From Geopolitical Anxiety to Assertive Stance: The Historical Construction and Transformation of Turkish Naval Strategy.

• Author: Balkan, Serkan

Introduction

The historical transformation of Turkiye's naval strategies and naval forces represents a crucial dimension of the country's development and geopolitical positioning, which has often been underrepresented in academic research. While foreign policy studies have garnered significant attention in analyzing Turkiye's global interactions and diplomatic maneuvers from a historical perspective, the role and evolution of the Turkish Navy offer unique insights into the nation's strategic culture and security dynamics. The complex fabric of Turkiye's naval history is intricately interwoven with elements of strategic culture, institutional developments, and geopolitical shifts in Turkiye's strategic landscape over the course of history. From its early encounters with the Byzantine Empire in the 11th century to its contemporary role as a significant naval power, Turkiye's journey through the seas has been a compelling narrative of adaptation, transformation, and strategic reorientation.

At the heart of this narrative stands Caka Bey, the visionary founder of the Turkish Navy, whose encounter with the Byzantine Empire in 1081 marked the inception of a maritime legacy that endures to this day. This historical reference serves as a poignant reminder of Turkiye's enduring commitment to sea power, establishing a profound sense of historical continuity. (1) However, as we navigate the annals of time from 1081 to the present, we find that the assurance of historical continuity in both strategic and institutional culture has been far from straightforward. Intriguingly, the connection between the Seljuks and the Ottomans, two pivotal chapters in Turkish naval history, exhibits a certain fragility. It was only after the Ottoman Empire's conquest of the Gallipoli Peninsula in 1354 that a concerted effort towards naval strategy, with a predominant focus on the sea, was initiated. (2) The geographical imperatives, evolving geopolitical visions, and the necessity to traverse the sea between Anatolia and Europe laid the cornerstone for envisioning a formidable navy.

The strategic culture of the Ottoman-era Navy holds paramount significance. In this era, the Ottoman Empire ventured into the maritime domain, distinct from its land forces, creating a unique dichotomy with no hierarchical supremacy to the sultan or between the two forces. Key positions such as Admiral (Derya Beyi), Chief Admiral (Kaptan-i Derya), and the First Lord of the Admiralty (Bahriye Naziri) embodied the maritime leadership during various periods, distinct from the land-focused Minister of War (Harbiye Naziri). (3) This non-hierarchical relationship between naval and land forces persisted until the founding of the Turkish Republic. However, the early years of the Republic witnessed challenges in integrating the navy into the newly formed armed forces. The land forces, bolstered by hero generals from the War of Independence, held a strategic narrative centered on border integrity and homeland defense. The air force emerged as the second most crucial component, while limited economic capacity hindered significant investments in the navy. Consequently, during the War of Independence, naval participation was constrained, and a mere 234 naval officers served in Anatolia during that period. (4) This restrained the navy's integration into the armed forces' structure.

The trauma of territorial losses during the late Ottoman era cast a long shadow on the Republic's founders, shaping their future strategic outlook. (5) This geo-political trauma, extending beyond psychological impact, deeply influenced the Republic's strategic culture. Territorial integrity and border defense became paramount, sidelining the navy as a land-oriented military strategy took precedence. This perspective reverberated in foreign policy, with early Republican leaders emphasizing border agreements and territorial integrity. (6) Subsequently, the Turkish navy's role was confined to a limiting and defensive doctrine, emphasizing mainly coastal defense. However, the Cyprus crisis in the 1960s marked a pivotal shift, leading Turkiye from a defensive to an assertive naval strategy. The naval forces, instrumental in the Cyprus Peace Operation in 1974, signaled Turkiye's return to the seas. The "Toward the Open Seas" strategy of the 1990s encapsulated this desire, and the 2000s witnessed the navy's active presence in distant waters, aligning with Turkiye's assertive foreign policy and the development of the Turkish defense industry. In 2015, the Turkish Navy experienced a resurgence, aligning with a more comprehensive strategic vision: "To be safe in the motherland, be strong at sea, to have a voice in the world, be present in all seas." (7) This transformation extended beyond coastal defense, reflecting a broader geopolitical perspective.

This article embarks on a historical trajectory, shedding light on the evolution of naval strategy in Turkiye from the Republic's inception to the present. It scrutinizes this transformation through three distinct lenses: intra-strategic discourse, interdiscursive competition among the Turkish Armed Forces' institutional structures, and shifts in strategic discourse responding to Turkiye's evolving geopolitical landscape. The narrative unfolds in three historical epochs. First, from 1923 to 1949, Turkiye's naval strategy centered on coastal defense to safeguard territorial gains and integrity. Second, spanning from 1949 to 1991, marked an era of strategic awakening, emphasizing the Navy's role in reopening to the Black Sea and Mediterranean while maintaining coastal defense. The third phase, from 1991 to the present, witnessed a profound transformation towards a comprehensive naval strategy, characterized by an assertive posture and power projection capabilities.

This study not only offers fresh insights into the geopolitical narrative of Turkiye but also addresses two key weaknesses in the traditional approach to understanding Turkish naval strategy. It illuminates primary sources and analytical frameworks, enriching our understanding of institutional debates and the historical transformation of Turkiye's naval strategy. By doing so, it bridges gaps in Turkish strategic studies and strategic culture literature, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of Turkiye's maritime evolution.

Geopolitical Anxiety: The Coastal Defense Era (1919-1949)

This era in the history of the Turkish naval strategy reflects the geopolitical anxieties regarding territorial integrity and the consolidation of the post-war geopolitical gains. The dominant strategic approach was to maintain the state's survival, ensured by land-based armed forces, and adapt to the international system's change. As a consequence of the dominant land force approach that stands on the principle of "isolation and security with no ambitions for territorial expansion," (8) the Turkish naval strategy was mainly limited to coastal defense aspects. There were three driving factors behind the adaptation and implementation of the defensive naval strategy.

First, regarding an intra-institutional debate on the role of the Turkish Navy within the organizational structure of the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF), two arguments were particularly significant. While the founders of the TAF were in favor of establishing the land forces as its central element, the proponents of the strategic superiority of air forces argued that the air force should be a strategic component of Turkiye's military power. Second, the dominant strategic narrative of "motherland" shaped the border protection strategy. The Navy could not secure its position as the primary force and strategic tool in defending territories of the motherland; therefore, it acted as an instrument to protect coastal regions against Turkiye's adversaries and external military intervention. This land-based defensive military concept undermined the role of naval forces. In fact, between 1919 and 1949, Turkiye's threat perception regarding the developments in neighboring regions triggered the adoption of a strategic orientation based on defending Turkiye's territorial integrity. The third driving factor was deepening geopolitical anxiety stemming from countries such as Greece and Italy adopting an expansionist policy toward Turkiye's surrounding seas.

Among the most critical elements in the formation of the strategic discourse during this era was the geopolitical environment that Turkiye found itself in after the First World War. The War of Independence and the struggle sparked by the invasion of mainland Turkiye by the Allies came to an end in 1922; however, threats present in the surrounding seas from the time of the Republie's formation continued to hamper national security. When the island of Cyprus was under British control, Italy reigned over the Dodecanese Islands. A large portion of the islands in the Aegean Sea fell under the dominion of Greece. Istanbul, under the International Commission's control, faced defense vulnerabilities. While on the Black Sea, along with looming Soviet Russian threats, (9) Turkiye feared another invasion of Anatolia by Italy with the support of Greece. (10)

During this period, Italian Prime Minister Mussolini indicated that the Treaty of Lausanne, which was co-signed by Venizelos of Greece, put Greece at a disadvantage and insisted that the agreement be revised. (11) Simultaneously, Greece indicated to the British Consul in Athens that while they had no intention of returning to Asia or targeting Istanbul, the occupation of Eastern Thrace was a possibility. (12) As Turkiye's geopolitical worries intensified, Russia, Italy, and Greece became significant threats in the war game scenarios. (13) In this atmosphere, Turkiye developed a strategy that prioritized the preservation of territorial integrity. Land forces were viewed as the fundamental component of military power, with the ability to handle all internal...