Grand Strategizing in and for Turkish Foreign Policy: Lessons Learned from History, Geography and Practice

Aydin, Mustafa

Grand Strategizing in and for Turkish Foreign Policy: Lessons Learned from History, Geography and Practice

Mustafa AYDIN (Kadir Has Üniversitesi, Uluslararası İlişkiler Bölümü, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs

5 1

Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 25 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 203 - 226 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 23-06-2021

Grand Strategizing in and for Turkish Foreign Policy: Lessons Learned from History, Geography and Practice

Öz:

Although there is no commonly agreed upon definition of grand strategy in the literature, most analyses of the concept include efforts of states to develop long-term plans, programs and policies to achieve their national interests, utilizing the na-tion’s resources and tools, including their economic, political, military, psycholog-ical and moral resources. Turkey has experience in developing a grand strategy in this context, albeit without specifically referring to the exercise as such. This paper looks at the expertise and historical precursors of Turkey’s grand strategy experience to identify indicators for its future grand strategizing efforts. In this context, bal-ancing major powers, the primacy of geography, economic development, Western connection, the impact of the international system, a sense of greatness and a wish for regional supremacy are identified as inputs of Turkey’s past grand strategies. Moving from these bases, particulars of what could be identified as an “interna-tionalist” grand strategy alternative for Turkey is offered.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Derleme Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1 George Kennan, when he was U.S. charge d’affaires in Moscow, wrote a lengthy, 8,000-word analysis on February 22, 1946 to the State Department in an attempt to analyze Soviet post-war policy aims and explain its international behavior. It later became known as the “long telegram” and was credited with imagining the most important component of U.S. Cold War foreign policy, i.e. the containment strategy. Kennan later anonymously published a revised version of his telegram, titled “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” and signed as “Mr. X” in Foreign Affairs in July 1947. See the full text at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/1947-07-01/sources-soviet-conduct (Accessed Au-gust 19, 2020).
2 Paul van Hooft, “Grand Strategy,” Oxford Bibliographies, August 23, 2017, p. 1, https://www.oxford-bibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0218.xml (Accessed August 19, 2020). For other definitions, see Barry R. Posen, The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany between the World Wars, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984, p. 13, who sees it as “a political-military, means-ends chain, a state’s theory about how it can best cause’ security for itself ”; Paul M. Kennedy, “Grand Strategy in War and Peace: Towards a Broader Definition,” in Paul M. Kennedy (ed.), Grand Strategies in War and Peace, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991, p. 4, arguing that it is “concerned with peace as much as with war. It is about the evolution and integra-tion of policies that should operate for decades, or even centuries;” Williamson Murray, “Thoughts on Grand Strategy,” in W. Murray, R. Hart Sinnreich, and J. Lacey (eds.), The Shaping of Grand Strategy: Policy, Diplomacy, and War, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011, p. 3, stating that grand strategy “demands an intertwining of political, social, and economic realities... It must also rest on a realistic assessment and understanding not only one’s opponents but also of oneself;” Stephen M. Walt, “The Case for Finite Containment: Analyzing U.S. Grand Strategy,” International Security, Vol. 14, No. 1 (1989), p. 6, arguing that “grand strategy identifies the objectives that must be achieved to pro-duce security, and describes the political and military actions that are believed to lead to this goal;” and Stephen D. Krasner, “An Orienting Principle for Foreign Policy,” Policy Review, No. 163 (2010), p. 2, claiming that “grand strategy is designed to detail the resources-diplomatic, bureaucratic, ideational, military, economic-to be allocated for specific policies.” For various definitions and usage of the “grand strategy” concept, see Nina Silove, “Beyond the Buzzword: The Three Meanings of ‘Grand Strategy’,” Security Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1 (2018), pp. 27-57.
3 Kennedy, Grand Strategies in War and Peace, p. 5.
4 Silove, “Beyond the Buzzword,” p. 31.
5 Basil H. Liddell Hart, in his ground-breaking book, Strategy, New York: Praeger, 1967, pp. 321-22, argued that “the role of grand strategy is to coordinate and direct all the resources of a nation, or band of nations, toward the attainment of the political object of war-the goal defined by fundamental poli-c y.”
