Law, ethics, and justice in the emerging international order: a study of Turkish diplomacy under the AK Party government (2002-2014).

• Author: Aral, Berdal
• Position: Report

Introduction

This study considers Turkish diplomacy with specific reference to ethics, justice, human rights and international law during the period of 20022014. Discussion of this topic is premised on the view that, between 2002-2014, the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government was, in principle, not moved by a 'realist' perception of international order, but instead sought to incorporate human rights, morality and justice, as founding principles, into the overall framework of its foreign policy. The study argues that there is ample support for this assertion in regard to the period between 2002-2014, when one looks into Turkey's respect for international law expressing concern for morality, its embrace of human rights both domestically and abroad, its support for democratic uprisings in the Arab world, and its search for justice in the international order. This article finally reflects on the sources of 'morality' in Turkish diplomacy after 2002, which indicate the staying power of 'morality' as an essential ingredient of Turkish diplomacy so long as the AK Party remains in power.

This study begins with a theoretical discussion of the prevalence of amoral positivism in the social sciences, which tends to play down and at times disregard the relevance of ethics in the foreign policy of states. This posture is often rationalized as 'neutrality' or 'objectivity.' The paper proceeds with a scrutiny of the concepts of ethics, morality and justice in the context of foreign policy. The debate continues with the disclosure of the pillars of 'ethical' foreign policy in which, inter alia, advocacy of legitimacy, peace, justice and consistency are highlighted. The second part of this study, which is the broader one, shifts its focus to the specific case of Turkish diplomacy after 2002. It elaborates on Turkey's deference for (increasingly inclusive) international law, which may be seen as an expression of an ethical frame of mind, for reasons discussed. Next, it draws on the Turkish embrace of human rights, both at home and abroad, and, after this, shows how, combined with its evolving democracy, this embrace enabled Turkey to become a source of inspiration for Arab uprisings after 2010, inter alia, against oppression, injustice, and lack of freedom. The following section takes up the issue of Turkey's search for 'justice' in the international order by reference to its diplomatic overtures as well as its posture in the UN and other international platforms. The final part of this article dwells on the sources of 'morality' in Turkish foreign policy after 2002 to show that this proclivity towards morality and justice has become an enduring pattern in Turkish behavioral posture towards other international actors.

Removing Morality from Foreign Policy Analysis

Diehard positivism (in particular) as 'realism' is still alive and kicking in the discipline of International Relations. In the contemporary world, all too often, state interests continue to reign over moral principles. The problem is confounded by the current flight of states and modern societies from universally valid principles of morality in the name of relativism, which is a doctrine that denies that morality and truth can have universal validity. In the words of Bryan Turner, "it is widely recognized that relativism is a problem confronting modern societies because it rules out the possibility of reaching any specific agreement about moral principles." (1) In this social, political and intellectual climate of fragmented regimes of 'truth,' ethics, morality, religion and traditions continue their journey of terminal decline in the social sciences, which borders on marginalization. The idea of injecting values into social analysis is stigmatized by the dominant perspective and mode of academic inquiry today as the antithesis of 'serious' scientific inquiry. This 'positivistic scientism' often glosses over the normative 'ought to' in favor of the positivistic 'is.' In the specific context of international politics and international order, one should also beware of a pervasive hegemonic discourse that permeates societies about unruly 'others'--both inside and outside--as well as of the mantra about the 'victorious' liberal values (of the West). Accordingly, any view that considers the existing international order as morally problematic, while offering new ideas, principles and norms for the purpose of injecting morality into the current international order, is often dismissed by positivistic scholarship as 'polemical' and 'un-academic.'

