The 'Century of Turkiye' as a Strategic Discourse.

• Author: Yukselen, Hasan

Introduction

The centennial of Turkish foreign policy is being welcomed with a new strategic discourse, the Century of Turkiye. This article aims to explore the dynamics that paved the way for the articulation of a new strategy in the next century of Turkish foreign policy. The questions that are deemed essential to substantiate the answer are defined as follows: which factors have determined the emergence of the discourse; how has the agency perceived the shifts in structure; how has Turkiye positioned itself with regard to shifts in the international political system, global economy, and geography; what are the perils and promises of the determined strategy; and what does the discourse entail.

In exploring the answers to the questions, the first part of the article provides a brief overview of the preceding century to identify the basic characteristics of Turkish foreign policy and the driving mindset behind its articulation. The concept of differences in continuity is utilized to understand how agency and structure condition each other during the process of interaction. (1) The second part, based on the theoretical framework, focuses on the structured context in which ongoing transformations in the international political system, global economy, and geography condition the formulation of strategy by agency. The third part delves into details about the strategy, founded upon the agential reading of the structured context, including an analysis of the remedies to resolve the contradictions produced by the structure. What the discourse of strategy, the Century of Turkiye, entails and how it is perceived are analyzed in the fourth section. The conclusion stands out as an exploratory analysis that provides a prospective analysis dedicated to uncovering sources of (in)congruence between what is intended with the strategy, what is spoken through discourse, and the factors that could create a gap between what is intended and what is actualized. Though the outcomes of the strategy have not unfolded yet, the major perils and promises are explored and analyzed.

This article argues that Turkish foreign policy displays elements of continuity with the preceding century with adaptations to contextually emerging challenges. However, it can be suggested that the centennial of Turkish foreign policy is welcomed with a vision-oriented strategy and discourse devoted to enlarging agency and strategic autonomy.

The Evolution of Strategic Discourse: Differences in Continuity

Throughout the Republican period, Turkiye has articulated different strategies and represented them with corresponding discourses. The dominant discourses of strategy reflected the agential strategic posture that was adopted in respective periods. This section is devoted to providing a short outlook of the previous century to determine a trajectory of basic characteristics of different strategies and their associated discourses.

As a "goal-directed activity" (2) strategy is dedicated to actualizing determined strategic ends with available and mobilizable competent means to transform a "potentiality into actuality." (3) Strategic ends emerge out of an agential reading of the structure based on the situation's dialectical interaction of internality and externality. An agency, depending on its level of awareness and reflexivity, (4) identifies the contradictions and opportunities inherent to the emerging context and articulates its strategy either to resolve the encountered contradictions or to envisage an enabling strategic environment that is deemed promising to widen strategic room and options. In other words, by strategizing, agents internalize their externalities and externalize their internalities. (5) Here, a dialectical reading and correspondence interacts, constitutes, and accommodates the encountered context and shapes the ongoing agential praxis. The act of strategizing, which is inherently an attribute of the agency, is essentially an act of positioned practice (praxis) (6) that "denotes the appropriation and transformation" (7) of the constraining circumstances that were imposed by the structure into desired ones that would enable further room for agency.

Strategic discourses emerge out of the representation of the articulated strategies. (8) Publicizing the adopted strategy with a tailored discourse can be seen inherently as a political act that reveals what you think and how you will act. (9) Hence, it involves revelations that reduce the doubts of other agents in particular contexts as it contributes to their knowledge of the situation and hints about future acts of the owner of the circulated discourse. In other words, it has the potential to render counter-acts depending on other agents' perception of a contradiction, which in the end might even lead to being categorized as a "threat" by receivers. Similarly, the originator of discourse reflects on the strategy, too. Turkiye, throughout the Republican period, adopted several discourses that reflect its strategic posturing on developments. The discourses and strategies were either threat-oriented or vision-oriented, articulated upon the agential reading of the respective structured context, which was seen as either permissive or restrictive.

Throughout the Republican period, Turkiye identified different discourses of strategy: "Independence or Death," "Peace at Home, Peace in the World," "Turkiye Cannot Assure Its Security through Forging Alliances," "A New World Is to Be Built, Turkiye Will Take Its Place," "The Turkic World: From the Adriatic to the Great Wall of China," and "We Have Historical Responsibilities." (10) In different periods, each of the discourses represented the adopted strategy, though the actualization of each strategy could not be managed, depending on either scarcity of allocated agential means or the enabling and constraining forces of structured context. However, throughout the Republican period, an underlying intent and objective to expand and enhance the agency remained in place. In other words, both differences and continuity can be observed. The concept of "differences in continuity" is utilized to understand how the interaction of agency and structure determines the articulation of strategy. With differences, it is deemed to understand the actions of the agency to alter the structure, and with continuity the factors of structure that conditioned (enabling or constraining) the agency. Though Turkiye has strived to widen its agential space to pursue its policies, actualizing the strategic ends could not succeed in each case, as the structure constrained and narrowed its agential space. But it should be noted that rather than presuming the structure has a determinant effect on agency, it is a dialectical process in which both agency and structure condition each other, though with differing influences in different periods, depending on the strength to shape.

Structure and Context

The structure and context employed by the agency--in this case, Turkiye--underwent significant transformations with a wide array of significant ramifications that condition the articulation of both strategy and its representation through discourse. The utilized theoretical approach to analyzing the shift within the structure and its implications on the agency covers three essential sub-structures: the international political system, the global economy, and geography, each of which has distinct but interrelated ramifications on the agency. This section is dedicated to sketching out the context that conditions the posturing of the agency. The following discussion on structure aims to discern the main drivers and determinants that are being taken into account during the agency's strategizing.

The international political system has witnessed growing tensions between great powers and the associated tension of confrontation risks between them. The dominant feature is the quest for a global order, with one side aiming to preserve the existing order and the other seeking to revise it. In the aftermath of the Cold War, Nye characterized global primacy and the role of the U.S with the rods of "bound lead" (11) which is transforming into a "bound to compete" given the ongoing comptetiton with China. Ongoing competiton is stoking fears which is leading to a new characterization and questioning whether the U.S. is "bound to fail." (12) With the erosion of U.S. power, the rise of China, and the challenge of Russia, the debates of a new world order (13) led other countries to re-position themselves in relation to ongoing changes and associated challenges. Irrespective of the character of the emerging world order, the shifts triggered the emergence of both enabling and constraining factors with significant ramifications on states and their strategies.

One of the prominent observed outcomes of the shift is the proliferation of state and non-state actors. The number of states registered to the United Nations has not increased but their capacity to pursue their interests has been empowered as they found greater room for agency thanks to the "transition of power among states and diffusion of power away from states." (14) In a similar vein, non-state actors also found space to pursue their own interests or the interests of benefactors that they recruited as proxies.

The U.S. involvement and interventions in the Middle East, with an agenda of a regime change, inadvertently caused the proliferation of terrorist organizations as the interventions weakened the authoritarian regimes without politically viable governments capable of exerting control on the respective countries. ISIS and the PKK/YPG's existence and survival are either the outcome of misreading the regional dynamics or mismanaging the emerging threats, eliminating one terrorist organization by employing another as a proxy as in the case of ISIS and the PKK/YPG. The proliferation of terrorist organizations, primarily the PKK/YPG and ISIS...