6 James M. McPherson, Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief, New York: Penguin Press, 2008, p. 5.
7 John Lewis Gaddis, “What Is Grand Strategy?,” Triangle Institute for Security Studies, February 26, 2009. http://tiss-nc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/KEYNOTE.Gaddis50thAniv2009.pdf (Ac-cessed August 19, 2020).
8 Carl von Clausewitz,On War, eds. and trans. Michael Howard & Peter Paret, London: Everyman’s Library, 1993, p. 77.
9 Timothy Andrews Sayle, “Defining and Teaching Grand Strategy,” Foreign Policy Research Institute, January 15, 2011, p. 3, https://www.fpri.org/article/2011/01/defining-and-teaching-grand-strategy/ (Accessed August 19, 2020).
10 Hooft, “Grand Strategy,” p. 1.
11 Rebecca Friedman Lissner, “What is Grand Strategy? Sweeping A Conceptual Minefield,” Texas Na-tional Security Review, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2018), p. 29. She refers to these as “grand strategy as variable,”“grand strategy as process” and “grand strategy as blueprint” (pp. 53-54). Accordingly, grand strategy as a variable agenda “provides a prism through which academics may study the origins of state behav-ior,” while grand strategy as process “foregrounds the importance of grand strategizing, whether as a governmental strategic-planning process or as a more generic mode of decision-making,” and grand strategy as blueprint “proffers broad visions in hopes of influencing future governmental behavior.”
12 For the “Section 3043 Annual National Security Strategy Report” of the Act, see Nathan J. Lucas & Kathleen J. McInnis, “The 2015 National Security Strategy: Authorities, Changes, Issues for Con-gress,” CRS Report, No. 7-5700, April 5, 2015, p. 4, https://docplayer.net/28491146-The-2015-na-tional-security-strategy-authorities-changes-issues-for-congress.html (Accessed August 19, 2020).
13 “Presidential Decree No. 6” based on Article 118 of the Constitution, published at Resmi Gazete, No. 30479, July 15, 2018, https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2018/07/20180715-3.pdf (Accessed August 19, 2020).
14 Silove, “Beyond the Buzzword,” p. 29.
15 Edward N. Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009, p. 409.
16 Darryl Howlett, “Strategic Culture: Reviewing Recent Literature,” Strategic Insights, Vol. 6, No. 10 (2005), p. 4, https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=457639 (Accessed August 19, 2020).
17 Alastair Iain Johnston, “Thinking about Strategic Culture,” International Security, Vol. 19, No. 4 (1995), p. 46.
18 Lissner, “What is Grand Strategy?” pp. 57-58.
19 Silove, “Beyond the Buzzword,” pp. 45-47.
20 Sayle, “Defining and Teaching Grand Strategy,” pp. 4.
21 Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, pp. 409.
22 Ibid.
23 James Holmes, “Grand Strategy and the Art of the Possible,” The Diplomat, June 17, 2013, pp. 1-2, https://thediplomat.com/2013/06/grand-strategy-and-the-art-of-the-possible/ (Accessed August 19, 2020).
24 Ibid, p. 2 (addition is mine).
25 For the latest example, see the Ministry of National Defense, White Book 2000, Ankara: Mönch Me-dia, August 1, 2000. The tradition was discontinued after 2000.
26 Turkey’s National Security Council was initially established in 1933 as the High Assembly of Defence (Yüksek Müdafaa Meclisi), which was renamed in 1949 as the High Council of National Defence (Milli Savunma Yüksek Kurulu), and finally the National Security Council (Milli Güvenlik Kurulu) in 1982. It received its current restructuring by means of the constitutional referendum on April 16, 2017. The NSC, meeting every two months, is the highest coordination authority of the state in security and foreign policy and is currently comprised of the President, Vice President(s), Ministers of Defense, Interior, Foreign Affairs, and Justice, the Chief of General Staff and the Commanders of the Army, Navy and Air Force. For details, see https://www.mgk.gov.tr/index.php/kurumsal/hakkimizda (Accessed August 19, 2020).
27 Silove “Beyond the Buzzword,” pp. 45-49.
28 This most often repeated policy principle of republican Turkey was first pronounced by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in an election declaration on April 20, 1931: “Cumhuriyet Halk Fırkasının müstakar umumî siyasetini şu kısa cümle açıkça ifadeye kâfidir zannederim: Yurtta sulh, cihanda sulh için çalışıyoruz (I think the following short sentence is sufficient to clearly express the determined general policy of the Republican People’s Party: We work for peace at home and peace in the world).” See Atatürk’ün Tamim, Telgraf ve BeyannameleriVol. IV, Ankara: Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu, 2006 (Document No. 681), pp. 606-609.
29 Ferenc A. Váli, Bridges Across the Bosporus; The Foreign Policy of Turkey, Baltimore & London: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971, p. 55.
30 Mustafa Aydın, “Determinants of Turkish Foreign Policy: Historical Framework and Traditional In-puts,” Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 35, No. 4 (1999), pp. 171-176.
