Advertisement

Profiling Middle Powers in Global Governance and the Turkish Case: An Introduction

  • Emel Parlar Dal
Chapter

Abstract

This study aims to investigate first whether Turkey fits into a middle power status and second the tools and mechanisms it uses to pursue its middle power diplomacy at both regional and global levels. In doing so, it first focuses on the existing literature on middle powers. Then, it tries to understand Turkey’s institutional, material, and behavioral patterns that are connected to middle power concepts. In the final analysis, the present study underlines that Turkey seems eager to pursue middle power diplomacy despite its weak middle power identity, its limited middle power means, and the recent deterioration in its relations with its traditional allies, the United States and the EU. In fact, its evolving middle power identity and consciousness about its capacity to enact a middle power role may open new horizons for its developing middle powermanship. However, while constructing its middle power identity, Turkey must also craft its new international role based on its developing material power as well as its ideational and democratic power. Turkey’s strong attachment to universal values and democracy would certainly contribute positively to its middle power identity in-the-making and transform it into a complete middle power state, capable of establishing a delicate balance between its regional and global responsibilities.

References

  1. Baba, Gürol, and Murat Onsoy. 2016. Between Capability and Foreign Policy: Comparing Turkey’s Small Power and Middle Power Status. Uluslararasi Iliskiler-International Relations 13 (51): 3–20.Google Scholar
  2. Beeson, Mark, and Richard Higgott. 2014. The Changing Architecture of Politics in the Asia-Pacific: Australia’s Middle Power Moment? International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 14 (2): 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lct016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carr, Andrew. 2014. Is Australia a Middle Power? A Systemic Impact Approach. Australian Journal of International Affairs 68 (1): 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2013.840264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapnick, Adam. 1999. The Middle Power. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal 7 (2): 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooper, Andrew, et al. 1993. Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order Melbourne. Melbourne: University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cooper, David A. 2011. Challenging Contemporary Notions of Middle Power Influence: Implications of the Proliferation Security Initiative for ‘Middle Power Theory’. Foreign Policy Analysis 7 (3): 317–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2011.00140.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper, Andrew F. 2016. Testing Middle Power’s Collective Action in a World of Diffuse Power. International Journal 71 (4): 529–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020702016686384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper, Andrew, and Emel Parlar Dal. 2016. Positioning the Third Wave of Middle Power Diplomacy: Institutional Elevation, Practice Limitations. International Journal 71 (4): 516–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dal, Emel Parlar, and Ali Murat Kurşun. 2016. Assessing Turkey’s Middle Power Foreign Policy in MIKTA: Goals, Means, and Impact. International Journal 71 (4): 608–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elik, Suleyman. 2013. Iran-Turkey Relations, 1979-2011: Conceptualising the Dynamics of Politics, Religion and Security in Middle-Power States. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Haass, Richard N. 2009. The New ‘Informal’ Multilateral Era Röportaj yapan Bernard Gwertzman. Council of Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/interview/new-informal-multilateral-era
  12. Higgott, Richard A., and Andrew Fenton Cooper. 1990. Middle Power Leadership and Coalition Building: Australia, the Cairns Group, and the Uruguay Round of Trade Negotiations. International Organization 44 (4): 589–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holbraad, Carsten. 1984. Middle Powers in International Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ikeda, Naotaka. 2004. Japan-US Relations and Two “Chinas”. Tokyo: Bokutakusha.Google Scholar
  15. Jordaan, Eduard. 2003. The Concept of a Middle Power in International Relations: Distinguishing Between Emerging and Traditional Middle Powers. Politikon 30 (1): 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/0258934032000147282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. K. SangBae. 2009. Critical Understanding of the Concept of SmartPower: A Perspectiveof Middle-Power’s Network Power. International Politics 49–4.Google Scholar
  17. Lee, Sook-Jong. 2012. South Korea as New Middle Power. Seeking Complex Diplomacy. EAI Asia Security Initiative Working Paper 25:3. http://www.eai.or.kr/data/bbs/eng_report/2012091211454078.pdf
  18. Neack, Laura. 2013. Pathways to Power: A Comparative Study of the Foreign Policy Ambitions of Turkey, Brazil, Canada, and Australia. Seton Hall Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations 14: 53.Google Scholar
  19. Onis, Ziya, and Mustafa Kutlay. 2013. Rising Powers in a Changing Global Order: The Political Economy of Turkey in the Age of Brics. Third World Quarterly 34 (8): 1409–1426. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2013.831541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ———. 2017. The Dynamics of Emerging Middle-Power Influence in Regional and Global Governance: The Paradoxical Case of Turkey. Australian Journal of International Affairs 71 (2): 164–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Parlar Dal, Emel. 2014. On Turkey’s Trail as a “Rising Middle Power” in the Network of Global Governance: Preferences, Capabilities, and Strategies. Perception 19 (4): 107.Google Scholar
  22. Parlar Dal, Emel, and Gonca Oğuz Gök. 2014. Locating Turkey as a ‘Rising Power’ in the Changing International Order: An Introduction. Perceptions 19 (4): 1–19.Google Scholar
  23. Patience, Allan. 2014. Imagining Middle Powers. Australian Journal of International Affairs 68 (2): 210–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2013.840557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ping, Jonathan H. 2017. Middle Power Statecraft: Indonesia, Malaysia and the Asia-Pacific. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Ravenhill, John. 2011. Global Political Economy. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  26. Robertson, Jeffrey. 2017. Middle-Power Definitions: Confusion Reigns Supreme. Australian Journal of International Affairs 71, no. 4 (March 2, 2017): 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2017.1293608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sandal, Nukhet A. 2014. Middle Powerhood as a Legitimation Strategy in the Developing World: The Cases of Brazil and Turkey. International Politics 51 (6): 693–708. https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2014.33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schiavon, Jorge, and Diago Dominguez. 2016. Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, and Australia (MIKTA): Middle, Regional, and Constructive Powers Providing Global Governance. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies 3 (3): 495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shin, Soon-ok. 2016. South Korea’s Elusive Middlepowermanship: Regional or Global Player? Pacific Review 29 (2): 187–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2015.1013494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tow, William, and Richard Rigby. 2011. China’s Pragmatic Security Policy: The Middle Power Factor. The ChinaJournal 65 (1): 157–178.Google Scholar
  31. Wight, Martin. 1978. Power Politics, 317. New York: Holmes & Meier.Google Scholar
  32. Wood, Bernard. 1988. The Middle Powers and the General Interest. Ottawa: North-South Institute Publisher.Google Scholar
  33. Yalçın, Hasan Basri. 2012. The Concept of ‘Middle Power’ and the Recent Turkish Foreign Policy Activism. Afro Eurasian Studies 1 (1): 195–213.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emel Parlar Dal
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Political SciencesMarmara UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations