1
The Arab Spring: a challenge to Turkey’s new
foreign policy strategy
The Case of Syria
_________________________________________________
University of Amsterdam
MSc Political Science: International Relations
Research Project: International Relations of the Middle East
Author: Semih Eski (10823751) Supervisor: Dr. Said Rezaeiejan Second Reader: Dr. Charlotte Hille Date: 24 June 2016 Version: Final thesis
2
3
Table of contents
Page
Map I: Turkish Republic 5
Map II: Ottoman Empire 7
Map III: MENA-region 9
Acknowledgements 11
List of abbreviations 12
Tables and figures 13
Abstract 14
Chapter 1 Introduction 15
1.1 Turkish new foreign policy strategy and Arab Uprisings 15 1.2 Main goal of research and (sub-) questions 16
1.3 Relevance of research 19
1.4 Outline of thesis 19
Chapter 2 Theoretical Framework 21
2.1 Defining the concept foreign policy 21
2.2 Foreign policy analysis 25
2.3 Analyzing foreign policy of states 27 2.4 Analyzing decision-making environments of states 29
2.5 Critique on Rational Actor Model 32
2.6 Strategic Depth: Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy 32 2.7 Formation of alliances between states 35
2.8 Conceptualization of variables 37
Chapter 3 Methodology 39
3.1 Operationalization of variables 39
3.2 Research design: single case study and process tracing 41 3.3 Sources and the collection of data 45
Chapter 4 History Turkish Republic and its foreign policy 47
4.1 Historical background of today’s modern Turkey 47 4.2 Turkish new foreign policy: Atatürk’s foreign policy vision 50
4
4.3 Turkey’s foreign policy during the Cold War 50
4.4 Conclusion 52
Chapter 5 Turkey’s foreign policy strategy: new actors, new scenario 53
5.1 AK Party and Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy 53 5.2 Direction of Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy 57 5.3 Strategic Depth: Turkey-Syria relations 59 5.4 Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy in practice 63 5.4.1 Diplomatic relations 2007 – 2015 64 5.4.2 Economic cooperation 2007 – 2015 69 5.4.3 Cultural exchange 2007 – 2015 75
5.5 Conclusion 80
Chapter 6 Arab Spring: a challenge to the decision-making process 84
6.1 Turmoil in the MENA-region: Arab Spring 84 6.2 Case study: Turkey-Syria relations since the Arab Spring 86 6.3 Turkey’s foreign policy decision-making process 92 6.4 Retrospective: Turkey’s foreign policy decision-making process 93 6.4.1 RAM: Turkey’s foreign policy decision-making process 97
6.5 Conclusion 98
Chapter 7 Post-Arab Spring: consequences for Turkish foreign policy 100
7.1 Strategic Depth vs. Unplanned Complexity 100 7.2 Formation of ideological alliances between in post-Arab Spring area 102
7.3 Conclusion 103
Conclusion 105
Bibliography 109
5
Map I: Turkish Republic
7
Map II: Ottoman Empire
9
Map III: MENA-region
Source: Eski (2016) via stepmap.com. Yellow areas constitute the states of the MENA-region for the purpose of this research.
11
Acknowledgements
Finally, the end is near. In front of you lies my Master’s thesis. The moment I have been looking forward to since my childhood: completing an academic program. This road has been neither short nor easy. However, I am almost there. Writing this thesis was not a simple task. The Middle East has a complex history and is a very unpredictable region. Complex situations take place daily in this region, which affect among other things the foreign policy of states, including Turkey. Both the complexity and my personal interest in this region have challenged me while writing this thesis. Nevertheless, with a lot of motivation, I have written this thesis with great pleasure.
I would like to briefly look back onthe past five months and thank the people who have walked this road with me. Firstly, my mother; Mama thank you. You have always supported me and never lost your confidence in me. You have inspired me and showed me that by working hard it is possible to achieve a lot. Secondly, my sister. Thanks. I know you see me as your role model and you pursue to complete an academic education as well. I want you to know that I believe in you and know you will achieve even more than I have. I am very proud of you! Thirdly, I wish to thank my father. Dad, your critical way of thinking, patience and wisdom have contributed enormously to both my personal and academic development. Finally, I would like to express a great appreciation to my future wife. Your unconditional help and moral support have helped me tremendously throughout the past couple of months. I truly appreciate the sincere commitment and believe everyone has in me and dedicate this thesis to you all.
