’s Quest for a “New International Order”: The Discourse of Civilization and the Politics of Restoration

Murat YEŞİLTAŞ* Abstract Key Words

This article argues that the increasing emphasis Civilization, politics of restoration, self- of civilization in Turkish foreign policy discourse perception, international order and Turkish fundamentally affected Turkey’s criticism of foreign policy. the current international order. Political elites during the Justice and Development Party era have framed their critiques of international order Introduction in the context of the “politics of restoration”; the political discourse seeks to re-construct Turkey’s The most significant impact of the national, regional and international political Justice and Development Party (JDP) discourse and engagement. They have also re- contextualized the politics of restoration along on Turkish foreign policy has been that the axis of a discourse of the “New Turkey”. In it has re-opened Turkey’s understanding this sense, the “New Turkey” discourse reproduced of “international order” to a discussion the civilizational identity part of Turkey’s on the basis of a “new representation international order narrative by blending it with 1 an anti-hegemonic “dissident” discourse. Instead of civilizational belonging”. Before of taking civilization as a given, as many studies the JDP, Turkey’s foreign policy was concerned with the relationship of Turkish foreign determined through a secular-nationalist policy and civilization have done, this article takes Davutoğlu’s constitutive role of the idea into identity with the purpose of reproducing account and analyzes the framework provided by a Westphalian political unit at the the term for the politics of restoration of national, regional level. This meant the acceptance regional, and global order while considering of the universality of modern Western civilization as a historical institution formed by the interaction between culture-economics-politics civilization and the establishment of and a “being-knowledge-values” based mentality. Turkey as an integral part of the universal civilization. Resulting from a search * Assoc. Prof. Dr., Sakarya University, Middle East Institute and Department of International for a new “political subjectivity” and Relations, Esentepe Kampusu, Ortadoğu “strategic autonomy”2 in the regional and Araştırmaları Merkezi, Sakarya. international system, the discourse of a E-mail: [email protected]. The author would like to thank Yekta Zülfikar, new order not only redefined Turkey’s Handan Öz and the two anonymous reviewers position in world politics geopolitically for their helpful comments. and culturally, but also succeeded in de-

43 PERCEPTIONS, Winter 2014, Volume XIX, Number 4, pp. 43-76. Murat Yeşiltaş

centering the historical construction of of concepts such as “global civilizational Turkey as an integral part of the Western consciousness”, “global civilizational civilization. Thus, a new supra-national, perspective”, and “global civilizational namely civilizational, “political unit” politics”, requested the “restoration” of has become preponderant in Turkish the international order along the axis foreign policy discourse instead of the of multiculturalism.4 Moreover, first historically Western-oriented nation- as an academic, then as a chief advisor, state political unit, the dominating Foreign Minister, and Prime Minister, principle in the conceptions of the respectively, Ahmet Davutoğlu time Westphalian international order.3 The and again referred to the concept of transformation of such an obscure and “civilization”; thus he took on the role highly transnational new “civilizational as the architect of Turkey’s “civilizational identity” into a foreign policy framework- discourse”. While both implicitly using determinant discourse formed a strong the concept of civilization, they also political, moral, and psychological applied the notion as the cornerstone of gravitational field against Turkey’s “state- Turkey’s global foreign policy outlook. centric identity” in the international The constitutional role of civilization order. in foreign policy discourse took Turkey’s foreign policy into a two-layer Gradually included in the new transformation. First, the civilizational discourse caused an internal change in the discourse of international order identity of the State (of Turkey). Second, of Turkish foreign policy, the it helped in gradually presenting a “New reference to civilization has come Turkey” in the regional and global system, to function as oppositional, as a and served the purpose of legitimizing search for anti-hegemony, and Turkey’s “dissident” position especially as a center of an increasingly in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. pluralist world order perspective Gradually included in the new discourse vis-à-vis the existing world order of international order of Turkish foreign and its dominance. policy, the reference to civilization has come to function as oppositional, as a search for anti-hegemony, and as a center President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, of an increasingly pluralist world order for instance, committed to promoting perspective vis-à-vis the existing world this discourse in the “Alliance of order and its dominance.5 President Civilizations” initiative jointly led by Erdoğan’s trademark expression, “the Spain and Turkey, and through the use world is bigger than five,” which he

44 Turkey’s Quest for a “New International Order” stated at the United Nations (UN) order (universal).8 While for some, General Assembly in 2014 and repeated civilization points to a worldview based in many other international meetings, on Islam, for others it is an ideology used and his maxim, “the West is no longer as a means of political Islam. From both the only center of the world,” have both perspectives, the reflection of civilization made Turkey’s dissident position even in foreign policy has been termed as clearer.6 neo-Ottomanist causing a departure Within the context of the from the West, and regarded as a aforementioned double-dimension, geopolitical imagination imposing its 9 the “West as the ideal civilization” own representation of civilization. The paradigm was eliminated from the actual fact that Davutoğlu refers to civilization constructivist role of Turkey’s foreign as a historical institution rather than an 10 policy identity and was transformed both ideology has been ignored. into a collocutor of the inter-civilizational Instead of taking civilization as a interaction and into its new “Other”. given, this article takes Davutoğlu’s The political elites who presented the constitutive role of the idea into account (EU) membership as and analyzes the framework provided by 7 an “alliance of civilizations” project the term for the restoration of national, later placed the West into the center of regional, and global order, while criticisms targeting the international considering civilization as a historical order along civilizational terms. This institution formed by the interaction type of civilizational thought deeply between culture-economics-politics affected Turkey’s foreign policy discourse and a “being-knowledge-values” based and practices from the inside out, and mentality. The first section of this study caused an important change in the role analyzes how Davutoğlu approaches Turkey wished to play in the reformation Turkey’s civilizational perpetuity in his of the international order. own works and speeches, and how it has Of those who examine the civilization- been “functionalized” in foreign policy foreign policy nexus in Turkish foreign and in the context of the transformation policy, a vast majority prefer to take the of international order. The second concept of civilization as a given. Many section will consider how Davutoğlu of the analyses of the concept focus on turned the “politics of restoration”- Davutoğlu’s understanding and use of frequently appearing in the search for a the civilizational concept without first new subjectivity- into reality and how, examining its use in the context of Turkey in particular, it has been added to the (national), the Islamic world (regional), discourse of “New Turkey” created by and the search for a new international President Erdoğan. The third section

45 Murat Yeşiltaş

examines the kind of civilizational basis identity during the JDP era. In order provided by civilization as a historical to understand what Davutoğlu means institution and a political unit for the by “civilization” and how he considers formation of a pluralist international the unit of civilization in the formation order and a greater scale of “restoration of world orders, it will be sufficient to politics” in connection with Turkey’s consider three important texts written search for a new international order. during different time periods. In all three works, he discusses civilization both as a concept and as a central power A synthesis of civilizational for the realization of “global systemic” discourse and “restoration changes as a “whole of institutionalized politics” has caused a significant norms”, and for the world order to transformation in Turkey’s assume its final form. According to foreign policy identity. Davutoğlu, every world order contains within it an essence of civilization, The main claim of the article is that and thus, produces some form of a synthesis of civilizational discourse civilizational order. For Davutoğlu, and “restoration politics” has caused a civilization’s “singularity”, as a concept, significant transformation in Turkey’s is a problematic view in the restoration of the present international order. The foreign policy identity. In addition, that claim of “one civilization’s universality” civilization takes center stage in Turkey’s causes the formation of a hierarchical demand for a “post-Western international relationship among civilizations, and order” since those who have founded serves the establishment of a hegemonic such a civilizational discourse consider world order. The preference for the civilization not as an ideology but as a plural use of the term “civilization” (as historical institution (agent). civilizations) will both show the presence of different civilizations in history and Civilizations and World will eventually save inter-civilizational Orders: The Foundational interactions from a type of “absolute” Role of Ahmet Davutoğlu hierarchical relationship in the formation of a new and just global order.11 Many scholars of Turkish foreign Davutoğlu begins by offering a broad policy believe that Ahmet Davutoğlu conceptual panorama of the meaning is one of the important figures who of civilization(s) and their role in world has shaped Turkey’s perspective of politics. Civilizations, for him, designate international order and civilizational distinct paradigms of human and