31 See Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Turkey’s Zero-Problems Foreign Policy,” Foreign Policy, May 20, 2010, https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/05/20/turkeys-zero-problems-foreign-policy/ (Accessed August 19, 2020). For various aspects of Ahmet Davutoğlu’s strategic understanding, see Talha Köse, Ahmet Okumuş & Burhanettin Duran (eds.), Stratejik Zihniyet; Kuramdan Eyleme Ahmet Davutoğlu ve Stratejik Derinlik, Istanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2014. For a critical analysis of his foreign policy and its comparison with the policies of İsmail Cem in the late 1990s, see Mehmet A. Tuğtan, “Kültürel Değişkenlerin Dış Politika-daki Yeri: İsmail Cem ve Ahmet Davutoğlu,” Uluslararası İlişkiler, Vol. 13, No. 49 (2016); and Tarık Oğuzlu, “Komşularla Sıfır Sorun Politikası: Kavramsal bir Analiz”, Ortadoğu Analiz, Vol. 4, No. 42 (2012), pp. 8-17, who likens it to Turkey’s foreign policy in the interwar years, i.e. the Atatürk era.
32 The “order builder” rhetoric for Turkish foreign policy was increasingly utilized by Davutoğlu af-ter he became foreign minister in 2009, although he had used it in his analyses much earlier. See Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Türkiye Merkez Ülke Olmalı,” Radikal, February 26, 2004, http://m.radikal.com.tr/yorum/turkiye_merkez_ulke_olmali-702116 (Accessed August 19, 2020); and Ahmet Davu-toğlu, Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Konumu, Istanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2001. Its real ef-fect in Turkish foreign policy came after the impact of the Arab uprisings reached Turkey through Syria, as evidenced in Foreign Minister Davutoğlu’s speech to Turkey’s Ambassadors on January 3, 2011, where he prioritized Turkey’s “order builder” role in the Middle East over “zero problem with neighbors,” thus emphasizing the usage of hard power tools over soft power. See http://www.mfa.gov.tr/disisleri-bakani-sayin-ahmet-davutoglu_nun-3_-buyukelciler-konferansi_nin-acilisinda-yapti-gi-konusma_-03-ocak-2011.tr.mfa (Accessed August 19, 2020).
33 Ali Karaosmanoğlu, “The Evolution of the National Security Culture and the Military in Turkey,” Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 54, No. 1 (2000), p. 200.
34 Ibid, p. 201.
35 Mustafa Aydın, “Securitization of History and Geography: Understanding of Security in Turkey,” Journal of Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2 (2003), pp. 166-170.
36 See Gu Guan-Fu, “Soviet Aid to the Third World; An Analysis of its Strategy,” Soviet Studies, Vol. 35, No. 1 (1983), pp. 71-89.
37 See Mustafa Aydın, “The Long View on Turkish-Russian Rivalry and Cooperation,” On Turkey Series (GMF), June 8, 2020, https://www.gmfus.org/publications/long-view-turkish-russian-rivalry-and-co-operation (Accessed August 19, 2020).
38 Malik Mufti, “Daring and Caution in Turkish Foreign Policy,” The Middle East Journal, Vol. 52, No. 1 (1998), p. 43; and Daring and Caution in Turkish Strategic Culture: Republic at Sea, London: Palgrave UK, 2009, pp. 17-20.
39 Research conducted by the Turkey Studies Group at the Kadir Has University since 2013 on public perceptions of foreign policy in Turkey reveals the existence of a consistent threat perception among the Turkish public from many countries in the world, including most of Turkey’s long-standing allies. Similarly, the results also show a very narrow “friend and/or ally” perception and a public preference to “go alone” in international affairs. For the latest results, see Mustafa Aydın et al., Public Perceptions on Turkish Foreign Policy 2020, Istanbul, June 2020, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36653.92642 (Accessed August 19, 2020).
40 Mustafa Aydın, Turkish Foreign Policy: Framework and Analysis, Ankara: Stratejik Araştırmalar Merkezi, 2004.
41 Oral Sander, “Turkish Foreign Policy; Forces of Continuity and of Change,” in Ahmet Evin (ed.), Modern Turkey: Continuity and Change, Opladen: Leske Verlag, 1984, pp. 115-130.
42 Raymond Aron, Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations, New York: Anchor & Doubleday, 1973, pp. 125-127.
43 Fahir Armaoğlu, “İkinci Dünya Harbinde Türkiye,” SBF Dergisi, Vol. 13, No. 2 (1958), p. 163.
44 A. Dankwart Rustow, “Turkey’s Travails,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 58, No. 3 (1979), p. 87; Kemal H. Karpat, Turkey’s Politics: The Transition to a Multi-Party System, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959, pp. 188-192.
45 Haluk Ülman & Oral Sander, “Türk Dış Politikasına Yön Veren Etkenler, 1923-1968-II,” SBF Dergisi, Vol. 27, No. 1 (1972), p. 6
46 Tarık Oğuzlu, “Yeni Dünya Düzeni ve Türkiye: Nasıl Bir Dış Politika?” Panorama, January 18, 2020, https://www.uikpanorama.com/blog/2020/01/18/yeni-dunya-duzeni-ve-turkiye-nasil-bir-dis-politi-ka/ (Accessed August 19, 2020).
47 Mustafa Aydın, “Foreign Policy 1923-2018,” in Alpaslan Özerdem & Mathew Whiting (eds.), Rout-ledge Handbook of Turkish Politics, New York & London: Routledge, 2019, pp. 373-374.
48 See Atatürk’ün Tamim, Telgraf ve Beyannameleri, pp. 606-609.

APA	Aydin M (2020). Grand Strategizing in and for Turkish Foreign Policy: Lessons Learned from History, Geography and Practice. , 203 - 226.
Chicago	Aydin Mustafa Grand Strategizing in and for Turkish Foreign Policy: Lessons Learned from History, Geography and Practice. (2020): 203 - 226.
MLA	Aydin Mustafa Grand Strategizing in and for Turkish Foreign Policy: Lessons Learned from History, Geography and Practice. , 2020, ss.203 - 226.
AMA	Aydin M Grand Strategizing in and for Turkish Foreign Policy: Lessons Learned from History, Geography and Practice. . 2020; 203 - 226.
Vancouver	Aydin M Grand Strategizing in and for Turkish Foreign Policy: Lessons Learned from History, Geography and Practice. . 2020; 203 - 226.
IEEE	Aydin M "Grand Strategizing in and for Turkish Foreign Policy: Lessons Learned from History, Geography and Practice." , ss.203 - 226, 2020.
ISNAD	Aydin, Mustafa. "Grand Strategizing in and for Turkish Foreign Policy: Lessons Learned from History, Geography and Practice". (2020), 203-226.

APA	Aydin M (2020). Grand Strategizing in and for Turkish Foreign Policy: Lessons Learned from History, Geography and Practice. Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, 25(2), 203 - 226.
Chicago	Aydin Mustafa Grand Strategizing in and for Turkish Foreign Policy: Lessons Learned from History, Geography and Practice. Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs 25, no.2 (2020): 203 - 226.
MLA	Aydin Mustafa Grand Strategizing in and for Turkish Foreign Policy: Lessons Learned from History, Geography and Practice. Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, vol.25, no.2, 2020, ss.203 - 226.
AMA	Aydin M Grand Strategizing in and for Turkish Foreign Policy: Lessons Learned from History, Geography and Practice. Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs. 2020; 25(2): 203 - 226.
Vancouver	Aydin M Grand Strategizing in and for Turkish Foreign Policy: Lessons Learned from History, Geography and Practice. Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs. 2020; 25(2): 203 - 226.
IEEE	Aydin M "Grand Strategizing in and for Turkish Foreign Policy: Lessons Learned from History, Geography and Practice." Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, 25, ss.203 - 226, 2020.
ISNAD	Aydin, Mustafa. "Grand Strategizing in and for Turkish Foreign Policy: Lessons Learned from History, Geography and Practice". Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs 25/2 (2020), 203-226.