Afro Eurasian Studies, Vol. 1, Issue 1, Spring 2012, 195-213 The Concept of “Middle Power” and the Recent Turkish Foreign Policy Activism Hasan Basri Yalçın* Abstract This study examines the concept of “middle power” and the possi- ble applicability of this concept within the framework of Turkish foreign policy. An increasing number of publications on the sub- ject of Turkish foreign policy attempt to frame it by using different characterizations. One of these is related to the concept of “middle power.” The new activism of Turkey in its immediate neighborhood is generally considered as an indication of a transformation in its foreign policy orientation and behavior. As a contribution to this kind of effort, this study tries to develop a comprehensive definition of the term of “middle power” and explores how this fits in with the so called “new Turkish foreign policy.” It argues that Turkey, as a regionally significant actor that permanently accumulates material power capabilities, has tried to gain a central role in the dominant international system through its role as a middle power. The study further claims that the new definition of Turkey by foreign policy elites as a “pivotal” state clearly fits the expectations of a state with ‘middle power status’. However, it also highlights that the desire of Turkish foreign policy elites is not independent from the material power capabilities that the state possesses. Recent increase in Turk- ish material capabilities constitutes a significant factor in shaping Turkey’s foreign policy desires. Keywords: Middle Power, Turkish Foreign Policy, Pro-Active Diplomacy. * İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sci- ences, Department of International Relations, Halkalı, İstanbul, Tukey. E-Mail: [email protected] 195 Introduction The recently increasing Turkish foreign policy activity, not only in its immediate neighborhood, but also with regard to most of the central issues of international politics has drawn increased attention from both academic and policy practice circles. Most of those experts involved di- rectly with these issues believe that Turkish foreign policy is assuming a new form and they are attempting to describe the phenomenon so as to arrive at an understanding about its meaning for the coming future of Turkey and its relations with both its immediate neighboring regions and the United States. There are large numbers of definitions pertaining to this new activity in Turkish foreign policy. Several concepts like, regional power, regional hegemon, and pivotal state are applied to the case of Turkish foreign policy. One of these terms includes the concept of “middle power.” This study aims to contribute to the efforts of defining the current status of Turkey in world politics. It tries to understand whether Turkey can be truly considered as a “middle power.” With this aim in mind, the study first tries to develop a working definition of the concept of “middle power.” As a concept first developed mostly by practitioners of foreign policy in countries like Canada and Australia, this concept necessitates deeper scholarly attention. The study asks the question of how a working definition of ‘middle power’ can be developed. It argues that two approaches to the concept in the literature (realist and liberal),1 although treated as alternatives of each other, are in reality two sides of the same coin. In fact, the realist approach answers the question of whether “a state can be considered as a middle power” while the liberal approach answers the question of whether “a state considers itself as a middle power?” In order to have a better understanding of the concept and a better chance of arriving at an applicable concept, one has to take these two dimensions of the concept into account. Based on such a view of the existing literature, the study tries to de- velop a working definition of the concept by combining both dimensions in an appropriate way. A state may hold enough material capabilities to consider itself a middle power but in order to take full advantage of that position, the same state should identify itself as a middle power in search of a globally autonomous position. This concept may be applied to recent Turkish foreign policy activ- ism to see whether one can identify it in a more comprehensive sense that 196 may enrich our understanding of the proactive diplomatic efforts of Tur- key. The term suggests that Turkey holds enough capabilities to classify it as a middle power analytically, but more importantly, the new Turkish for- eign policy leadership contemplates a more autonomously global role for Turkey. That role is more than just a regional power position or a loyal ally status as may be deemed valuable by some other great power. With its new concepts like ‘zero-problem’ and ‘soft-power diplomacy’, Turkey seems as a good fit for the ‘middle power status’ described above. After this introduction, the second section of the study introduces the origins of the middle power concept. The third section reviews the literature surrounding the concept and tries to combine the key ideas in a way that will prove meaningful for the reader. The fourth section considers the applicability of the concept to the case of Turkish foreign policy and tries to reveal its explanatory power. The fifth section makes a number of concluding remarks. The Roots of the Concept The concept of middle powers in the international system and their behaviors has been the subject of long debate. The first use of the phrase can be traced back to the 15th century European state system. At that point of history, the Mayor of Milan was the first person to use the concept in a similar sense to how it might be employed today (Rudd, 2006). He divided the world into three types of states. These were: grandissime (em- pires) which may be called great powers or superpowers, mezano (middle powers), and piccioli (small powers). His definition of the middle power was simple. According to his definition middle powers are the states those “have sufficient strength and authority to stand on their own without the need of help from others (Rudd, 2006).” The implication of the concept with current usage in more recent times can be found dating from the immediate end of the World War II. Canada appeared as the first nation trying to insert the concept of middle power into its foreign policy agenda. It seems that the term had been pro- moted by the foreign policy makers of Canada in order to increase the influence of the nation in the international arena despite its lack of certain material capabilitiesto compete with the traditional great powers (Welsh, 2004). Canada as a partner in the Western camp of the Cold War and as a junior partner of the United States appeared as attracted to the concept in order to create an effective foreign policy status that would elevate it to 197 a more influential position in international affairs than otherwise would have been the case. According to the Canadian definition of the concept, Canada was a middle power because it was a junior partner in larger alliances and yet was actively involved in resolving disputes even outside its own region. The Suez Crisis was the first instance in which Canada found an opportunity to successfully apply its new foreign policy tools. Canada went to legiti- mize its policy with some basic arguments that are related to its status of power within the international system and its historical background. Ac- cording to this thinking, Canada was not a former colonial power, so, it would follow neutral policies in the struggles between the colonial powers and anti-colonial movements. The neutrality of Canada was presented as a ‘soft power tool’. In order to foster this image, Canada actively supported the interests of smaller nations in the United Nations and worked against the dominance of the superpowers. Another significant dimension of Ca- nadian foreign policy was based upon her tendency to offer support for humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts around the world. Canada was the first, but not the last, example of this sort of foreign policy making. Since then, many examples of countries which share similar positions and historical backgrounds to those of Canada began following the same path. Australia, post-apartheid South Africa, Japan, Brazil and many others are offered as the new examples of middle powers. However, the meaning of the concept almost always remained at least ambiguous. Especially because of the practice- dependent development of the concept, it is difficult to say that such developments could be expressed through the prism of a theoretically mature concept useful in offering a satisfac- tory analysis of the uniformity of the behavior of such states. Beyond the practical level, some theoretical work on conceptualization is required to use this concept in a meaningful sense in foreign policy analysis. In fact, the debate over the meaning and applicability of the concept has drawn significant attention from academic circles and the following section of- fers an effort to display the differing conceptualization of the concept in different approaches. The Literature on the Concept of Middle Power The concept of ‘middle power’ is one of the most controversial terms in the study of foreign policy. We can enumerate two basic reasons for 198 the dispute over the term; those are directly related to the semantical in- terpretation of the two words constituting the conceptual phrase: middle and power. The first one is related to its nature and origin as a relational concept. The term middle is a relative one. In order to define “middle” one has to first define “great” and small. Without identifying what is “great” and what is “small” one cannot identify the “middle.” The second problem is related to the meaning of the concept of power in the wider social sci- ences.