructions of the âSoviet Otherâ in Turkeyâs Foreign Policy, 1919â1945

Stalinâs Demands: Constructions of the âSoviet Otherâ in Turkeyâs Foreign Policy, 1919â1945