I also want to thank my supervisor, Dr. Said Rezaeiejan for his time and constructive feedback. Said, I have learned a lot from you and am very grateful for that.Also I would like to thank Dr. Charlotte Hille for her time to asses my thesis as a second examiner. Thank you!
Semih Eski
12
List of abbreviations
EEC European Economic Community
EU European Union
FA Foreign Affairs
FDI Foreign Direct Investment FPA Foreign Policy Analysis
HLSCC High Level Strategic Cooperation Council
IEGY International and Bilateral Economic Affairs Department IMPR International Middle East Peace Research Center
IO International Organization IR International Relations IS Islamic State
JDP
Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi) MENA Middle East and North Africa
MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs
MİT Turkish National Intelligence Agency (Millî İstihbarat Teşkilâtı) NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ÖSYM Measuring, Selection and Placement Center
PKK Kurdistan Workers’ Party
PM Prime minister
PT Process tracing RAM Rational Actor Model
TBMM Grand Turkish National Assembly of Turkey TIKA Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency
UN United Nations
UNHCR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
US United States
13
Tables and figures
Page
Table 1: Political Actors Turkish Republic 1999 – 2016 54 Table 2: Travels of Turkish leaders on Official State Visits 65 Table 3: Travels of Turkish leaders to Participate in Gatherings IO 66 Table 4: Press Releases and Statements 2007-2015, Turkish MFA 67 Table 5: MENA-region states-Turkey import and export statistics 2000-2015 70 Table 6: Syria-Turkey import and export statistics 2000-2015 72 Table 7: Turkey’s FDI Flow by partner country 2003-2013 73 Table 8: Foreigners arriving in Turkey by nationalities 76 Table 9: Total number of foreign students in Turkey by nationality 77 Table 10: Share from TIKA’s budget in years (%) 78
Figure 1: Press Releases and Statements 2007-2015, Turkish MFA 68 Figure 2: Key moments in Turkey’s foreign policy decision-making process 94
14
Abstract
Central to this study is the question how the Arab Spring has influenced Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy towards the Middle East and North Africa region, in particular the case of Syria. In order to answer this principle research question, five sub-questions have been answered in four separate chapters. The main findings of this research can be summarized as follows.
While the origins of the Turkish Republic lie in its Ottoman past, throughout the 20th Century its foreign policy was predominantly focused on the relations with the West instead of the East. After the end of the Cold War, Turkey invested progressively in its relations with states in the MENA-region. Nevertheless, after the AK Party came into power after the general elections in 2002, it presented a new foreign policy strategy, which is based on a Turkish International Relations book named Strategic Depth. The main argument is that Turkey has a unique position in international politics due to its location in geopolitical areas of influences and its historical roots in the Ottoman Empire. Based on this new doctrine, Turkey changed its foreign policy from a traditional pro-Western isolationist foreign policy outlook, to a more Eastern-oriented pro-active foreign policy approach, in particular after 2005. In this regard, Turkey invested consistency with the so-called ‘zero-problems’ policy with its neighbors, in particular in Syria between 2003 and 2011. However, the start of the Arab Uprisings drastically changed the stability, security and power relations between states in the MENA-region and challenged Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy towards Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and particularly Syria at the level of diplomatic relations, economic cooperation and cultural exchange. At the same time, the bilateral relationship between Turkey and Syria deteriorated and transformed from an almost ‘zero-problems’ policy of friendship to hostility between both states.
Key words: Turkey-Syria relations, Arab Spring, foreign policy analysis, MENA- region, Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy, Strategic Depth
15
1. Introduction
1.1 Turkish new foreign policy strategy and Arab Uprisings
For decades Turkey’s foreign policy strategy was mainly focused on the relationship with the Western world, this changed after the election of the Adalet ve
Kalkınma Partisi (Justice and Development Party – AK Party) in 2002. The rise of a
new political elite in Turkish politics, they considered themselves to be conservative democrats, presented a new political agenda which is incorporated in several policy areas among others in Turkish foreign policy (AK Party 2012). The AK Party’s new foreign policy strategy is mainly based on the theoretical concept and political vision called ‘Strategic Depth’ (Ibid). However, this new foreign policy strategy originated from a Turkish international relations book which was written in 2001 by Prof. dr. Ahmet Davutoğlu, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Prime minister (PM) of the Turkish Republic between August 2014 until May 2016. Based on Strategic Depth, the main goal of the Turkish new foreign policy strategy is to improve and invest in the bilateral relations with neighboring states among others states in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. In this regard, minimalizing Turkey’s problems with its neighbors on the basis of a so-called ‘zero-problems’ policy is part of this new foreign policy strategy.
However, with the start of the Arab Uprisings in December 2010, also known as the ‘Arab Spring’, the MENA-region has changed significantly. The first protest started in Tunisia when a young man, Muhammad Al Bouazizi, died after he set himself on fire to protest his unemployment (CNN 2011). After this event in Tunisia, people also started to protest on the Tahrir Square in Egypt which has since expanded to other states in the region, including Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria. One essential similarity between all these protests was that the people had been ruled by authoritarian regimes for decades and they demanded for change in the ruling elite. However, the Uprisings have not only affectedthe domestic political structures within
16
these states, for example the change of regimes in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and the still ongoing civil war in Syria, but it has also changed the stability, security and power relations between states in the MENA-region. Turkey as a close neighbor state to these countries where the Arab Uprisings started has also been confronted with several unexpected circumstances. For instance, these events brought not only Turkey’s so-called ‘zero-problems’ policy with neighboring countries into difficulties (Hursoy 2011; Aras 2014), it also challenged Turkey’s regional ambitions and its new foreign policy strategy based on the concept of Strategic Depth in problems.
Turkey’s foreign policy strategy towards several states in the MENA-region has been changed since the Uprisings, and in particular its relation with neighboring Syria. Until 2011, Turkey and Syria had steadily improved their bilateral relations since 2003, but with the start of the Syrian crisis in 2011, which already led to the death of more than 250 thousand people and 12 million displaced (UN 2015), the relation between both states deteriorated. In recent years the crisis in Syria has become gradually more complicated. Furthermore, Turkey shares a borderline of 911 kilometers with Syria, and since the start of the civil war more than 2.7 million people have fled Syria and crossed the border to find a safe haven in Turkey (UNHCR 2015). Also, the rise of a non-state actor, Islamic State (IS), which is considered a terrorist organization by most of the countries in the world, Turkey is now facing serious security threats within and around its borders. The start of the Arab Spring changed the MENA-region and it seems thus that it has certain implications for Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy towards states in the region, especially Syria.
1.2 Main goal of research and (sub-) research questions
The main goal of this research is to examine how the Arab Uprisings influenced Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy towards states in the MENA-region, in particular the case of Syria. This thesis covers three subjects which need to be analyzed in order to meet the main goal of this research. Firstly, the Turkish Republic as a new born state and its foreign policy vision. Secondly, Turkey’s relations with
17
states in the MENA-region between 2002 until 2015. Thirdly, the Turkish foreign policy decision-making process regarding the case of Syria and the influence of the Arab Spring on Turkey’s alliances formation in the MENA-region.
Firstly, in order to understand Turkish foreign policy, it is essential to focus on the historical background and the development of the modern Turkish Republic. With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire during the First World War in 1918 a new modern nation-state was born. However, the roots of this new nation-state lay in the Middle East and North Africa, which was ruled by the Ottomans for more than six centuries (1299-1918). It is widely known that the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, reformed the state in order to meet with standards of the ‘West’ of that time. However, this process influenced the Turkish foreign policy vision. Further, based on the historical linkage, it is relevant to study the relations between the Turkish Republic and several states in the MENA-region throughout the 20th century. Yet, examining these issues will contribute to the understanding of the historical context and which principles played a key role in determining Turkish foreign policy until the AK Party came into power in 2002.
