{"id":11346,"date":"2023-08-02T12:02:41","date_gmt":"2023-08-02T12:02:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/2023\/08\/eb-2\/"},"modified":"2024-11-20T21:06:59","modified_gmt":"2024-11-20T18:06:59","slug":"domestic-foreign-policy-nexus-and-foreign-policy-as-kulturkampf-evren-balta","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/2023\/08\/domestic-foreign-policy-nexus-and-foreign-policy-as-kulturkampf-evren-balta\/","title":{"rendered":"Domestic-Foreign Policy Nexus and Foreign Policy as Kulturkampf – Evren Balta"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

How should we conceptualize the last two decades of Turkish\nforeign policy? How a Western oriented foreign policy transformed into\nanti-Westernism? How did it move from a zero-problem-with-neighbors approach to\nan expansionist foreign policy that produces tensions with almost all its\nneighbors? What were the basic parameters of the transformation from a trading\nstate model to an ideology-spreading state model? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If one way of answering all these questions is to look at significant\nupheavals and changes in the global system and the accompanying regional developments,\nthe other is to look at changes at the domestic level. Indeed, neither the\nstructure of the international system nor systemic factors are sufficient to\nexplain the specific choices of the Turkish political elites. Domestic factors\nlargely determined which options were chosen and which path was taken. These domestic\nfactors undoubtedly contained many variables ranging from institutional structue\nto decision-making styles, from leadership to regime type.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, the relationship with Russia was not just a\nresponse to the changing balance of power in the region. It was also the result\nof similar leadership styles and survival aspirations of the incumbent regimes. The\nhawkish rhetoric of foreign policy was not only a response to regional\ndevelopments but also a strategy to win the elections and a reflection of\nTurkey’s domestic problems, such as the Kurdish question. Increasing militarism\nwas not just an imposition or necessity; it was also a model of economic development.\nThe mistakes made were not only the result of uncertainty in the system but an\nalso outcome of also foreign policy deinstitutionalisation parallel to deinstitutionalization\nhappening everywhere in the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In short, almost all the decisions taken by Turkey in foreign\npolicy have been shaped by the country’s institutions, economy, and politics.\nBut undoubtedly, the critical transformation that will help us understand the\nlast 20 years is also about analyzing foreign policy as a battleground where\ndifferent political constructs and cultural identities compete with each other. Specifically, in the last decade, foreign policy has become the site where the battle for more\nrepresentation, both inside and outside, has been going on. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Foreign Policy as the Battleground of the Crisis of\nRepresentation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Transforming foreign policy to a site in which the battle for\nrepresentation takes place has not only happened  in Turkey. Populist movements that gave color\nto the first quarter of the 21st-century have challenged the established power\nrelations and political hierarchies both at domestic and global levels. On the\none hand, these movements tried to bring voters to the center, who are alleged\nto be excluded from the existing political, economic, and\/or cultural power at\nthe domestic level and therefore deprived of “authentic” political\nrepresentation. On the other hand, they demanded more status in the world for\ntheir nation (and its newly formed identity) in the name of the power of the\nmasses they bring to the center. They objected not only to the established\nnational institutions but also to how international politics are done. In this\nway, they transformed foreign policy from a vertical conflict area where\ninternational actors compete to a horizontal conflict area where internal\ntensions are carried out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words, at the beginning of the 21st<\/sup> century,\nforeign policy ceased to be an area practiced only by different governments,\nbased on the idea of a “national interest” that the nation (more or\nless) shared no matter what conflicts broke out inside. The foreign policy\narena has become a battlefield where international alliances are built based on\nnational identity imaginations, and these alliances, in return, fortify\nnational identity imaginations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conservative vs. Secular Foreign Policy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lisel\nHintz<\/a>, in her work on the relationship between\nnational identity and foreign policy points out that we need to understand\nforeign policy as a space for internal tension to move outward. Accordingly,\nforeign policy is neither a factor that constructs national identity nor is it\na result of definitions of national identity alone. It is an area where\ndifferent national identity imaginations are imported and collide. Just like\ninside, the outside is a political rivalry area where different identities compete,\nand the political and emotional polarization of the country is directly\nreflected. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The secular-conservative cleavage and the different national\nimaginations of this cleavage  shapes not\nonly Turkey\u2019s identity but also its geography. Turkey is either thought to be deprived\nof the Middle East or is seen as being too Middle Eastern; it is either too\nclose to the Western alliance or too far from the Western alliance. Even in the\ndebate on whom Turkey should open its borders too, this divergence determines\nattitudes and thus shapes Turkey’s immigration policy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On this level, foreign policy is at least as daily here as the\nalcohol debate. It is an essential component of kulturkampf<\/em> with all its\npractices. The internal polarization dynamics and the transfer of\ncultural\/political distinctions to foreign policy in this way inevitably makes\nforeign policy one of the main arteries in which hegemony is established and\nmaintained. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is it a New Era?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is now a consensus among experts in the field that domestic\npolitics shape foreign policy and that we cannot understand foreign policy\nwithout understanding domestic factors. It has become almost part of our\neveryday political language, where opportunistic leaders use (or create)\nforeign policy crises to win elections and consolidate their power at home. The\nmost recent example we have discussed is the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where\ninstitutional disintegration and the personalization of the regime have led to\nadventures abroad, keeping leaders from (genuine) sources of information. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But as I pointed out in this piece, foreign policy is not simply\nan outcome of domestic factors (intentended or uninetnded). It is a\nbattleground where national values and institutions are built and cultural\ndifferences are reflected. It is another founding area where the crisis of\nrepresentation and the internal struggle for legitimacy is debated and\nsometimes resolved. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Covid-19 outbreak and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have\nfurther increased the effects of this culture clash (both centrifugal and\ncentripetal) and strengthened the global rift. Moreover, economic and political\ncompetition was inextricably linked with the moral and cultural competition. In\nthese new forms of competition, \u201cnew\u201d elements such as the family, the place of\nwomen in society, sovereignty, nationalism, the relationship established with\nnature, and nativism took the distinctive position that democratic values had\nin the past. These values have replaced globalization with global culture war\nthat unites political parties of the right with a common agenda. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are at a new breaking point in this cultural conflict. It may\ncolor the ongoing kulturkampf of Turkey. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>
\n