Insofar as the foreign policy orientation and practice of a large number of states is concerned, 'amoral positivism' stands as a major marker of state behavior in the contemporary world. As noted by two Western observers,

"within nations, there will be battles over whether moral or practical concerns should come first and over which moral concerns should take precedence. Even as universal values become more a part of the foreign policies of nations, those policies will still be ridden with contradictions and hypocrisies. And yes, the morality of the strong will generally still prevail over that of the weak, and considerations of value almost inevitably will have to take second place." (2)

The unfairness of the international system, the coercive practices of the hegemonic actors in international society, and the prevalent atmosphere of inter-state rivalry tend to inflame ethnocentrism and egocentrism as the defining characteristic of a great number of states' perspectives and behavioral postures vis-a-vis the outside world. The endurance of hegemonic discourses that advantage Western perspectives of international politics and law, almost 'coerces' states into taking a 'neutral' and 'distant' position between the 'oppressor' and the 'oppressed,' between 'the occupier and the occupied,' (e.g. Israel v. Palestinians; the United States (USA) v. Afghanistan; Russia v. Georgia; home states in the West v. Muslim communities who were frequently harassed after September 11), and eventually compels states to become passive bystanders in a world full of injustice and cruelty in spite of the rhetoric of human rights, democracy and self-determination. This hegemonic discourse, which privileges Western perspectives, is an ideal recipe for international anarchy, wars of aggression, oppression, and economic inequality. Due to the prevalence of this noncommittal and passive behavioral posture that privileges the hegemonic actors and the domineering discourse which it embodies, most states and scholars of international relations have been trapped in a language of formalism and diplomatic niceties that plays into the hands of the existing constellations of power. In the aftermath of the Cold War, it has become commonplace in so far as the privileged actors of the dominant neoliberal international order is concerned to blame the victims of colonialism, neo-colonialism, politics of intimidation and imperialistic greed for their 'backwardness,' 'laziness' 'fanaticism' and 'lack of individualism' which are used as tools to 'explain' their economic and social deprivations and political ills. The victim has come to be 'silenced' and 'marginalized' by the sanitized language of modern diplomacy and the resolutions of international institutions that, as in the case of the United Nations (UN) Security Council, often reflect the imperial ambitions of their powerful members. (3)

However, there are some signs that interest in ethics, morality and justice appears to be growing among both academics and foreign policy elites. This has a lot to do with the realization that the world is doomed to suffer the consequences, inter alia, of environmental and humanitarian disasters of epic proportions unless morality and justice become major determinants of the international outlook of states and their foreign policy behavior. Diana Francis reminds us that, "as the globe shrinks and the problems that threaten it expand to engulf it, national self-interest may be not only a notional but also a practical contradiction in terms." (4)

Elucidating Morality and Justice in the Context of Foreign Policy

The term 'morality' relates to good intentions and good goals which could be judged to be right. One of the key principles of morality is the 'Golden Rule' which means that an actor should act towards others as it would like others to treat it. This is where one could fruitfully begin to discuss morality and ethics. The Greek philosopher Socrates (469-399 BC) was one of the first thinkers pioneering the study of morality and virtue. According to Socrates, it is virtue that matters most in human life. Virtue emanates from knowledge, while vice is the direct consequence of ignorance. In his view, goodness will lead to happiness. (5) The knowledge of the good is no other than virtue which is morally right. He assigns a special place for justice which gives worth to human existence. The pursuit of virtue is preferable to the pursuit of material wealth. Besides, communities will be better off if they act in solidarity with one another. (6) The terms 'ethics' and 'morality,' in the jargon of International Relations, are almost indistinguishable in meaning and content; therefore, these two terms will be used interchangeably in this study. According to Chomsky, if we wish to act morally (ethically) vis-a-vis other people, we ought "to apply to ourselves the standards we impose on others, and to recognize the obligation to help suffering people as best we can." (7) The ultimate socio-political purpose of morality or ethics is to establish justice for the community. Whereas morality operates at the level of individual behavior, justice concerns itself with the way in which a community is governed. This is another way of saying that justice is closely related to the normative quality of rules.

When transposed to the behavior of states, a moral outlook suggests that...