DOCSLIB.ORG

Structure of Turkey-USA Bilateral Relations and Analysis of Factors Affecting Bilateral Relations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Structure of Turkey-USA Bilateral Relations and Analysis of Factors Affecting Bilateral Relations University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School October 2019 Structure of Turkey-USA Bilateral Relations and Analysis of Factors Affecting Bilateral Relations Hanifi Ozkarakaya University of South Florida Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Political Science Commons Scholar Commons Citation Ozkarakaya, Hanifi, "Structure of Turkey-USA Bilateral Relations and Analysis of Factors Affecting Bilateral Relations" (2019). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/8675 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Structure of Turkey-USA Bilateral Relations and Analysis of Factors Affecting Bilateral Relations by Hanifi Ozkarakaya A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts School of Interdisciplinary Global Studies College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Nicolas Thompson, Ph.D. Bernd Reiter, Ph.D. Steven Roach, Ph.D. Date of Approval October 16, 2019 Keywords: The American Foreign Policy, Turkey-USA Bilateral Relations Copyright © 2019, Hanifi Ozkarakaya TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iii Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................6 Scope of Study .....................................................................................................................6 Chapter 1: Examination of International Relations Theories on the Concept of Allies ..................7 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................7 Realism ...............................................................................................................................8 Liberalism ..........................................................................................................................11 Constructivism ...................................................................................................................13 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................15 Chapter 2: Post-Cold War Transformation of the Structure of Turkey-US Bilateral Relations ....17 Introduction ........................................................................................................................17 Turkey-United States Relations During Clinton Presidency .............................................18 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................20 Chapter 3: President Bush Era and the Transformation of Bilateral Relations .............................21 Introduction ........................................................................................................................21 Turkey-United States Relations During George W. Bush Presidency ..............................22 Bush Doctrine ........................................................................................................22 The Effects of the September 11 Attacks on Turkey-US Relations ......................24 New Erdogan Government and Its Effect on Bilateral Relations ..........................26 Turkey-US Relations Under the Influence of 2003 Iraq War ................................27 Crisis of Proposal ...................................................................................................28 Influence of US Unilateralism on Bilateral Relations ...........................................30 Greater Middle East Project and in This Context Turkey-US Relations ...........................31 Second Term Bush Administration and Evolving Political and Economic Relations .......33 Bush Administration Period Turkey-US Economic Relations ..........................................39 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................40 i Chapter 4: The Obama Administration Period and the Unstable Course of Bilateral Relations ...41 Introduction ........................................................................................................................41 Obama Administration Period Turkey-US Relations ........................................................42 Obama Administration Foreign Policy Principles .................................................43 Obama Administration's Middle East Politics and Turkey's Role .........................45 Effect of Changing Turkish Foreign Policy on Turkey-US Relations ...................49 The Impact of the Arab Spring and the Syrian Civil War on Bilateral Relations .............53 Coup Attempt in Turkey and its Consequences .................................................................63 Obama Administration Period Turkey-US Economic Relations .......................................66 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................67 Chapter 5: The Volatile Course of Turkey-US Relations ..............................................................68 Introduction ........................................................................................................................68 Does Turkey's Level of Democratic Development Affect Bilateral Relations? ................69 Diverging Interests of the Two Countries ..........................................................................73 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................77 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................79 Future Research .................................................................................................................81 References ......................................................................................................................................83 ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Freedom House Turkey Democracy Index, (1972-2018) ..............................................70 iii ABSTRACT This study focuses on understanding and explaining the factors affecting Turkey-US bilateral relations, which have been on a fluctuating course in recent years. Turkish foreign policy had a Western-centric foreign policy approach in line with Turkey’s westernization goal in previous years. However, Turkish foreign policy