Emotions and narratives of the spirit of Gallipoli: Turkey’s collective identity and status in international relations

This article examines Turkish narratives of the Gallipoli Campaign fought during the First World War, based on newspaper archival research covering the last 50 years. It argues that the memorialisation of the Gallipoli Campaign reflects collective emotions underpinning Turkish national identity and self-perceptions of ambivalence in international relations. Compared with the Sévres Treaty, which is the most frequently cited episode of the First World War, the Dardanelles Victory provides a more nuanced understanding of Turkish collective identity and international status. Fought primarily against the British and resulting in victory, the narratives reveal emotions related to humiliation and betrayal, as well as desires for validation vis-à-vis Europe. However, the spirit of Gallipoli also signifies the birth of collective consciousness, restoration of honour after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and compassion for the victimised soldiers of the opposing side. Thus, the different memorialisation of the First World War, especially in contrast to Europe, sets Turkey’s status above the colonised nations while manifesting aspirations to place Turkey on an equal footing with the West. This duality in the narratives reproduces Turkey’s own understanding of its ambivalence and liminal status between the West and the East

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

Democratization and Foreign Policy Reforms in Turkey:Europeanization of Turkish Politics?

The European Union membership process has had an impact on Turkish domestic politics and foreign policy. However, when compared with previous candidate countries to the EU, the Europeanization of politics in Turkey has not been an even process. The reformation of politics in Turkey has had three main characteristics. First, instead of the pace of the reforms being linear, there has been a periodic rise and fall of interest in introducing amendments. Second, the reforms have not necessarily replaced past practices, rather they have only introduced new ones in addition to the old ways of doing politics. Finally, there has been considerable opposition to the reforms in Turkey, partially because the government does not seem to follow the liberal-democratic trajectory set out by the EU membership process. The delays in enacting the constitutional and legal changes and the biased selection of laws and practices that are being amended do not give the impression that the government is sincere. Whether the amendments are in fact Europeanizing Turkey or pulling it away from its Western and secular political framework is a significant question leading to conflict among different factions in society. This divergence of opinion, in turn, results in further stalling the reforms

Higher education during times of crisis in Türkiye

In this special issue, Yaprak Gürsoy and Özge Onsural-Beşgül bring together Turkish academics and scholars to discuss the recent and ongoing crises in Türkiye and their impact on the higher education secto

Reconsidering Britain’s Soft Power:Lessons from the Perceptions of the Turkish Political Elite

Enhancing Britain’s soft power has been a policy objective of the Conservative–led governments in the past few years. Policy relevant research on the matter mostly measures the positive perceptions of other countries’ publics toward the UK. This article proposes to dig deeper into the attitudes of foreign decision–makers in an unobtrusive manner to supplement these previous studies. As an illuminating case study, it investigates the views of the Turkish politicians by using data from the parliamentary proceedings of 2011–2018. This analysis reveals that the strongest soft power asset of the UK in Turkey is its exemplary political values, government and democracy. The biggest challenge is historical experiences of animosity that leads to inherent mistrust. Evidence also demonstrates that the UK is seen more positively in conjunction with other countries and more negatively on its own. This finding stresses the significance of multilateral cooperation to augment UK’s soft power

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

Renewing and Rethinking Bilateralism after Brexit

This report emerged from a workshop in Brussels where Aston Centre for Europe staff presented research on the future of the UK’s bilateral relations after Brexit. The report itself examines the central policy challenges arising from the UK’s need to renew and rethink bilateral relations with key European countries after the UK has left the EU. The bilateral relationships selected for inclusion in this report reflect the variety of cross-cutting economic, security, and diplomatic concerns that characterize UK engagement with Europe after Brexit. UK relations with France, Germany, Spain, Turkey, and the Visegrad Four (V4; the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) are scrutinized to determine how far bilateralism is likely to address the first two policy challenges described above. The final chapter brings back in to focus the complicating factor of devolution, looking at how territorial governance arrangements elsewhere in Europe can provide lessons on conducting “paradiplomacy” with the EU