46 Turkey’s Quest for a “New International Order” social existence, comprising cognitive, main points of the current crisis in the normative, aesthetic, and spiritual global system within a historical context aspects. Accordingly, differences among in his Civilizational Transformation civilizations derive from the different and the Muslim World.15 In Strategic epistemic, normative, and ontological Depth,16 where he examines Turkey’s premises undergirding them. From foreign policy and how it can adapt to this perspective, civilizations develop the final international order, Davutoğlu distinctive perceptions of space and time, tries to put forward a Turkey-centered and of the meaning and purpose of human geopolitical perspective of a country and social life. The question, then, is how going after a “new strategic mentality”. the diversity of historical constellations In each of his three works, the concept of can find ways to meet productivity and civilization holds center stage. assemble into “global order”. In that Writing that in Alternative Paradigms context, civilizations, for Davutoğlu, he would be attempting to formulate “do not emerge in spatial or temporal an intellectual relationship between isolation, but rather the confluence of “ontological perception” and “political a system of being-knowledge-value, perception”, Davutoğlu attempts to where time and space perception places understand the interaction among mentality in a dialectical relationship with perception parameters based on being- history, out of which civilizations flourish. knowledge-value and the structures of This leads us to a certain notion of “order” law-economics-politics within the context as a conventional and institutional of history. By doing so, Davutoğlu tries structure”.12 to understand the interaction between When taken as a trilogy, it is possible the “intellectual transformation” and to state that Davutoğlu develops his the “economic-political transformation” approach to self-perception (ben-idraki, throughout the history by mainly in Turkish, also can be defined as self- focusing on the transformation of world cognizance),13 civilization, and world order. In Civilizational Transformation, order in a detailed manner in his three Davutoğlu brings forward the concept works. In this sense, while in Alternative of self-perception, to describe the Paradigms: The Impact of Islamic and intellectual background of the connection Western Weltanschauungs on Political between ontological consciousness and Theory14 he puts forward the formative political identity, and to express an qualities of a “world order” written upon awareness of identity that integrates the basis of “self-perception”, he discusses existential perception with historical the civilization-based transformation and political perception.17 He further in the international system and the develops the concept and places it at

47 Murat Yeşiltaş

the core of his theoretical framework,18 forms the first ring of his understanding of beyond conjectural identity debates. world order. In his article “Civilizations’ In both works, Davutoğlu claims that Self-Perception”, Davutoğlu both there is a consistent connection between attributes a positive meaning to the the existential understanding and the civilizational concept and points to the historical and political understanding, plurality of civilizations21 by defending asserting that these three levels are where different forms of self-perception created collective identity consciousnesses are by various civilizational imaginations. established.19 In Strategic Depth, which In the last quarter of the 20th century, focuses directly on Turkey and Turkish described by Davutoğlu as a time of foreign policy, Davutoğlu redefines “civilizational revitalization and political the consciousness of collective identity confrontation”,22 he alleges that the through both history and geography, predominating claim of Western and uses it to formulate a new “strategic academia that ‘Western civilization has mentality” for Turkey.20 When brought history to an end by presenting considering his three works altogether, liberal democracy to humanity as a gift’ is Davutoğlu leans toward the concept of false. In this sense, it may be deduced that civilization as a “unit of analysis”, and Davutoğlu, in all three works, attempts thus, forms an integrative abstract level. to find answers to two main claims: The claim that there is a valid historical The first is his opposition to “endism”.23 relationship between the formation of a The discourse of endism is based on the self-perception that reflects the qualities presumption of an imagination of the of the civilizational concept, and a Western civilization hegemonic order sustainable and peaceful world order, which disregards the historical dynamism forms the basis of Davutoğlu’s world of alternative civilizational imaginations. “order” understanding. In consequence, This historic dynamism is placed on Davutoğlu’s “world order” is not a system the axis of cultural conflict instead of that can be understood solely with universality by the thesis of “radicalizing” material elements, which by itself is of non-Western civilizations.24 Therefore, he central importance in Turkey’s critique of argues against such theses, asserting that the international order. there is a new awakening at the axis of new civilizations.25 The second claim, which The Concept of “Self-Perception” might seem like a contradiction, is his and Civilizations attempt to develop an argument against the previous two theses’ representations The self-perception that Davutoğlu and analyses of Islamic civilization and espouses as the essence of civilizations Turkey.

48 Turkey’s Quest for a “New International Order”

While in the first, there is a frame In all three of his works, Davutoğlu, of thought propounding elements of defending the claim that history internal consistency and historical does not follow a course of linear- continuity in Islamic civilization, the development, argues that the end of second one narrates Turkey’s historical the Cold War, rather than causing the and geographical “centrality” and the “end of history”, gave rise to a process establishment and transformation wherein an extensive civilizational 27 stages of its political culture within this revitalization and transformation can civilization. To put it clearly, he, on the once again be brought onto the stage of one hand, objects to the theses which history in the non-Western civilizations, blend Western civilization’s hegemonic and in Islamic civilization in particular. and Euro-centric reading of history, Therefore, civilizational revival has fortified by the discourse of liberal made the restoration of the present democracy, as “others” in an essential international order more necessary manner of non-Western entities and than ever. According to Davutoğlu, the elements of being-knowledge-value marginalizes them in the course of forming the framework of the present history. But on the other hand, he international order have constituted challenges the depiction-especially the Western civilization on the basis that of Huntington- of Turkey as a of hierarchical supremacy; however, “torn country” having a difficult time its “associating the entire history of to define itself26 under the feeling of humanity to the historical course of “divided belonging”. Western civilization”28 is problematic. This problematic imagination of the world order has ended with the Western The elements of being-knowledge- civilization triumphantly declaring value forming the framework of their “ultimate dominance” over other the present international order civilizations. In this sense, representations have constituted the Western employed by the Western civilization, such as “the West and the Rest”, and civilization on the basis of their variations of political forms oppose hierarchical supremacy; however, to the “diversity of history” and to the its “associating the entire history presence of multiple civilizations. As of humanity to the historical the source of the inconsistency of the course of Western civilization” is present international order,29 Davutoğlu problematic. discusses the dominance of the Western civilization’s conceptualization of the

49 Murat Yeşiltaş

“unity of history”, which has been which he borrows from Husserl33 constructed through the three trivets, (Selbstverständnis) are, according to in reference to Arnold Toynbee, i.e. “the Davutoğlu, the individual’s idea of Being/ egocentric illusion, the illusion of the God and the ego, and their “life world” ‘unchanging East’, and the illusion of (Lebenswelt).34 The notion of worldview progress as a movement that proceeds gives color to the different aspects of self- in a straight line”. To put the matter perception, which forms the hard core bluntly, he mainly opposes the idea of of civilization (Weltanschauung). In this “the Rest” as the passive object of the frame, Davutoğlu’s main claim about the history. For Davutoğlu, the concept “essence” of civilizations is: of the recipient civilization, itself, (...) the fundamental element reflects an egocentric self-perception that facilitates the formation of powerful enough to accept or reject civilizations, the rise of civilizations 30 and their ability to resist the potential the conservation of others. For this dominance of other civilizations is reason, a crisis of the world order means the self-perception which clarifies a civilizational crisis as well. According a civilizational prototype. The final to Davutoğlu, the set of values that factor in the formation of a self- perception is neither institutional determine international relations cannot nor formal domain, but a worldview be considered independently from the which places the problematic existence paradigmatic elements of the dominant of an individual within a meaningful framework.35 civilization. Thus, the phenomenon called the “world-system” is also being Here, the relationship between self- created in the transition process of these perception and identity is critical factors from local to universal at the in terms of reflecting Davutoğlu’s institutional and mental levels. Here, the perspective of civilization. Identity is international systemic transformations defined politically and legally (awareness throughout the world history are tackled of citizenship in modern sense), rather as a transformation that “occurs at the than sociologically and, in the face of self- axis of civilization” in the final stage.31 perception, corresponds to a civilization’s Consequently, the most important essence being placed in a very superficial foundational parameter of civilizations, position. Because for Davutoğlu, “while for Davutoğlu, is their contribution identity can be defined through the of an “original understanding to the social, economic, and political authority, individual’s ontological status by and can be attributed by them, self- providing a new self-perception based on a perception relying on the subject as its worldview.”32 The fundamental elements basis cannot, in any way, be defined or of the concept of “self-perception,” exterminated by another authority”.36

50 Turkey’s Quest for a “New International Order”

Self-perception and the matter of context of the qualities listed above, it identity are closely linked to another is seen that civilization is an “organic” important part of Davutoğlu’s existence, has its own ontological being/ civilization discourse, namely, “multiple status, and almost like humans, it is born, civilizations”, as well as their comparative grows, matures, eventually weakens and analysis. Moving from the assumption regresses, and in some cases, dies. In this that if not legally, there are philosophic context, it is understood that Davutoğlu and cognitive differences among has a multi-civilizational approach. world civilizations. He compares these Secondly, what makes a civilization’s civilizations from a historical perspective defining qualities explicit are and on two main levels: there are six consistency/prevalence and continuity. main elements (time, space, knowledge Thirdly, it can be said that Davutoğlu’s concepts, and the relationships of human- understanding of civilization is idealistic nature, human-god, and human-human) from a philosophic standpoint.38 The that surround self-perceptions and an reason is that according to Davutoğlu, individual’s mentality as a “civilization “mentality transformation”, as a prototype”. On the first level, Davutoğlu philosophical-ideational element, is determines five different self-perception at the root of the civilizational order types: strong and hard self-perception, and transformation which gives the strong and flexible self-perception, world order its final form. Fourthly, strong and local self-perception, weak although civilizations are, in reality, and hard self-perception, and weak and cultural entities, material cultural flexible self-perception. On the second elements should also be included in this level, he considers the fundamental circle of meaning. Lastly, Davutoğlu’s elements that make up self-perception civilizational understanding presents as a result of these differentials, and an essentialist perspective. Civilizations, examines them comparatively within which possess an independent the archetype of the Western and Islamic ontological status, almost have a certain civilizations. In this context, according essence and this essence cannot easily be to Davutoğlu, Islamic civilization influenced from the outside.39 In this possesses a “strong quality as it leans on a context, the essence of civilizations does well-defined, comprehensive, consistent, not, and will not, presumably change and universal worldview”; whereas it is to a meaningful degree throughout the both flexible and encircling in terms of history. This situation leaves Davutoğlu’s 37 an “influencing capacity”. civilization approach exposed to When Davutoğlu’s concept of what Susan Buck-Morss terms the civilization is considered within the issue of “strategic essentialism”.40 The

51 Murat Yeşiltaş

foundational elements of a civilization according to Davutoğlu, “civilizational and the construction of a world order on self-perception is one of the basic the basis of civilization form the bedrock building blocks in the formation, of Davutoğlu’s understanding of order. development, and resistance capacities of civilizations”.42 In this context, a The Parameters of “Civilizational civilization can become a living form Order” only if it can assert its self-perception in a way comprehensive enough to According to Davutoğlu, there are six influence Lebenswelt. Western socio- formative parameters of civilizations: economic constructs, Islamic cities, redefinition of self-perception Chinese social order, or the Indian (ontological dimension), human social hierarchy are all closely linked knowledge (epistemological dimension), with the differing self-perceptions of and human values (normative the respective civilizational traditions. dimension); reconstruction of time The third formative element; in consciousness and historical imagination, other words, the “restructuring of the reshaping of space (particularly in the value system and the standardization of form of restructuring the city), and human behaviors’ moral foundations”43 reestablishment of a world order. Among represent the axiological dimension. them the first three constitute the Here, Davutoğlu offers a two level philosophical and ethical foundations analysis to see the importance of human of the being-knowledge-value paradigm values in constructing a social order. and the last three represent the historical While the first level comprises the manifestations of particular being- restructuring of a value-system as the knowledge-value paradigms in social, foundation of a new relationship between 41 economic, and political structures. ethics and law, the second level is about The epistemological paradigm providing the individual human being which developed parallel to the with basic norms to standardize behavior ontological level throughout history in daily social life. Constructing the is formed from the answers given categories of good and bad, ethical and to four basic questions: sources of unethical, legitimate and illegitimate is knowledge, the systematization of essential to interpreting the meaning of knowledge theoretically, transfer of life and establishing a social order.44 Here knowledge into practice (technology, Davutoğlu argues that civilizations posit economic structuring, or legal certain values to guide human behavior form), and social hierarchy based on and to constitute the normative basis of the authority of knowledge. Thus, a legal system.45

52 Turkey’s Quest for a “New International Order”

form” and the historical realization of While the states represent the the being-knowledge-value paradigm in translation of the city order into physical space.47 The historical emergence a more sophisticated structure in of a civilizational space in this context has an integrated geographical zone three preconditions: “a geopolitical zone and cultural, economic, and suitable for security and basic needs, a political sphere, the world order geo-economic zone for the integrity of marks the most comprehensive economic activity, and a geo-cultural milieu for the consistency and continuity realization of order in terms of cultural life. Historical civilizations of internal social consistency, emerged and rose in an integrated space geographical prevalence, and where these conditions were met.”48 historical continuity. In the last formative dimension, Davutoğlu treats states and world order The fourth formative dimension of as the conventional and institutional civilization is the development of a forms of civilization. Within this new perception of time within a new understanding, while the states represent imagination of historical consciousness. the translation of the city order into The transition from mythological a more sophisticated structure in an to historical imagination marks an integrated geographical zone and cultural, important stage in the construction of economic, and political sphere, the world historical consciousness in traditional order marks the most comprehensive civilizations. In this regard, the modern realization of order in terms of internal western civilization has distinctive social consistency, geographical characteristics regarding time perception prevalence, and historical continuity.49 and historical consciousness, such as Davutoğlu argues that establishing the secularization of the perception of an order is a process of reflecting a time leading to the idea of progress and worldview onto historical existence. the Eurocentric conception of the flow Therefore, the close relationship between of human history.46 The fifth formative “worldview” and “world order” is an dimension of civilization is defined with indication of the existence of civilizations reference to the spatial understanding as historical actors. Historically, Pax of order. According to Davutoğlu, there Romana, the Abbasid Caliphate, and are two aspects of the spatial dimension Pax Ottomana were all different world of civilizational formations, one being orders established by their respective about the perception of space, and the civilizational traditions. When it comes other about the city as the “geo-cultural to Western civilization, Davutoğlu

53 Murat Yeşiltaş

offers three historical moments in periphery through the colonial world the transformation of international order. The second phase of historical order in the West. He also defines this transformation of world order was that transformation not only in terms of world of colonial order.50 In this new concept order amongst the European states, but and its geopolitical context, there prefers to contextualize order in terms of was a geographical discontinuity. The the civilizational transformation. transition from European colonialism to Pax Americana took place through The delay of this readjustment a new international legal system and of the world order did not institutional design. The end of the only lead to frozen conflicts Cold War with the fall of Berlin Wall in sensitive geopolitical, geo- was a strong indicator of the need for economic, and geo-cultural a new international convention along zones, but also provoked a with the rise of globalization. The delay of this readjustment of the world order global level of tension in power did not only lead to frozen conflicts in sharing. sensitive geopolitical, geo-economic, and geo-cultural zones, but also provoked a In the first stage of this civilizational global level of tension in power sharing.51 transformation, Renaissance and According to Davutoğlu, the international Reformation achieved an intellectual society now stands at the edge of the revolution and mercantilism generated most comprehensive civilizational an economic sea change. Together they transformation in history whereby almost created a new political order- that is all accumulated human heritage in the Westphalian nation-state system different forms are becoming part of the established after the collapse of the most complex process of interaction in preceding traditional political order of the the form of globalization.52 The current Holy Roman Empire. In the second stage, global transformation, therefore, requires the Newtonian, Industrial, and French an understanding of the past, the present, revolutions transfigured the perceptions and the future as a continuum rather than of natural, economic, and political order, fragmentation in order to contribute to leading to two important developments: the restructuring of the international the Congress of Vienna as the European system into a more stable and just order.53 system of political order and colonialism In this context, the question of how as the new world order prevailing across Turkey can contribute and adapt itself to the globe. The power structure of the the transformation of international order European center expanded itself into the is very important.

54 Turkey’s Quest for a “New International Order”

Figure 1: Davutoğlu’s Civilizational World Order

Pax B Pax C Pax A CIVILIZATIONAL WORLD ORDER Comprehensive realization of order WORLD er ord Social consistency Geographical prevelence Historical continuity LD OR W cal zone raphi and cu Social, political and economic structure STATE geog ltu d ral, ate ec gr on te rder o CITY in al o m e oci ik th f s a s o n a ge d E ta p T s RCE o t -PE PTI l A s LF O it ir E N i T fi S c S a e l h t S s Philosophical and ethical p p s n a h a o i c dimensions of self-perception t e e Y r p G e T e I c e r o C e r P Ontology a Epistemology

p

y h

r

y

o

t

s P

i

e

r

H

c

- e

p

e

t

i

m

o

i

n T Axiolog

“Strategic Depth”: The “strategic mentality” in Strategic Depth Geopolitical Dimension of is a fundamental conceptualization like Turkey’s Civilizational Identity “self-perception” and, just as it does in the discussion of civilization, forms the The “self-perception”, which essence of his geopolitical discussion. Davutoğlu takes as the essence of This strategic mentality is, just as in civilizations and its association with the the conceptual narrative he visits in the world order, is explained more clearly analysis of civilization, a Turkey-specific in Strategic Depth where he considers framework in which political elites and the geopolitical dimension of Turkey’s different segments of the society are civilizational identity. The oft-used prompted to a new orientation.