has undergone a major change since it became clear that the long-lasting European Union accession process would not reach a result. Therefore, Turkey's new foreign policy, which is not Western oriented and closely associated with the former Ottoman Empire geography, has also affected the bilateral relations between Turkey and the United States. The most important factor affecting Turkey-US bilateral relations is common interests. The study examines how bilateral relations are maintained when two countries share common interests and what consequences this may have if the two countries have different interests. As a result, the international institutions of which the two countries are members have not been sufficient to change the interest-oriented structure of bilateral relations. iv INTRODUCTION The history of Turkish-American bilateral relations dates back to the end of the 18th century. Despite the geographical distance of the two countries, bilateral relations were carried out around the arms trade until the end of the First World War. (Gencer, 2008) However, Turkish- American relations gained momentum after the Second World War. As a result of the Second World War, Turkey joined the US-led Western camp to deal with the threat of the Soviet Union. After the Truman Doctrine promulgated in 1947 and Turkey joined NATO in 1952, significant progress made between the two countries in the areas of political, economic, and military cooperation. Furthermore, during the Cold War, Turkey's foreign policy decisions were shaped by the direct or indirect influence of the United States. Even today, the most important agenda of Turkish foreign policy, such as the Cyprus Problem, the Syrian Civil War, Northern Iraq, and the July 15 coup, attempt are considered within the framework of relations with the United States. It would not be wrong to say that the institutional basis of Turkey-US bilateral relations is the NATO partnership. Although Turkey joined organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank as part of the Western camp after the Second World War, NATO has always been the main element of bilateral relations. The main reason for this situation is that Turkey is located at the intersection of Europe, the Caucasus, and the Middle East. Furthermore, Turkey,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Bush Doctrine and the Use of Force: Reflections on Rule Construction and Application, 9 Loy
    Loyola University Chicago International Law Review Volume 9 Article 5 Issue 1 Fall/Winter 2011 2011 The uB sh Doctrine and the Use of Force: Reflections on Rule Construction and Application Paul F. Diehl University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Shyam Kulkarni University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Adam Irish University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lucilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Paul F. Diehl , Shyam Kulkarni & Adam Irish The Bush Doctrine and the Use of Force: Reflections on Rule Construction and Application, 9 Loy. U. Chi. Int'l L. Rev. 71 (2011). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lucilr/vol9/iss1/5 This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago International Law Review by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE BUSH DOCTRINE AND THE USE OF FORCE: REFLECTIONS ON RULE CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION Paul F. Diehl, Shyam Kulkarni, and Adam Irisht Abstract. .................................................. 71 I. Introduction. ......................................... 72 II. The Basic Elements of the Bush Doctrine .................... 73 III. Normative System v. Operating System Rules ................. 76 IV. Key Elements of a Prospective Bush Doctrine ................. 78 A. Authorization ..................................... 78 1. What is the Threat Threshold That Triggers the Doctrine? . 78 2. Who is Allowed to Authorize Action? . 83 3. Must This Be a Last Resort Option? . 89 B. Execution. ........................................ 91 1. Must the Act Be Exercised Multilaterally or Is Unilateral Action Permitted? . .. 91 2.
    [Show full text]
  • AN ANALYSIS of POST-COLD WAR CONCEPTS in AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY: CONTINUITY OR CHANGE? by Ana Maria Venegas a Thesis Submitted
    AN ANALYSIS OF POST-COLD WAR CONCEPTS IN AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY: CONTINUITY OR CHANGE? by Ana Maria Venegas A thesis submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Global Security Studies Baltimore, Maryland December 2014 © 2014 Ana Maria Venegas All Rights Reserved Abstract This thesis investigates post-Cold War concepts in US foreign policy. At the end of the Cold War, prominent political scientists and commentators argued, for various reasons, that the strategic environment was so dramatically different that the United States would no longer be able to engage the world as it had in the past. In an attempt to understand the ramifications of the evolution of the strategic environment, this thesis asked the question: Have the three post-Cold War presidents, William J. Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack H. Obama, continued to engage the world in ways consistent with previous administrations or have the broken from traditional concepts in American foreign policy? To answer this question, declaratory foreign policy as articulated in national security strategy documents and key foreign policy engagements were analyzed and compared to nine traditional concepts in American foreign policy identified by prominent historians and political scientists. The post-Cold War administrations continued to develop foreign policy consistent with the concepts identified by historians and political scientists suggesting a measure of consistency in the way the United States engages the world. Additionally, each president developed foreign policy that exhibited unique characteristics inconsistent with the traditional concepts. These policies were characterized by the importance placed on multilateral consensus; an emphasis on multilateral agreements and alliances to foster a stable international order; and the reliance on international organizations to address regional and global issues.