Secondly, as mentioned before, the new political elite in Turkey, who ruled the country for more than 14 years, changed Turkey’s foreign policy strategy in line with Davutoğlu’s Strategic Depth vision and intended to reduce problems on the basis of the ‘zero-problems’ policy with states in the MENA-region. Yet, AK Party’s new foreign policy strategy became more prominent during its second term in the government (2007-2011) after Davutoğlu was appointed as the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Öniş 2011). Therefore, it is relevant for the purpose of this study to examine how Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy has been put in practice regarding to its relations with Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, in particular in the case of Syria, since 2007 before the Arab Spring fostered significant changes in the MENA-region. In this regard, it is worthwhile to focus on the bilateral relationship between Turkey and the earlier mentioned states, at the level of diplomatic relations, economic cooperation and
18
cultural exchange, since the AK Party came into power in 2002, nearly 10 years before the Arab Uprisings, until the post-Arab Spring period in 2015.
Thirdly, the last objective of this research relates to the regional ambitions of the Turkish Republic and its foreign policy decision-making process regarding the case of Syria since the Arab Uprisings started in 2011. Yet, after having examined how the Arab Spring influenced the bilateral relations between Turkey and states in the MENA-region at the earlier mentioned three distinct policy areas, it is relevant to analyze the Turkish foreign policy decision-making process and which actors are part of it. Therefore, it will reconstruct how this decision-making process evolved focusing on key events which influenced Turkey’s foreign policy towards Syria in the period between 2011 until 2015. Finally, this study will investigate how the Arab Spring has influenced Turkey’s new foreign policy and the formation of alliances between Turkey and states in the MENA-region. Having said that, the most important research question is considered as follows:
“How has the Arab Spring influenced Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy towards the Middle East and North Africa region, in particular the case of Syria?”
In order to answer this research question, relevant concepts and subjects are formulated in the following sub-questions:
What characterizes the historical background of today’s modern Turkey and what was its foreign policy vision to the MENA-region between 1923 till 2002?
How has the foreign policy strategy of the Turkish Republic changed since the AK Party came into power after the general elections in 2002?
How has Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy influenced the bilateral relations with Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and particularly Syria between 2002 and 2015?
19
Which political actors are part of shaping Turkish foreign policy and how has this decision-making process evolved regarding the case of Syria?
What are the short term consequences of the Arab Uprisings for Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy and the formation of alliances regarding states in the MENA-region, in particular Syria?
1.3 Relevance of research
The relevance of this research can be explained both scientifically and politically. Regarding the scientific relevance, less research has been conducted on the question how the Arab Spring influenced Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy towards states in the MENA-region, in particular the case of Syria. The aim is to examine the implications of Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy and its ‘zero problems’ policy goal. Besides, it will test the main theoretical assumptions found in the Turkish IR book ‘Strategic Depth: Turkish International Position’ (Stratejik
Derinlik: Türkiye'nin Uluslararası Konumu).
Regarding the political relevance, the aim is to investigate the political-strategic implications of Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy in particular in the case of Syria. In this regard it will focus on the potential shortcomings of the Strategic Depth doctrine and the ‘zero-problems’ policy with neighbors of the Turkish Republic. Besides, the current situation in the MENA-region also influences the formation of alliances between states in the region. Therefore, it is relevant to study how the Arab Spring influences Turkish foreign policy strategy and its alliance formation in the MENA-region.
1.4 Outline of thesis
This thesis has been outlined into eight chapters. This first chapter provides an introduction to the topic of this thesis and presents the research- and sub-questions. The second chapter will focus on theories of foreign policy (analysis) and relevant concepts. The third chapter will deal with methodological issues and discuss the
20
collection of data. The fourth chapter will briefly explain Turkey’s historical background and its foreign policy during the period 1923-2002. The fifth chapter will analyze Turkey’s bilateral relations with states in the MENA-region between 2002 until 2015. The sixth chapter will focus on the Arab Spring and how it has influenced the foreign policy decision-making process, especially regarding the case of Syria. The seventh chapter will analyze the consequences of the Arab Spring for Turkey’s foreign policy strategy towards the MENA-region and Turkey’s regional alliance formation. Finally, the last chapter of this study will provide an answer to the main research question of this thesis.