55 Murat Yeşiltaş

order”. Even though Davutoğlu does The politics of restoration not offer a change that ignores the penetrates into the spirit idea of nation-state, he does to a great of Strategic Depth, for the extent revise the discriminatory qualities restoration of the “civilizational inherent to the idea of the nation-state. rupture” caused by the “old Indeed, the political unit of the nation- paradigm” can only be restored state, which Davutoğlu sees as one of the two prongs of the civilizational with a new understanding of crisis, is also causing a crisis for Turkey’s time and space. civilizational belonging.55

However, the “self-perception” of In Strategic Depth, geography is the Strategic Depth is more than just a fundamental point which correlates the state of individual consciousness; it is a re-configuration of Turkey’s civilizational geopolitical state that encompasses the identity with geopolitical language. varying forms of belongingness to a According to Davutoğlu, geography certain civilization, cultural identity, and is one of the foundational elements their manifestations through societies’ that makes an actual contribution to the formation of civilizations. perception of time and space. The politics However, geography can only turn of restoration penetrates into the spirit into a meaningful world (geopolitical) of Strategic Depth, for the restoration of imagination through civilizational the “civilizational rupture” caused by the belongingness,56 and civilizations develop “old paradigm” can only be restored with geographical perception from their own a new understanding of time and space. self-perceptions.57 Thus, the geopolitical Re-locating Turkey in the international dimension of Turkey’s civilizational order can only be achieved through the identity is being used as both an utilization of a new strategic mentality. inseparable part of an imagination of In this sense, the purpose of the politics ancient civilization and as a constituent of restoration is to overcome the multi- element of a new political unit. faceted geopolitical and geo-cultural The depth offered by Turkey’s crisis that has been created socially and geographical place is the result of historically at the level of the elites.54 civilizational continuity, while the The situation by itself necessitates a historical depth is a result of an re-interpretation of Turkey’s “strategic interregional geopolitical whole depth” through a new reading of the corresponding to a “central” position in elements of the nation-state, the religion- terms of world politics.58 This approach society-state, and the “international allows Davutoğlu the opportunity to

56 Turkey’s Quest for a “New International Order” establish a Turkey-centered systemic of the international system. As a result, geopolitical model while reinterpreting Davutoğlu, in Strategic Depth, draws a Turkey’s international status. In the geopolitical framework by which Turkey aftermath of the Cold War, geopolitical will adapt to the global system through gaps and a search for an order in the restoring its internal integrity and its global system brought the problem outer face that projects this integrity to of Turkey’s geopolitical status and its the outside, namely foreign policy. discursive position into question. The answer to this question is quite obvious The “Politics of Restoration” for Davutoğlu: Turkey, having inherited and Turkey’s Adaptation to the historical and geographic legacy of the , retains all of International Order the continuity elements of the more As a new phenomenon, the politics comprehensive Islamic civilization, and of restoration in the JDP era arises thus “possesses a central geopolitical through the criticism of the nation- status”.59 What is important here is the state, the republican security culture reunification of the Islamic world, which and the civilizational discourse, that undergoes geopolitical, geo-cultural, has been produced on the basis of the and geo-economic break-ups, around Kemalist ideology.60 Just as Davutoğlu Turkey only through a new geopolitical is a foundational figure for the status and responsibility. According to reproduction of Turkey in terms of Davutoğlu’s geopolitical vision, the first civilizational identity, he is also one of circle of this geographical super-structure the main actors behind the construction contains borders. The second one is to of the restoration discourse. However, connect geopolitical zones to each other; it is necessary to state that the idea of the third is to integrate the geopolitical restoration has become more frequently front lines and reservoirs. Each level used after 2011, when the JDP began to supports the “central” geographical consolidate its power. The restoration position of Turkey. In this sense, Strategic has also become a part of Recep Tayyip Depth handles the Islamic world both as Erdoğan’s discourse of “New Turkey” a geographic super structure, consisting after his election as President in August of inter-regional transitions, and a 2014. Therefore, what is meant by historical element as part of the same restoration is the process of restructuring civilization. At this point, civilization is the “old regime” and determining the one of the nodes of Strategic Depth’s idea principles to carry the establishment of of a geographic super-complex and is an the “New Turkey”. Davutoğlu’s main element that allows Turkey to be part idea for restoration, on the other hand,

57 Murat Yeşiltaş

may be summed up as “catching the experienced; as the referred restorations spirit of the time.”61 help the accumulation of the society, the state, and the civilization to prevail Davutoğlu first introduces his idea against current challenges, therefore of restoration primarily at a historical facilitating adaptation to the global level and asserts that there is a mutual transformation.63 Currently in the midst relationship between the historical of its fourth great restoration period, transformation of the international order Turkey has previously experienced three and Turkey’s adaptation to this process. great restoration periods. According to Davutoğlu, Turkey today is undergoing a new process of restoration The first was the Köprülü restoration, in order to adapt to the transformation which occurred reciprocal to the that the international system is Westphalian Order (1648) that allowed experiencing.62 Here, it may be said that for the modern world order to come with this idea of restoration Davutoğlu forward in Europe. The Köprülü establishes both an intellectual restoration represented a “new- and mental basis, and a historical traditional” form of restoration, which continuity through the Ottoman- reconstructed the tradition in the Turkish modernization processes. transition from the old to the modern, Historicity reflects the transformation and redefined the Ottoman Empire of the modern international order and within the new international order.64 In the restoration periods of the State the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars and of political understanding that and with the arrival of the Vienna order occurred as a response to the referred in 1815, the responses produced to the transformations on the axis of the challenges of modernity came out mostly Ottoman-Turkish history of politics; as an effort on the part of the Ottomans the intellectual level is the normative to adapt to this system. As a constituent manifestation of this restoration. In element of the modernization of this sense, as with any other social Ottoman-Turkey, the reforms, crises and transformations in different according to Davutoğlu, represent the periods of history in the international transition from ancient to modern in the order, the Ottomans also experienced world order. The second great restoration the connected “constitutive” periods - period was initiated by the struggle first from the transition of the old world for independence against imperialist order to modernity and then from forces in the War of Independence that modernity to the global world order. followed the First World War, which These constitutive periods are the times ended the 1815 Vienna Order and in which “great restorations” have been caused the collapse of the Ottoman state.

58 Turkey’s Quest for a “New International Order”

This restoration period was consolidated The Restoration of Domestic by the globalization of the international Politics order and by the establishment of the of Turkey as a fully independent In the speech Davutoğlu delivered member of this order and as a response during the JDP’s 1st Extraordinary to this change. The third great restoration Congress, where he elucidated nine main process of Turkey followed in order to headings of his restoration policy,67 the adjust to the new international order first dimension (in a general sense) was founded after the signing of the Versailles that of domestic politics. The purpose of Treaty and the end of World War II, and the restoration in domestic politics is to to adapt to the strategic choice of a multi- facilitate the discursive and institutional 65 party political system. transformation of the “Kemalist discourse The fourth period is the 21st century; of nation-state” that has formed the main which embodies all of the elements framework of the Republic’s historical of transition periods-from the old to modernization experience. There is the modern, from the modern to the a search for the reformulation of the global- and prepares the ground for the discursive and institutional instruments old to be rediscovered. This new period and webs that have come to the fore with is witnessing the restoration of both the the securitization of politics due to the international system on a global level dominating “security of the regime” idea and the regional system of which Turkey in Kemalist discourse. is a part. Considered historically, both of the Kemalist securitization technique Turkey’s domestic and foreign policies sits at the core of the inner ring of are undergoing a great restoration process Davutoğlu’s restoration of domestic as a response to other great “geopolitical policy restoration and helps the transformations”.66 restriction of freedoms in the “political sphere” built along the axis of threats.68 Davutoğlu’s restoration policy is mainly based on three principle dimensions, While the deepening of democracy each of which aims to transform Turkey will displace the “politics of security” in terms of political understanding and that has built up along the techno- structure, and each of which, at the same bureaucratic center, it will also time, wishes to position the dynamism necessitate the philosophical and that is liberated from this transformation, institutional restoration of the state as a power instrument in the changing and the bureaucracy. Just as there is the international system. The first part of purpose of toppling the old political the restoration in question involves the order which fictionalized the state as restoration of domestic politics. something disconnected from and

59 Murat Yeşiltaş

beyond the people, there is also an a supra-identity under the label of effort here to philosophically construct “Ottomanist” belongingness. A new a “new state ethics”. This “state ethics” identity imagination built along the will only be possible through further axis of the “national identity” was in deepening of democracy to the level of question during the second restoration freedoms and human dignity, and it will period experienced in the Republic. In institutionally only be possible with a the third restoration period, an identity new constitution. Therefore, the road to was introduced and explained through the restoration of domestic politics goes the static parameters of ideological through the elimination of clandestine identities during the Cold War.70 power relations “hidden” in different Because the periods during which these forms in different institutions both identities were built also directly became philosophically and institutionally, and the source of the state’s political actions, the reconstruction of the state within Davutoğlu defends that the changes, the context of “justice”, “freedom”, both at the mental and the constitutional and “institutional flexibility”.69 It is level, of the identity restoration during possible to say that Davutoğlu takes the the JDP period should be completed. concept of national will as a reference. It is understood that Davutoğlu’s Therefore, the restoration of domestic view of identity restoration has two politics requires not only the deepening essential dimensions. By “restoring” an of democracy but also the removal of a identity narrative that both excludes and force originating from an “untestable homogenizes an identity imagination will” that stands in opposition to the fortified by the nation-state paradigm, political will encouraged by the “national Davutoğlu states that the political will”. reference of the non-exclusionary new identity is the “identity of citizenship” Restoration of the State Identity and its social reference is the “identity and National Order of common history.”71 For this reason, identity restoration must first The second dimension of the frame be experienced in the nation-state’s drawn for democracy, human rights, understanding of “inflexible” identity. and the institutional re-establishment Historically speaking, the transition of the state in domestic politics is the from cohesive/eclectic old identities restoration of identity. In this sense, to the exclusionary/homogenizing during the first restoration period, modern nation-state identity has caused which occurred during the Tanzimat important drifts in Turkey’s historical period, there was an effort to construct civilization codes.

