SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Afro Eurasian Studies / 2012 / Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 1

The Concept of “Middle Power” and the Recent Turkish Foreign Policy Activism

Hasan Basri YALÇIN
Pages
195–216
Publication Date
2012-06-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Recent increase in Turkish material capabilities constitutes a significant factor in shaping Turkey’s foreign policy desires

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the concept of “middle power” and the possible applicability of this concept within the framework of Turkish foreign policy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:As a contribution to this kind of effort, this study tries to develop a comprehensive definition of the term of “middle power” and explores how this fits in with the so called “new Turkish foreign policy.” It argues that Turkey, as a regionally significant actor that permanently accumulates material power capabilities, has tried to gain a central role in the dominant international system through its role as a middle power.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Recent increase in Turkish material capabilities constitutes a significant factor in shaping Turkey’s foreign policy desires
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Middle Power · Turkish Foreign Policy · Pro-Active Diplomacy

Abstract

This study examines the concept of “middle power” and the possible applicability of this concept within the framework of Turkish foreign policy. An increasing number of publications on the subject of Turkish foreign policy attempt to frame it by using different characterizations. One of these is related to the concept of “middle power.” The new activism of Turkey in its immediate neighborhood is generally considered as an indication of a transformation in its foreign policy orientation and behavior. As a contribution to this kind of effort, this study tries to develop a comprehensive definition of the term of “middle power” and explores how this fits in with the so called “new Turkish foreign policy.” It argues that Turkey, as a regionally significant actor that permanently accumulates material power capabilities, has tried to gain a central role in the dominant international system through its role as a middle power. The study further claims that the new definition of Turkey by foreign policy elites as a “pivotal” state clearly fits the expectations of a state with ‘middle power status’. However, it also highlights that the desire of Turkish foreign policy elites is not independent from the material power capabilities that the state possesses. Recent increase in Turkish material capabilities constitutes a significant factor in shaping Turkey’s foreign policy desires

🔖

Cite This Article

YALÇIN, H. B. (2012). The Concept of “Middle Power” and the Recent Turkish Foreign Policy Activism. Afro Eurasian Studies, Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 1, 195–216. https://ajindex.com/articles/823815

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Barlas, D., (2005). “Turkish Diplomacy in the Balkans and the Mediterranean: Oppor- tunities and Limits for Middle Power Activism in the 1930’s”. Journal of Contem- porary History, 40(3), 441-464.
  2. Barnett, M. and Duvall, R., (2005). “Power in International Politics”. International Orga- nization, Winter, 59(1), 39-75.
  3. Brooks, S. G. and Wohlforth, W. C., (2008). World out of Balance: International Relations and the Challange of American Primacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  4. CIA, World Factbook, Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/geos/tu.html Cooper, A., (1993).
  5. Leadership, Followership, and Middle Powers in International Poli- tics: A Reapriasal. In: A. F. Cooper, R. A. Higgott and K. R. Nossal, eds. Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order. Vancouver: UBC Press.
  6. Davutoğlu, A., (2001). Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Konumu. İstanbul:
  7. Küre. Davutoğlu, A., (2008). “Turkey’s Foreign Policy Vision: An Assessment of 2007”. Insight Turkey, 10(1), 77-96.
  8. Erickson, E. J., (2004). “Turkey as Regional Hegemon-2014: Strategic Implications for the United States”. Turkish Studies, 5(3), 25-42.
  9. Evans, G. and Grant, B., (1991). Australia’s Foreign Relations. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
  10. Fukuyama, F., (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.
  11. Gunter, M. M., (2005). The US-Turkish Alliance in Disarray. World Affairs, Winter, 167(3), 113-123.
  12. Hale, W., (2000). Turkish Foreign Policy, 1774-2000. London: Frank Cass. Hale, W., (2009). “Turkey and the Middle East in the New Era”. Insight Turkey, 11(3), 143-159.
  13. Hickok, M. R., (2000). “Hegemon Rising: The Gap between Turkish Strategy and Mili- tary Modernization”. Parameters, Summer, 30(2), 105-120.
  14. Holbraad, C., (1971). “The Role of Middle Powers”. Cooperation and Conflict, March, 6(1), 77-99.
  15. Kibraki, Y., (2008). Karamanli’le Dosluk Ruzgari Esti. Radikal, 24 January. Kirişçi, K. and Rubin, B., (2002). Turkey in World Politics: An Emerging Multiregional Power. İstanbul:
  16. Boğaziçi University Press.
  17. Larson, D. W. and Shevchenko, A., (2010). Status Seekers: Chinese and Russian Re- sponses to U.S. Primacy. Insternational Security, Spring, 34(4), 63-95.
  18. Lukes, S., (2005). Power: A Radical View. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan. MFA, Turkey, available at:http://www.mfa.gov.tr/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Synopsis/SYN-
  19. OPSIS.htm Muftuler, M. and Yuksel, M., (1997). Turkey: A Middle Power in the New World Or- der. In: Niche