    [Show full text]
  • A Dysfunctional Triangle an Analysis of America's Relations with Israel
    SIT Graduate Institute/SIT Study Abroad SIT Digital Collections Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection SIT Study Abroad Spring 2015 A Dysfunctional Triangle An analysis of America’s relations with Israel and their impact on the current nuclear accord with Iran Andrew Falacci SIT Study Abroad Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection Part of the American Politics Commons, International Relations Commons, Military and Veterans Studies Commons, Near and Middle Eastern Studies Commons, Peace and Conflict Studies Commons, and the Politics and Social Change Commons Recommended Citation Falacci, Andrew, "A Dysfunctional Triangle An analysis of America’s relations with Israel and their impact on the current nuclear accord with Iran" (2015). Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection. 2111. https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/2111 This Unpublished Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the SIT Study Abroad at SIT Digital Collections. It has been accepted for inclusion in Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection by an authorized administrator of SIT Digital Collections. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Falacci A Dysfunctional Triangle An analysis of America’s relations with Israel and their impact on the current nuclear accord with Iran Andrew Falacci Geneva, Spring 2015 School of International Training -Sending School- The George Washington University, Washington D.C 1 Falacci Acknowledgements: Robert Frost talked about looking towards “the path less traveled”, where all the difference would be made. I have lived the young part of my life staying true to such advice, but I also hold dearly the realization that there are special people in my life who have, in some way or another, guided me towards that “path less traveled.” I want to take the time to thank my family for pushing me and raising me to be the person I am today.
    [Show full text]
  • U. S. Foreign Policy1 by Charles Hess
    H UMAN R IGHTS & H UMAN W ELFARE U. S. Foreign Policy1 by Charles Hess They hate our freedoms--our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other (George W. Bush, Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, September 20, 2001). These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society—and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages (National Security Strategy, September 2002 http://www. whitehouse. gov/nsc/nss. html). The historical connection between U.S. foreign policy and human rights has been strong on occasion. The War on Terror has not diminished but rather intensified that relationship if public statements from President Bush and his administration are to be believed. Some argue that just as in the Cold War, the American way of life as a free and liberal people is at stake. They argue that the enemy now is not communism but the disgruntled few who would seek to impose fundamentalist values on societies the world over and destroy those who do not conform. Proposed approaches to neutralizing the problem of terrorism vary. While most would agree that protecting human rights in the face of terror is of elevated importance, concern for human rights holds a peculiar place in this debate. It is ostensibly what the U.S. is trying to protect, yet it is arguably one of the first ideals compromised in the fight.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Foreign Policy Doctrines
    20 July 2015 Presidential Doctrines, the Use of Force and International Order Did the US’ military and legal reactions to the 9/11 attacks fundamentally transform its foreign and security policies? Joseph Siracusa doesn’t think so. He argues that the so-called Bush and Obama Doctrines have had more in common with previous presidential approaches than most people realize. By Joseph Siracusa for ISN In the ever-changing landscape of international relations, the extent to which the actions of the United States contribute to justice and order remains a source of contentious debate. Indeed, it is difficult to find a point in recent history when the United States and its foreign policy have been subject to such polarised and acrimonious reflection, both domestically and internationally. Notwithstanding recent ‘decline’ debates and the rise of emerging powers, the United States continues to hold a formidable advantage over its chief rivals in terms of formal power assets more than twenty-five years after the end of the Cold War. Few anticipated this situation; on the contrary, many assumed that, after a brief moment of unipolarity following the collapse of the Soviet Union, international affairs would soon regain a certain symmetry. Instead, US hegemony is still par for the course. In this context, because the foreign policy ‘doctrines’ of American presidents remain an important driver of the outlook of the United States, these doctrines continue to play a significant role in shaping international order. Though they have veered from isolationist to interventionist to expansionist over the years, these doctrines in fact exhibit a remarkable continuity – even in the post 9/11 era.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bush Revolution: the Remaking of America's Foreign Policy