60 Turkey’s Quest for a “New International Order”

identity, which will become a source The purpose of foreign policy for the creation of a “democratic restoration is to increase identity” designed and adopted at a Turkey’s ability to adapt, as larger scale, it will also work to build a an “active subject”, to the new “regional democratic imagination” 73 transforming international along the same line. The situation order by redefining itself, and necessarily invites the displacement of to contribute in a constitutive the old paradigm by phasing out the Turkishness reference that unavoidably manner to the formation of the reproduced the political regime formed new world order by using its around and secularism, influence in the international and will procure the construction of balance of power. a new national identity on the axis of democratic pluralism. In other words, Davutoğlu argues that the will and power of togetherness, which Restoration of Foreign Policy and comes from sharing a common past and Regional Order a common experience, forms the basis of the identity restoration. While planning Foreign policy forms the third the identity of citizenship as the basis dimension of Davutoğlu’s idea of for the ethno-religious dimension restoration. The purpose of foreign of Turkey’s identity restoration, the policy restoration is to increase Turkey’s identity of common history should be ability to adapt, as an “active subject”, thought of as a common ground for to the transforming international order both the multiculturalism built around by redefining itself, and to contribute in “being from Turkey” (Türkiyelilik) a constitutive manner to the formation and as one that encompasses all of the of the new world order by using its societies who share the same geographic influence in the international balance basin, Turkey. Stated differently, the of power.74 Foreign policy restoration identity restoration built along the has three fundamental dimensions: line of a common history considers (i) reconstruction of the historical the different elements in the same imagination about the foreign policy geographic basin not as an “opposition” mentality and practices that have been or as “opposite sides”, but rather within constructed at the center of the secular “consubstantiality”.72 While Davutoğlu’s nation-state; (ii) reshaping Turkey’s restoration of identity necessitates geographic imagination; and (iii) the reformulation of the nation-state reorganizing Turkey’s place in the global

61 Murat Yeşiltaş

system by calibrating its political and determination of the viewpoint of that economic relations. Thus, by developing society of its place in the world.”78 a flexible geopolitical, geo-economic, Appearing as one of the fundamental and geo-cultural model, Turkey will principles of the JDP’s foreign policy, remove its passive/fringe element in the “zero problems with neighbors” international system and will eventually and “balance between freedom and contribute to the formation of a “pluralist security” take the lead as the practical international order”.75 According to sources of foreign policy restoration. Davutoğlu, a non-hierarchical world The aforementioned principles are order that is politically multipolar, important in two respects.79 Firstly, economically multi-centered, and they transformed Turkey into a more culturally multi-cultural, will allow for dynamic country by presenting a Turkey to use power parameters more framework of a practical political model, effectively.76 which led to deepening democracy The mentality dimension is the against the protectionist and defensive foundational dimension of foreign policy political attitudes of central actors in the restoration; in which a new perspective international system who were trying to is created through the reconstruction dominate through the post-9/11 security of a historical imagination and discourses and practices. Secondly, understanding of time. We come across by propping up the foreign policy with the dimension of mentality as framework on the principle of freedom, one of the “establishing parameters of rather than the security discourse, these civilizations”77 in Davutoğlu’s other two principles displaced the “historical works. The dimension of mentality coding” of Turkey with her neighbors, is mirrored in foreign policy as the and thus made possible a new “socio- acceptance of a new mentality to set political” kind of relationship.80 The “strategic orientation”. Hence, the situation allowed for the opportunity understanding that will direct Turkey’s to reformulate the different countries geopolitical, geo-economic, and geo- sharing the same historical continuity in cultural standing and state action must a large geographical basin, not as nation- be, “the consciousness as a common states against each other, but as parts product of historical accumulation, of the same history on a socio-cultural which contains the world of cultural, level. Undoubtedly, it is not accurate psychological, religious and social to say that such a restorative idea has values, and the geographic area wherein come to an end today within the context such an accumulation takes place and of Turkey’s present foreign policy is reflected, and the product of the parameters. The idea does, however,

62 Turkey’s Quest for a “New International Order” require attention from the point of the discourse, it also transformed Turkey “change” it creates in Turkey’s domestic from a country that followed the strategy and foreign policy paradigms. of maintaining the status quo, out of an impulse to protect one’s borders, to the The point of intersection between status of a more active country.81 the above idea and the politics of “zero problems” should be found in Turkey’s The second important area of changing border perspective. The restoration in foreign policy is that Turkey exclusionary understanding of space, has entered a new phase of “geographic which had been left to the devices imagination”. What Davutoğlu means of hegemonic discourse, not taking by restoration here is that it is necessary into account anything except for legal for Turkey to reposition its international borders and ignoring historical and standing in accordance with the cultural continuities, was set aside. changing parameters in a way that will Then, by opening to debate the issue reflect its historical and geographic of legality concerning the inter-state depth. The equivalent of this in foreign “border” concept, borders were brought policy principles is that of the “central into the center of foreign policy as a country” and the “new diplomatic style” 82 social construct at a sociological and that has been instated. In this way, for cultural level. This new understanding- geographic imagination, it is possible to especially with the pre- Arab Spring say that there is a restorative search in High Level Strategic Collaboration, terms of moving from a nation- state the reciprocal removal of visas, and the reference, the borders of which are set reconsideration of the understanding and homogenized on a piece of land, of “border” previously presented in to a transnational geopolitical category foreign policy via the newly created when moving toward civilization. As a economic mechanisms- allowed Turkey result, with the discourse of a central 83 to include its nation-state borders not country, the transformation that as a line separating it from neighboring was experienced during the Republic- countries, but rather as part of foreign where there was a switch from the scale policy mechanisms as a dynamic and of civilization to that of state- will be flexible social area that changes in reversed, and a search for moving from accordance with the international and the state scale to that of civilization will regional conjuncture. Therefore, while be in question. on the one hand it created an eclectic The third area of foreign policy understanding of borders that was on restoration is to be included as a the axis of democratization and further “global actor” in the process of the (in a balanced way) from the security reconstruction of the international order

63 Murat Yeşiltaş

through efficient diplomacy.84 One of “Civilizations not the fundamental events that Davutoğlu Civilization”: The Making of frequently emphasized during his tenure as Foreign Minister was that the a Multicultural World Order international system was in transition, and thus, frequent global crises would The politics of Turkey’s restoration be faced.85 As a matter of fact, the global sets an example for a discussion of the scale of the effects of regional crises in global order about how the institutional and normative dimension of the global the aftermath of the Cold War caused system applies to this reform. In this “three big earthquakes.”86 The first was sense, the international system, being the geopolitical earthquake following subject to reform, has opened up a the disintegration of the Soviet Union, discussion among political elites in which the second was the security earthquake87 they approach the matter from a “unified in the aftermath of 9/11, and the discourse.” For example, former President last was the economic crises which Abdullah Gül iterated the need for a contributed to the econo-political reform in the international system at the earthquake88 alongside the Arab Spring. level of “three-dimensional” “imperfect Directly affected by the period of the equilibrium” where normalization three earthquakes and their results, at political, economic and cultural Turkey was unprepared for the first levels requires “a new understanding earthquake and was late to adapt to of equality.”91 According to President the transformation of the international Erdoğan, the global community is in system. It tried to respond to the second need of new basic freedoms, justice, and by making a choice along the lines of “awareness of global civilization” based on 89 freedom and security. For the third, equality. Alongside his universal call for a Turkey attempted to adapt through an new global system, Erdoğan emphasizes axis of democratic norm-value in its that human beings take precedence 90 foreign policy perspective. Attempting in this new order from an ethical to unite this adaptation period with perspective in the global civilization criticism of the order, Turkey advocated politics.92 According to Erdoğan’s new that restoration is necessary, not just global civilizational politics, there at the national level, but on a regional needs to be not a “new civilizational and a global scale as well. This strategy design, but rather, a guide which aims also forms the basis of Turkey’s critique to stop the dangerous path humanity is of a West-centered global order and facing.”93 In this sense, Turkey, as other its political, economic, and cultural emerging countries voice their demands monopoly and claim of universality. for reforms in the international order,

64 Turkey’s Quest for a “New International Order” appears to be in search of a “post-western The demand to reform the UN international system”. However, Turkey’s system is not limited to the question criticism of the international order sits of comprehensive fair representation. upon a much more cultural vein as Another problem that has become compared to the others since the country apparent over time is Turkey’s critique frequently verbalizes its claim of being of the UN Security Council’s lack of the representative of a non-Western effectiveness. This issue has surfaced civilization. even more in the aftermath of the Arab At the same time, Erdoğan’s demand Spring. The civil war in is an for a reform in the current global example of how Turkey and how the system is three-dimensional, and is also regional order have created a tectonic aligned with Davutoğlu’s “civilization- shift. For example, Erdoğan warns that based” perspective. Firstly, from Turkey’s “if we leave the issue to the vote of one perspective, today’s international system or two members” (referring to Russia is problematic and suffers from bad and China) “of the permanent five at governance. The UN governance model the United Nations Security Council, is seen as an example of such problems, then the aftermath of Syria will be very as its “veto” order troubles the global hazardous and humanity will write it system when it comes to critical decision- down in history with unforgettable making processes. Under the umbrella remarks”.95 Erdoğan thus essentially of the UN “the representative power calls for the elimination of the veto must be just” and its applicability must power of the permanent members (P5) be “inclusive and overarching” across and of the unanimity requirement to the regions. This type of renewal will pass resolutions. Therefore, the P5’s not only facilitate the limitation of sub- individual veto power is one of the key regional order crises94 but also reposition pillars of today’s international system, Turkey’s rise in the international system. and Turkey believes it is responsible for the UN’s relative lack of success over the past decades. Turkey’s criticism of the Nevertheless, the aforementioned international order sits upon cultural vein in Turkey’s search for a a much more cultural vein as new international order goes beyond compared to the others since the the country’s demands for political and country frequently verbalizes its economic reforms. As a result, one of the claim of being the representative most important criticisms regarding the of a non-Western civilization. UN Security Council’s decision-making capacity in global security issues is that

65 Murat Yeşiltaş

the Council only focuses on material system in which all can co-exist; a power while seeking security throughout “cooperative system” that is inclusive and the world. To this end, an advisor from more representative as a form of global the Prime Minister’s office denoted governance. A new global governance the following point: “When creating model is, therefore, one that is not problem-solving procedures, actors who restricted to a “single society, particular are able to use soft power methods such countries, continents or nations, but one as language, belief, understanding of that is inclusive and looks out for the justice, and principles should be included interest of the entire humanity.”98 In this in the decision-making process.”96 sense, the new global order for Turkey should be: legitimate, transparent, and democratic; representative and The reconstruction of Turkey completely open to participation; should within the global cultural work to solve inactive and active conflicts order is incorporated to the in order to increase stability; and finally, construction of a global should lean on the principles of security civilization at a larger scale. and reform for everyone.99 The reconstruction of Turkey within This statement and the like, especially the global cultural order is incorporated coming from Erdoğan and Davutoğlu’s to the construction of a global civilization analysis, project a view in which Turkey’s at a larger scale. The reconstruction post-western international order vies for process has two dimensions: an inward a pluralistic, diverse, and interdependent one and an outward one that allows system. This rhetoric may be related Turkey’s integration with the global to the politics of restoration at the system. Erdoğan envisioned this system point of a civilizational order in which and explained it as follows: “At this Turkey will take on a role as an active point, history and destiny give Turkey a country- for Davutoğlu, civilizational different duty and responsibility. Having transformation is the final stage of the borne the mission of keeping together world order.97 This is a search about a different societies for centuries and to “cultural order” that integrates different build bridges between the East and historic entities to the system rather West, our country can play a leading role than reading the global system in terms in the development and spread of a new of norms, understandings and practices civilizational consciousness in the new 100 through a single historical perspective. period.” From this perspective, Turkey promotes The inward dimension is about what a multi-cultural and heterogeneous kind of a place Turkey will have within

66 Turkey’s Quest for a “New International Order” the international system as a country that cultural civilizational order is not just has blended historical and civilizational a way of expressing something about elements of continuity. Especially in Islamic civilization, but is, in fact, a much the last period, the concept of a “New more comprehensive discourse which Turkey,” which has begun to gain contains all civilizations. Because of this, popularity among the public, also signifies the “New Turkey” discourse mixed with a distancing from the old paradigm of the civilizational paradigm differentiates civilizational representation. While this the post-Western international order new civilizational perspective objects to understanding. Turkey joining the international order as According to Davutoğlu, in a period an integral part of the Western polity, it where globalization offers a re-blending also constructs Turkey as a historical and of the continuity elements of the civilizational part of Islam within the old cultural basins, a Euro-centered international order. civilizational desire will not keep its hegemonic position for long. For this The multi-cultural civilizational reason, the cultural order must assume order is not just a way of a character that is much more pluralist expressing something about and all institutional mechanisms Islamic civilization, but that will be constructed around this is, in fact, a much more cultural order should be redesigned comprehensive discourse which to be able to carry this dynamism.101 contains all civilizations. Globalization, prompting all societies in a multifaceted manner, also transforms the differentiation among lines of The second dimension of the cultural civilization into a point of critique for order related to Turkey is its outward Turkey. The Chinese, Muslims, Indians, approach, and reflects an interaction Africans, and Latin Americans have come and search for transformation along to be participants in the production of the civilizational axis as a way that will history because of the dynamic character continue the real power transformation of globalization, and Turkey is in search in the global system. This kind of search, of becoming a part of this historical which stands against the use of the production.102 The imagination of a word civilization to be used separately democratic and pluralist global system for humanity, loudly states that non- introduces Turkey’s adaptation to the Western civilizations have entered global order through a critical integration a period of revitalization through by adding another dimension to the globalization. In this sense, the multi- JDP’s civilizational discourse. It also

67 Murat Yeşiltaş

foresees a reciprocal interaction process international order that was operating where Islamic civilization’s historically over the West-centered politics and established normative values (war, peace, security architecture, as the search for security, etc.) are included in the present a politically multi-polar and culturally international order. In place of hegemony cosmopolitan system. Fundamentally, it for the success of this civilization- was defined as a system where the West’s based shared existence, it calls for an material and ideological superiority international order that is versatile, eventually faded and in its place the multi-dimensional, comprehensive, need for a normative global consensus pluralist, and democratic. gradually increased.

Conclusion Turkey expressed the need to reform the institutions Just as the 2000s began a new period for of the international system Turkey’s domestic and foreign policy, it by opposing the European- also brought a period of transformation in centered reading of history and the real power elements within the global proposing the construction of a system. In the global order of the period, more pluralist order. in opposition to the Atlantic-centered international order, a Pacific-centered reformist understanding followed the Parallel to this, thinking that the current reaction rising from Europe. The new order was facing a depression, Turkey has rising powers who were beginning to since the 2000s placed its criticism of the increase their real power capacity in this order within a political and economic period also brought a political, economic, discourse as well as a civilizational one. and cultural “dissident discourse” to the In this sense, Turkey entered a search for present structure of the international the reconstruction of the international order. During this period, the “rising order around a model of “good global powers” proclaimed the need for governance”103 that would be politically reforming the international system while multipolar, economically multi- also concentrating their critiques on the centered, and in terms of civilization weaknesses of the “comprehensiveness” would be multi-cultural and pluralist.104 and “effectiveness” of the UN. The search The goal of this search was the removal at the state level was defined by those of the West-centered emphasis from studying international relations as the the world order narrative of the present pursuit of a post-Western international international system. Because Turkey order. This order came up against the advances this effort in our present world

68 Turkey’s Quest for a “New International Order”

(of globalization), the old cultures and politics”, and thus both historicized and civilizations have entered a period of then recreated it along the axis of the renewal and that very globalization “New Turkey” discourse. In this sense, takes different cultures from being the “New Turkey” discourse reproduced passive followers of modernization and the civilizational identity part of Turkey’s changes them into active subjects. This international order narrative by blending situation by itself gave Turkey’s search it with an anti-hegemonic “dissident” for an identity within the international discourse. Civilization came to be system a new direction. For this reason, referred to as an “actor” at the systemic Turkey expressed the need to reform the level. There are two main discerning institutions of the international system dimensions of the civilizational by opposing the European-centered identity: first, it caused the birth of a reading of history and proposing the new geopolitical vision blended with construction of a more pluralist order. Islamic solidarity discourse and shaped This understanding bears similarities around the institutional and normative to the post-Western international order representations of the Islamic world at a paradigm in Turkish foreign policy.105 historical level. Second, it is the start of a of viewing Islamic civilization’s How the representation of normative-based order narrative as a Islamic civilization will be value in establishing the multi-cultural transferred into the international structure of world order. To conclude, as system with the rise of has been argued in this article, when these Turkey and what the relevant two factors are taken jointly with Turkey’s mechanisms would be remain “politics of restoration”, it can be said that as open-ended questions. civilization is used as an institution and an actor in international politics. This situation in and of itself shows Turkey’s However, the increased emphasis on socialization with international society civilization in Turkish foreign policy at a fundamental level. This socialization fundamentally affected Turkey’s cultural will determine the framework of criticism of the international order Turkey’s search for international order and caused the country to change its from this point on. However, how the foreign policy paradigm, which coded representation of Islamic civilization the Western system as the final target of will be transferred into the international an advancing political understanding. system with the rise of Turkey and what Foreign policy makers and political the relevant mechanisms would be elites defined this period as “restoration remain as open-ended questions.

69 Murat Yeşiltaş

Endnotes

1 Murat Yeşiltaş, “Stratejik Derinlik’in Jeopolitik Tahayyülü”, Türkiye Ortadoğu Araştırmaları Dergisi, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2014), pp. 25-56. 2 Hasan Basri Yalçın, “Türkiye’nin ‘Yeni’ Dış Politika Eğilim ve Davranışları: Yapısal Realist Bir Okuma”, Bilgi: Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Summer 2011), pp. 35-60. 3 Murat Yeşiltaş and Ali Balcı, “A Dictionary of Turkish Foreign Policy in the AK Party Era: A Conceptual Map”, SAM Papers, No 7 (May 2013), pp. 1-36. 4 Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Küresel Barış Vizyonu, İstanbul; Medeniyetler İttifakı Yayınları, Medeniyetler İttifakı Enstitüsü, 2012. 5 Ahmet Okumuş, “Kavramların Stratejisi, Stratejinin Kavramları: Stratejik Derinlik’in Felsefi Kavramsal Arka Planı”, in Talha Köse, Ahmet Okumuş ve Burhanettin Duran (eds.), Stratejik Zihniyet: Kuramdan Eyleme Ahmet Davutoğlu ve Stratejik Derinlik, İstanbul, Küre Yayınları, 2014, p. 36. 6 “Erdoğan: Dünya Beşten Büyüktür”, Al Jazeera Türkçe, 24 September 2014. 7 Ali Balcı and Nebi Miş, “Turkey’s Role in the Alliance of Civilizations: A New Perspective in Turkish Foreign Policy?” , Turkish Studies, Vol. 9, No. 3 (2008), pp. 387-406. 8 For the few detailed studies on this topic see, Nurullah Ardıç, “Modernite, Kimlik, Siyaset: Ahmet Davutoğlu’nun Medeniyet Söylemi”, in Köse, Okumuş ve Duran (eds.) Stratejik Zihniyet, pp. 47-89; Nurullah Ardıç, “Civilizational Discourse, the ‘Alliance of Civilizations’ and Turkish Foreign Policy”, Insight Turkey, Vol. 16, No. 3, (2014), pp. 101-122. 9 For civilization-based analyses and for analyses about its relations to Turkish foreign policy see, Burhanettin Duran, “Understanding AK Party’s Identity Discourse: A Civilizational Discourse and Its Limits”, Insight Turkey, Vol. 15, No. 1 (2013), pp. 91-109; Pinar Bilgin and Ali Bilgiç, “Turkey’s “New” Foreign Policy toward Eurasia”, Eurasian Geography and Economics, Vol. 52, No. 2 (2011), pp. 173-1995; Martina Warning and Tuncay Kardas, “The Impact of Changing Islamic Identity on Turkey’s New Foreign Policy”, Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol. 10, No. 2-3 (Summer-Fall 2011), pp. 123- 140. 10 Ahmet Davutoğlu, Alternative Paradigms: The Impact of Islamic and Western Weltanschauungs on Political Theory, Lanham: University Press of America, 1994. 11 Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Foreword: Civilizational Revival in the Global Age”, in Fred Dallmayr, M. Akif Kayapınar and İsmail Yaylacı (eds.), Civilization and World Order: Geopolitics and Cultural Difference, Maryland, Lexington Books, 2014, p. vii. 12 Davutoğlu, “The Formative Parameters of Civilizations”, p. 91. 13 I would like to thank one of the reviewers for his/her suggestion about the English translation of ben-idraki (self-perception) as self-cognizance. S/he argues that “Davutoğlu’s term “ben-idraki” refers to an unmistakable understanding of the self. It is not developed in relation to others as in the case of identity. It emerges from inside as a reality and the subject just defines itself with that recognitions. Therefore, I would suggest employing the term of self-cognizance rather than self-perception. This is not only semantic. It directly changes

70 Turkey’s Quest for a “New International Order”

the meaning of Davutoğlu’s view.” The definition is acceptable, but in his other articles in English, Davutoğlu uses self-perception. Therefore, I prefer his translation of ben-idraki. 14 Davutoğlu, Alternative Paradigms. 15 Ahmet Davutoğlu, Civilizational Transformation and the Muslim World, Quill, Kuala Lumpur, Mahir Publications, 1994, p. 8. 16 Ahmet Davutoğlu, Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Konumu, İstanbul, Küre Yayınları, 2001. 17 Davutoğlu, Civilizational Transformation and the Muslim World, p. 8. 18 Ahmet Davutoğlu “Medeniyetlerin Ben-idraki”, Divan: Disiplinlerarası Çalışmalar Dergisi, Vol. 2, No. 4, (1997), pp. 1-53. 19 Davutoğlu, “The Formative Parameters of Civilizations”. 20 Davutoğlu, Stratejik Derinlik. 21 İbrahim Kalın, “Dünya Görüşü, Varlık Tasavvuru ve Düzen Fikri: Medeniyet Kavramına Giriş”, Divan Disiplinlerarası Çalışmalar Dergisi, Vol. 15, No. 29, (2010), pp. 5-12. 22 Ahmet Davutoğlu, “İslam Dünyasının Siyasi Dönüşümü: Dönemlendirme ve Projeksiyon”, Divan: Disiplinlerarası Çalışmalar Dergisi, Sayı. 12, (2002), pp. 26-35. 23 Francis Fukuyama, “The End of History”, The National Interest, No. 16 (Summer 1989), pp. 21-28. 24 Samuel Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3, (Summer 1993), pp. 22-49. 25 Ahmet Davutoğlu, “The Clash of Interests: An Explanation of World (Dis)order”, Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 2, No. 4 (1998), pp. 1-17. 26 Davutoğlu, Stratejik Derinlik. 27 Davutoğlu, Civilizational Transformation and the Muslim World, p. iii. 28 Davutoğlu, “Medeniyetlerin Ben-İdraki”, p. 2. 29 Davutoğlu, Civilizational Transformation and the Muslim World. 30 Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Philosophical and Institutional Dimension of Secularism: A Comparative Perspective”, in John L. Esposito and Azzam Tamimi (eds.), Islam and Secularism in the Middle East, NYU Press, 2000, p. 172. 31 Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Dünya Sisteminin Yeniden Yapılanması”, İzlenim, (Şubat 1993), p. 86. 32 Davutoğlu, “Medeniyetlerin Ben-İdraki”, p. 13. 33 Scott Morrison, “Muslim Selbstverständnis: Ahmet Davutoğlu answers Husserl’s Crisis of European Sciences”, The Muslim World, Vol. 104, No. 1-2 (January-April 2014), pp.150– 170. 34 Davutoğlu, “Medeniyetlerin Ben-İdraki”, p. 13. 35 Ibid., p. 10.

