Regime change in the Aegean after the Second World War: Reconsidering the foreign influence

According to the conventional view held by the Greek sources, the United States was involved in the establishment of the 1967 Greek junta and helped sustain it. Similarly, the existing literature on the 1950 Turkish transition to democracy holds that one of the determinants of democratization was the desire to become part of the Western alliance. Thus, quite ironically, the new world order set out by the US at the end of the Second World War is seen as the cause of diametrically opposite regimes in two neighboring countries belonging to the same alliance. Whereas in Greece it is seen responsible from an authoritarian regime, in Turkey it is believed to be the cause of democracy.What was then the real effect of US foreign policy in Greek and Turkish regimes? In my paper, I will argue that the main dynamic behind these regimes was domestic, rather than international. In the Turkish case, the democratic regime was demanded by a group of elites, who had been threatened by the policies of the single party regime during the war. In the Greek case, the military staged a coup in order to prevent what it believed was a leftist threat coming from in fact a center party.However, a closer study of historical data reveals that the new world order played an indirect role in the establishment of the Greek and Turkish regimes. In the Turkish case, the collapse of the fascist regimes after the war and the Turkish foreign policy of allying with the West legitimized the demands and strengthened the hands of the Turkish elites who favored democracy. In the Greek case, the perception of communist threat, shared by the Western bloc, bred the exaggerated fear the colonels felt from the center party. In addition, American military aid during the Cold War increased the strength of the Greek armed forces relative to other forces in society. This power imbalance gave the colonels the capability to take over the government and suppress the opposing (and weaker) societal forces and elites. In conclusion, I argue that we must focus first on the domestic dynamics and then on the indirect role American foreign policy played after the Second World War. In this way, we are able to explain both the paradox the two Aegean countries provide and gain a new understanding of how foreign influence has affected Greece and Turkey after the war

The EU’s common foreign, security and defense policies and the Turkish perceptions

The EU's common foreign and security role is tied to the EU's normative role and this has been one of the critical aspects of the debate concerning Turkey's accession. Turkey's membership negotiations are critical in terms of the future of the European integration process, specifically with respect to the EU's role as a global actor. How Turkey perceives the EU's CFSP is critical in assessing Turkey's potential role in the larger integration process, as well as the future development of the EU's international role. The article investigates whether there are wide differences among the Turkish public vis-a-vis the EU's CFSP and to what extent these differences are visible in Turkey's negotiation talks with the EU. The paper explores the extent to which European norms in foreign policy has diffused into Turkey and how this diffusion might have impacted the process of foreign policy making in Turkey

Bioinspired Asymmetric-Anisotropic (Directional) Fog Harvesting Based on the Arid Climate Plant Eremopyrum orientale

Asymmetric-anisotropic (directional) fog collection behaviour is observed for leaves of the arid climate plant species Eremopyrum orientale. This is underpinned by a hierarchical surface structure comprising macroscale grooves, microscale tilted cones (in the direction of water flow), and nanoscale platelets. Soft lithography combined with either nanocoating deposition or functional nanoimprinting has been used to replicate this highly-efficient directional water collection mechanism

Civilian support and military unity in the outcome of Turkish and Greek military interventions

This article attempts to explain the divergent domestic roles of the Greek and Turkish militaries after the early 1980s by focusing on the last overt military interventions. The 1967 intervention in Greece and the 1980 coup in Turkey differed from each other in terms of the amount and nature of political autonomy that each military maintained immediately following each country’s transition to democracy. Indeed, in each country, the transition process had a significant impact on civil–military relations in the succeeding years. The Greek junta faced civilian and military resistance, and, therefore, the colonels were pressured to completely withdraw from politics. The Turkish coup, on the other hand, was carried out by a cohesive military and was at least implicitly endorsed by a number of influential civilians. This allowed the military to withdraw voluntarily, guide the transition, and maintain political autonomy after 1983

Nostalgia for the modern: state secularism and everyday politics in Turkey

The article reviews the book "Nostalgia for the Modern: State Secularism and Everyday Politics in Turkey," by Esra Özyürek