21
2. Theoretical Framework
The purpose of the second chapter is to present a theoretical framework in which it will discuss relevant concepts concerning foreign policy (analysis), Strategic Depth and the formation of alliances. To maintain a clear structure in this framework, the chapter has been divided into two parts. In the first part, attention will be paid to academic literature and theoretical perspectives to discuss what has been intended concerning foreign policy, the analysis of foreign policy and the decision-making processes of states. The second part, will present the main arguments of the concept Strategic Depth, which has been used as a theoretical ground to formulate Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy towards states in the MENA-region. Moreover, it will discuss the formation of alliances between states in international politics, especially based on ideological assumptions. Finally, this chapter will conclude with a conceptualization of three relevant variables.
2.1 Defining the concept foreign policy
The academic literature on foreign policy analysis contains a wide range of definitions which intended to define the concept foreign policy. Before discussing the similarities and differences among these definitions, it is relevant to underline that there is a degree of uncertainty among scholars in order to define foreign policy. For instance, Beach states that “the term ‘foreign policy’ itself is deceptively difficult to define” (Beach 2012: 1-2). While this scholar does not explain why it is ‘deceptively difficult’ to define this concept, another scholar argues that “the increased internationalization of much of daily life, especially in developed, commercially active countries, causes problems when it comes to defining foreign policy and what should be studied under that heading” (Hill 2003: 3). Within this context, Stern argues that the concept of foreign policy “is one of those maddeningly ambiguous concepts whose very existence seems designed only to plague the student of International Relations” (Stern 1995: 106).
22
One of the main difficulties in order to define the concept foreign policy is due to a misunderstanding of what it is exactly that distinguishes foreign policy from domestic policy. Consequently, the question of what makes foreign policy ‘foreign’ needs to be discussed. This means that the division between both these policy areas should first thus be clarified taking the following ontological question into account: does foreign policy of a certain state exist separately from its domestic policy, or are both these policy areas interconnected with each other? Two prominent perspectives will be discussed below.
Realist scholar Kissinger argues that “the domestic structures is taken as given; foreign policy begins where domestic policy ends” (Kissinger 1966: 503). In relation to this explanation, there is a clear and sharp distinction between both the domestic and foreign policies of a state. In contrast, pluralist scholars, like Rosenau and Burton, would argue “the distinction between domestic and foreign policy has long been an artificial one” (Stern 1995: 107). In this regard, the pluralist frame “gives much greater credence to a wider range of actors beyond states” including amongst others the civil society as an actor (Groom 2007: 199). While the traditionalist scholar observes a clear distinction between both domestic and foreign policy, however, the pluralist scholars consider this difference thus more as an artificial one.
In academic literature, there are different views concerning the role of domestic policy in relation to foreign policy. For instance, Alden and Aran argue that domestic influences, outside the formal state structures, are “clearly significant and in some cases central to the making of state foreign policy” (Alden & Aran 2012: 46). Yet, they assume that domestic influences can affect foreign policy making in a state. Another scholar, Lentner (1974) states that foreign policy will be influenced by both domestic as well as foreign determinants. However, combining both the traditionalist as well as the pluralist perspective, Hill argues that “foreign policy can never be abstracted from the domestic context out of which it springs [the state]” (Hill 2003: 37). With this in mind, he argues that both the specialist and the analyst of foreign policy “must take notice of the two-way flows which arise from the distinction
23
between the foreign and the domestic: foreign policy has its domestic sources, and domestic policy has its foreign influences” (Hill 2003: 39). It therefore appears that foreign policy can thus neither be reduced to one activity in the domestic or foreign sphere of influences of states. Instead, foreign policy can be considered as an interconnection between the domestic and foreign policy area of states, yet, the question remains how scholars define the concept ‘foreign policy’.