    The Bush Revolution: The Remaking of America’s Foreign Policy Ivo H. Daalder and James M. Lindsay The Brookings Institution April 2003 George W. Bush campaigned for the presidency on the promise of a “humble” foreign policy that would avoid his predecessor’s mistake in “overcommitting our military around the world.”1 During his first seven months as president he focused his attention primarily on domestic affairs. That all changed over the succeeding twenty months. The United States waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. troops went to Georgia, the Philippines, and Yemen to help those governments defeat terrorist groups operating on their soil. Rather than cheering American humility, people and governments around the world denounced American arrogance. Critics complained that the motto of the United States had become oderint dum metuant—Let them hate as long as they fear. September 11 explains why foreign policy became the consuming passion of Bush’s presidency. Once commercial jetliners plowed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it is unimaginable that foreign policy wouldn’t have become the overriding priority of any American president. Still, the terrorist attacks by themselves don’t explain why Bush chose to respond as he did. Few Americans and even fewer foreigners thought in the fall of 2001 that attacks organized by Islamic extremists seeking to restore the caliphate would culminate in a war to overthrow the secular tyrant Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Yet the path from the smoking ruins in New York City and Northern Virginia to the battle of Baghdad was not the case of a White House cynically manipulating a historic catastrophe to carry out a pre-planned agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States and China: Ruptures and Realignments In
    No.9 2017 PUBLISHED BY THE SWEDISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS. WWW.UI.SE The United States and China: Ruptures and Realignments in Trump’s First Six Months Oliver Turner Donald Trump’s election as president of the to broadly follow the path trodden by Bar- United States in late 2016 brought expecta- rack Obama. Where do we stand six months tions of radical departures in US politics and after the election of Trump? What has been foreign policy. Of all the candidates – Re- President Trump’s early approach towards publican and Democrat – Trump was the China and what has been the Chinese re- most vocal on China during his campaign. sponse? What do the politics and His rhetoric swung from professing a ‘love’ worldviews of the Trump administration re- for China to claiming that it is guilty of ‘rap- veal about the balance of US-China rela- ing’ the United States. Yet his unwavering tions today? Who in the Trump administra- appeal to right wing populism ensured that tion has been influential in steering China in the winner-take-all, zero-sum world he policy? And what do Trump’s first six portrayed, Chinese gains were seen as the months in charge tell us about what the re- cause of American losses. Prior to the elec- mainder of his tenure might hold for US- tion it was widely expected that Hillary China relations? Ultimately, we find that Clinton would come to occupy the White within the bounds of US-China relations, House, and that while her long-time politi- Trump’s first six months as president have cal criticisms of China argued for modifica- been simultaneously of note and entirely tions in Washington’s relations with Bei- unremarkable.
    [Show full text]
  • Administration of Barack H. Obama, 2009 Interview with ITAR-TASS
    Administration of Barack H. Obama, 2009 Interview With ITAR-TASS/Rossiya TV July 2, 2009 Q. Mr. President, thank you very much for having us today. The President. Thanks. Q. It's your first interview for the Russian media. The President. Yes. Q. And it will be on air in TV Channel Russia on the Fourth of July. Congratulations, sir. The President. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, and I'm very much looking forward to visiting Russia on Monday. President's Visit to Russia Q. You're leaving for Russia, and it will be your second time there. What's your personal sense of Russia? The President. Well, I had a wonderful time when we visited both Moscow and Perm; this was several years ago. I was traveling as a Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, interested in issues of nuclear proliferation. The people were very warm; we had a wonderful reception. I had a wonderful time visiting Red Square and the Kremlin. I think that traveling there as President, obviously, is very different, and now those issues that I was interested in as a Senator, of nuclear proliferation, how we can reduce tensions and conflicts between our countries, I'm in a position, hopefully, to get more accomplished than my first visit. Russia/Russia-U.S. Relations Q. And what we in Russia can expect from the new American leader? How you see the role of the Russia in the world? The President. Well, look, Russia is a great country with an extraordinary culture and extraordinary traditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Barack Obama and the Dilemmas of American Grand Strategy
    Hal Brands Barack Obama and the Dilemmas of American Grand Strategy Did the Obama administration have a grand strategy? If so, was it effec- tive? Before Obama’s presidency even ended, these questions were unleashing fusillades of contradictory commentary. Sympathetic observers credited Obama with a wise, well-integrated grand strategy that enhanced American power for “the long-game.”1 Detractors, by contrast, argued that Obama’s strategy of “over- arching American retrenchment and accommodation” had been pernicious— even devastating—to national security.2 Still other prominent observers rejected the very idea of an Obama grand strategy, charging that his policies lacked any coherent design.3 Finally, and further muddying the waters, Obama himself was sometimes dismissive of grand strategy, once remarking that “I don’t really even need George Kennan right now.”4 As the president’s tenure ends, it is useful to revisit these issues and come to grips with grand strategy under Obama. In fact, the Obama administration did have a fairly clear and consistent grand strategy—if one defines grand strategy realistically, as a set of basic principles that guide policy. And that grand strategy reflected a mixture of continuity and change vis-a-vis the foreign policy tradition Obama inherited. In many ways, Obama’s grand strategy fit squarely within the broad contours of American statecraft during the post-war and post-Cold War eras, as its broadest objective was main- taining U.S. primacy and a liberal international order. Yet Obama simultaneously sought to define his grand strategy in opposition to the purported mistakes of George W.