71 Murat Yeşiltaş

36 Ibid., p. 11. 37 Ibid., p. 17. 38 Ardıç, “Modernite, Kimlik, Siyaset”, p. 73. 39 Davutoğlu, “Medeniyetlerin Ben-İdraki”, p. 4. 40 Susan Buck-Morss, “Civilizations”, Political Concepts A Critical Lexicon, p. 1, at http:// www.politicalconcepts.org/civilization-susan-buck-morss/ (last visited 15 February 2015). 41 Davutoğlu, “The Formative Parameters of Civilizations”, pp. 34-38. 42 Davutoğlu, “Medeniyetlerin Ben İdraki”. 43 Davutoğlu, “The Formative Parameters of Civilizations”, pp. 91-94. 44 Ibid., p. 84. 45 Davutoğlu, “Medeniyetlerin Ben İdraki”. 46 Davutoğlu, “Philosophical and Institutional Dimensions of Secularization”. 47 Davutoğlu, “The Formative Parameters of Civilizations”, p. 87. 48 Ibid., p. 88. 49 Davutoğlu, Civilizational Transformation and the Muslim World. 50 Ibid. 51 Davutoğlu, Stratejik Derinlik. 52 Ahmet Davutoğlu, Küresel Bunalım, İstanbul, Küre Yayınları, 2002. 53 Davutoğlu, “The Formative Parameters of Civilizations”, pp. 91-94. 54 Davutoğlu, Stratejik Derinlik, p. 83. 55 Murat Yeşiltaş, “Türkiye’yi Stratejileştirmek: Stratejik Derinlik’in Jeopolitik Tahayyülü”; Davutoğlu, Civilizational Transformation and the Muslim World. 56 Davutoğlu, Stratejik Derinlik, p. 97. 57 Ibid., p. 101. 58 Ibid., p. 22. 59 Ibid. 60 Murat Yeşiltaş, “The New Era in Turkish Foreign Policy: Critiques and Challenges”, Insight Turkey, Vol. 16, No. 3 (2014), pp. 25-37. 61 Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Büyük Restorasyon: Kadim’den Küreselleşmeye Yeni Siyaset Anlayışımız”, Diyarbakır Dicle Üniversitesi, 15 Mart 2013; Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Türkiye’nin Restorasyonu: Güçlü Demokrasi, Dinamik Ekonomi, Etkin Diplomasi”, SAM Vision Papers, No.7 (Ağustos 2014). 62 Davutoğlu, “Büyük Restorasyon”. 63 For an evaluation of these elements from angles of comparative civilization history and

72 Turkey’s Quest for a “New International Order”

strategic inclusiveness see, Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Genel Dünya Tarihi içinde Osmanlı’nın Yeri: Metodolojik Meseleler ve Osmanlı Tarihi’nin Yeniden Yorumlanması”, in Halil İnalcık (ed.), Osmanlı, Ankara, 1999, c. 7, pp. 674-680; Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Medeniyetlerarası Etkileşim ve Osmanlı”, Divan-Disiplinlerarası Çalışmaları Dergisi, Vol. 4, No. 7 (1999/2) pp. 1-50. 64 Davutoğlu, “Uluslararası Dönüşümler ve Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Osmanlı-Türk Diplomasinin Süreklilik Unsurları”, in Türkler, Vol. 17, Ankara,Yeni Türkiye Yayınları (2002), pp. 193-216. 65 Davutoğlu, “Türkiye’nin Restorasyonu”. 66 Davutoğlu, “Büyük Restorasyon”. 67 Ahmet Davutoğlu, “AK Parti 1. Olağanüstü Büyük Kurultayı Konuşması”, Ankara (27 Ağustos 2014), at https://www.akparti.org.tr/site/haberler/sayin-davutoglunun-ak-parti-1.- olagustu-buyuk-kurultayinda-yaptigi-konusman/66351#1 (last visited 21 February 2015). 68 Ahmet Davutoğlu, “VI. Büyükelçiler Konferansının Açılış Oturumunda Yapılan Konuşma”, Ankara (13 Ocak 2014), at http://www.mfa.gov.tr/disisleri-bakani-sayin-ahmet-davutoglu_ nun-vi_-buyukelciler-konferansinin-acilis-oturumunda-yaptiklari-konusma_-13-ocak- 2014_-an.tr.mfa, (last visited 18 February 2015). 69 Ibid. 70 Davutoğlu, “Uluslararası Dönüşümler ve Osmanlıdan Günümüze Osmanlı-Türk Diplomasinin Süreklilik Unsurları”. 71 Ahmet Davutoğlu, AK Parti 1. Olağanüstü Büyük Kurultayı Konuşması”, Ankara (27 Ağustos 2014) at https://www.akparti.org.tr/site/haberler/sayin-davutoglunun-ak-parti-1.- olagustu-buyuk-kurultayinda-yaptigi-konusman/66351#1 (last visited 21 February 2015). 72 Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Osmanlı’dan Arınma ya da ‘Tarihsizleşme’ Sürecinde Türk-Ermeni İlişkileri: ‘Adil Hafıza’ Mümkün mü?”, Turkish Policy Quarterly, Vol. 13, No.1 (Spring 2014), p. 3. 73 Davutoğlu, “Büyük Restorasyon: Kadim’den Küreselleşmeye Yeni Siyaset Anlayışımız”. 74 Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Türkiye’nin Restorasyonu”. 75 Ahmet Davutoglu, “Turkish Vision of Regional and Global Order”, Political Reflection, Vol. 1, No. 2 (2010), pp. 38–50. 76 Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Küresel Yönetişim”, SAM Vision Papers, No. 2 (Mart 2012); Ahmet Davutoglu, “Principles of Turkish Foreign Policy and Regional Political Structure”, SAM Vision Paper, No. 3 (April 2012), pp. 3–10; Davutoğlu, “Turkish Vision of Regional and Global Order”. 77 Davutoğlu, Stratejik Derinlik. 78 Ibid., p. 29. 79 Davutoğlu, “Vision 2023: Turkey’s Foreign Policy Objectives”, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey at the Turkey Investor Conference: The road to 2023 organized by Goldman Sachs, London, November 22, 2011.

73 Murat Yeşiltaş

80 Davutoğlu, “Turkish Foreign Policy and the EU in 2010”, Turkish Policy Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 3 (2011), pp. 11–17. 81 Ahmet Davutoğlu, “2012’de Türk Dış Politikası ve Gelecek Ufku”, at http://www.sde.org. tr/tr/newsdetail/-2012de-turk-dis-politikasi-ve-gelecek-ufku-konferansi/3237 (last visited 15 February 2015). 82 Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Türkiye Merkez Ülke Olmalı”, Radikal, 26 February 2004. 83 Ali Aslan, The Westphalian Moment in Turkey: From Civilization to State (forthcoming) 84 Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Türk Dış Politikası Konuşması”, Stratejik ve Uluslararası Çalışmalar Merkezi, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdCsd4Ak_Ak (last visited 22 February 2015). 85 Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Interview”, AUC Cairo Review, at http://www.aucegypt.edu/ gapp/ cairoreview/pages/articleDetails.aspx?aid¼143 (last visited 11 March 2015); Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Turkish Vision of Regional and Global Order”, Political Reflection, Vol. 1, No. 2 (2010), pp. 38–50; Ahmet Davutoğlu Türk Dış Politikası Konuşması, Fransa Dış Politika Enstitüsü, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcspeWy8CfA (last visited 18 February 2015). 86 Ahmet Davutoğlu, “The Three Major Earthquakes in the International System and Turkey”, The International Spectator, Vol. 48, No. 2 (June 2013), pp. 1–11. 87 Davutoğlu, Küresel Bunalım. 88 Davutoğlu, “The Three Major Earthquakes in the International System and Turkey”, pp. 1–11. 89 Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Dış Politika Değerlendirme Konuşması”, Ankara, TBMM, 15 Aralık 2013, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OceefOTwPSI (last visited 23 February 2015). 90 Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Türk Dış Politikasının İlkeleri ve Bölgesel Siyasal Yapılanma”, SAM Vision Papers, No. 3 (Ağustos 2012). 91 Abdullah Gül, “Turkey, Europe and the International System to 2025”, Chatham House, at http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Meetings/Meeting%20 Transcripts/081110gul.pdf (last visited 17 February 2015). 92 Erdoğan, Küresel Barış Vizyonu. 93 Ibid., p. 45. 94 Davutoğlu, “Küresel Yönetişim”, pp. 8-10. 95 Turkey calls for UN Security Council reform over failure to pressure Syria”, The Guardian, 13 October 2012. 96 İsmail Cesur, “BM Güvenlik Konseyi reformu ve Türkiye’nin önemi”, Yeni Şafak, 29 August 2013. 97 Davutoğlu, Civilizational Transformation and The Muslim World. 98 Erdoğan, Küresel Barış Vizyonu.

74 Turkey’s Quest for a “New International Order”

99 Murat Yeşiltaş, “Transformation of the Geopolitical Vision in Turhisk Foreign Policy”, Turkish Studies, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2013, p. 675. 100 Erdoğan, Küresel Barış Vizyonu, p. 23. 101 Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Turkey’s Mediation: Critical Reflection from the Field”, Middle East Policy, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Spring 2013), pp. 83-90. 102 Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Küresel Yönetişim”, SAM Vision Papers, No. 2 (Mart 2012). 103 Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Turkish Vision of Regional and Global Order: Theoretical Background and Practical Implementation”, Political Reflection, Vol. 1, No. 2 (June-July-August 2010), pp. 36-50. 104 Emel Parlar Dal, “On Turkey’s Trail as a “Rising Middle Power” in the Network of Global Governance: Preferences, Capabilities, and Strategies”, Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Winter 2015) pp. 107-136 105 Emel Parlar Dal, “Arap Ayaklanmaları Ekseninde Türk dış politikasındaki Dönüşüm ve Liberal Uluslararası Düzen”, in Özden Zeynep Oktav & Helin Sarı (eds.), Türk Dış Politikasında Değişim: Fırsatlar, Riskler ve Krizler, İstanbul, Nobel Yayınları, (2015), pp. 85- 112.

75