Prof. Dr. Evren Balta, \u00d6zye\u011fin University <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evren Balta is an International Relations faculty member at \u00d6zye\u011fin University. She holds a PhD in political science from The Graduate Center, CUNY (2007). Her latest book, “American Passport in Turkey”, co-written with \u00d6zlem Altan Olcay, received the International Academic Award of the American Sociological Association and the Best Book Award in Global and Transnational Sociology. Prof. Balta is a senior academic at the Istanbul Policy Center and the academic coordinator of the TUSIAD Global Policy Forum. <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

To cite this work:<\/strong> Evren Balta, \u201cDomestic-Foreign Policy Nexus and Foreign Policy as Kulturkampf” Panorama, Online, 2 August 2023, https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/blog\/2023\/08\/02\/eb-2\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>
\n
\n

This article has been prepared with the support provided to the International Relations Council<\/a> and the Global Academy<\/a> by the Heinrich B\u00f6ll Stiftung Association Turkey Representative within the scope of the project titled ‘Foreign Policy for the 21st Century; Peaceful, Equitable, and Dynamic Turkey’.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Copyright@UIKPanorama. All on-line and print rights reserved. Opinions expressed in works published by the Panorama belongs to the authors alone unless otherwise stated, and do not imply endorsement by the IRCT, Global Academy, or the Editors\/Editorial Board of Panorama.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

How should we conceptualize the last two decades of Turkish foreign policy? How a Western oriented foreign policy transformed into anti-Westernism? How did it move from a zero-problem-with-neighbors approach to an expansionist foreign policy that produces tensions with almost all its neighbors? What were the basic parameters of the transformation from a trading state model […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":9641,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[510,486,508],"tags":[557,656,563,713,732,650],"class_list":["post-11346","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-100-years-of-the-republic","category-opinion","category-turkey","tag-domestic-policy","tag-english","tag-foreign-policy-and-diplomacy","tag-heinrich-boll-foundation","tag-kulturkampf-en","tag-turkiye"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11346","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11346"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11346\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9641"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11346"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11346"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11346"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}