    [Show full text]
  • A Content Analysis of the News Coverage of George W. Bush's Spee
    “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” A content analysis of the news coverage of George W. Bush’s speeches on the War on Terror in the context of American nationalism By Annabel van Gestel Erasmus University Rotterdam Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication 24-07-2018 366765 – [email protected] Dr. M. Lak Prof.dr. D. Douwes Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Timeline War on Terror 9 3. Public perception of the War on Terror 12 4. Literature Review 16 4.1 Nationalism 16 4.2 American Nationalism 20 4.3 The Bush Doctrine 26 5. Framing the News 31 6. Methodology 34 6.1 Data collection 34 6.2 Operationalization 36 7. Results 42 7.1 Exceptionalism 42 7.2 Vindicationism 44 7.3 Othering 45 7.4 Nationalism 47 7.5 Criticism 49 7.6 Difference Afghanistan and Iraq 51 8. Conclusion 55 9. Suggestions for future research 63 10. Bibliography 64 2 1. Introduction “Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” This phrase was part of a speech that US President George W. Bush delivered 9 days after the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.1 Bush addressed the American Congress and the American people in what some have called the most important speech of his presidency.2 In this address, he appealed to the Americans’ grief about the attacks, set an ultimatum to the Taliban, but also made this blunt statement to nations across the world.
    [Show full text]
  • The Obama Doctrine and the Arab Spring
    The Politics of Policy: The Obama Doctrine and the Arab Spring Hannah Tyler History 436: America in the Middle East December 12, 2016 Tyler 2 Abstract: The purpose of the paper is to examine the Obama Doctrine and establish a clearer definition of what it is by contextualizing it through the lens of other presidential doctrines, the schools of realism and idealism. In addition, it seeks to establish specific tenets of the Obama Doctrine, as well as identify the contradictions present within the Obama Doctrine. I will then examine Obama’s arc of disenchantment with the Arab Spring, explaining how his arc of disenchantment affected the way he made policy regarding the Middle East. The Obama Doctrine is a contentious topic in the scholarly world. In the stacks of Fondren Library, books about Obama span an entire shelf; many of them are dedicated to the Obama Doctrine and figuring out what it is. In one of these books, Barack Obama’s Post-American Foreign Policy, Robert Singh dedicates an entire chapter simply to trying to put a label on Obama and his foreign policy; the chapter is titled “‘I’ve Got A Confusion on Obama’: Cosmopolitan, Liberal Internationalist, Realist, Reaganite, Leftist?”1 Scholars often compare the Obama Doctrine to other doctrines such as the Bush Doctrine and the Eisenhower Doctrine, and posit that these doctrines were much more clear-cut than the Obama Doctrine is; there is more literature dedicated to figuring out the Obama Doctrine than there are most other presidential doctrines. In my paper, I will examine the Obama Doctrine, especially as it applies to the Middle East, and explore some of its intricacies, and then examine the way that the Arab Spring changed the Obama Doctrine.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bush Doctrine Is Selective Engagement In
    THE BUSH DOCTRINE: SELECTIVE ENGAGEMENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST By Kenneth W. Stein* This article’s thesis is that the Bush Doctrine is part of a broader bipartisan American foreign policy, “Selective Engagement,” emerging since the Cold War’s end. U.S. willingness to be involved abroad are based on whether such an effort is in the national interest, can be shared with a coalition, costs acceptable amounts of money and potential casualties, and will leave the region better off. It discusses the Bush administration’s Middle East policy in this context, especially regarding the move toward higher degrees of apparent involvement in coping with the Israel-Palestinian conflict. During the 2000 American presidential cooperation...that he had appointed a host of election campaign, George W. Bush gave one officials who reject multilateralism.” It foreign policy address. Not unexpectedly, concluded, however, that even without a domestic priorities prevailed at his common Soviet enemy, Europe and America Administration’s outset: education reform, the had “common values and a common interest in environment, private school vouchers, faith- upholding them.”(1) based initiatives, energy sources and The aftermath of the September 11, 2001, production, creation of prescription drug assault on America changed the benefits, tax relief, an economic stimulus administration’s agenda. Europeans voiced package, health care, values, ethics, and their strong support for the United States to a propounding a philosophy of “compassion in far greater extent than they had backed the 1990 government.” coalition to counter Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Domestic issues which contained foreign The military attack on the Taliban and al-Qaeda policy components--such as illegal drugs, trade in Afghanistan was endorsed by 40 countries questions, terrorism prevention, immigration compared to 28 in the earlier case.
    [Show full text]