Hill defines this idea as “the sum of official external relations conducted by an independent actor (usually a state) in international relations” (Hill 2003: 3). While this definition could be considered general, the scholar clarifies further by firstly explaining that the concept of an independent actor does not allow for the inclusion of phenomena like the European Union (EU). Secondly, the term official makes it possible to include “outputs from all parts of the governing mechanisms of the state or enterprise while also maintaining parsimony with respect to the vast number of international transactions new being conducted”. Thirdly, Hill argues that policy is the
sum of these official relations because otherwise “every particular action could be seen
as foreign policy”. Finally, policy is considered as foreign since “the world is still more separated into distinctive communities than it is a single, homogenizing entity” (Ibid.).
However, Beach criticizes Hill’s foreign policy definition arguing that “defining policy as the sum of external actions results in analysis that only explains broad trends in foreign policies and not individual actions and decision” (Beach 2012: 2). In contrast, Beach presents, in line with his words, a ‘broad’ and ‘pragmatic’ definition of foreign policy, formulated as follows: “foreign policy is both the broad trends of behavior and the particular actions taken by a state or other collective actors as directed toward other collective actors within the international system. Foreign policy action can be undertaken using a variety of different instruments, ranging from adopting declarations, making speeches, negotiating treaties, giving other states economic aid, engaging in diplomatic activity such as summits, and the use of military force” (Beach 2012: 3).
24
Besides Hill and Beach, other scholars emphasize different components to define this ambiguous concept. For instance, White defines foreign policy as a “government activity conducted with relationships between state and other actors, particular other states, in the international system” (White 1989: 1). Yet, this definition focuses mostly on the activity which is taking place at the state-level (government). Rosenau defines the concept by merely paying attention to the “internal influences on external behavior” of states (Rosenau 1971: 95). Conversely, in contrast to the former scholar, Brecher emphasizes mostly the decision-making process in defining the concept foreign policy, in particular the sources as well as outcomes of these decisions (Brecher 1972: 15).
Based upon this discussion, there are certain similarities and differences among scholars regarding what is understood by the concept of foreign policy. Beach’s foreign policy definition refers not only to the role of states in the international system, as doesHill’s definition, but also to collective actors. Secondly, Beach focusesboth on
behavior and actions of different actors and not only at the external relations as
pointed out by Hill. Finally, Beach’s definition contains a list of concrete foreign policy instruments. Furthermore, White’s foreign policy definition contains similar elements compared to both explanations of Beach and Hill which can be considered as a definition in between theirs. On the one hand, White’s definition focuses on the role of states, but, on the other hand, at the level of government activity with other actors, such as non-state actors. A fundamental difference between the definition of Rosenau and Brecher is that the former scholar is focusing only on the external behavior of states, instead of paying attention to decisions which were taken by states as argued by Brecher.
Considering the above, this study will use both foreign policy explanations as pointed out by the scholars Hill and Brecher. On the one hand, as mentioned in the introduction, this thesis aims to examine the sum of external relations between Turkey and states in the MENA-region, in particular the case of Syria. On the other hand, it will analyze how the Arab Spring influenced Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy by
25
analyzing its foreign policy decision-making, since the start of the crisis in Syria from 2011 until 2015.
2.2 Foreign policy analysis
Alden and Aran define foreign policy analysis (FPA) as “the study of the conduct and practice of relations between different actors, primarily states, in the international system” (Alden & Aran 2012: 1). They argue that central to this field is an investigation into foreign policy making, in particular individual decision-makers, processes and conditions that affect a states’ foreign policy and the outcomes of these decisions. (Ibid.). Like these scholars, Hill states in his work that FPA investigates “the motives and other sources of the behavior of international actors, particularly states” focusing on decision-making processes of government and public administration (Hill 2003: 10). However, the scholar also argues that examination of foreign policy of states “begins with the general issue of how domestic society relates to foreign policy, and which elements represent the most significant ‘sources’ of foreign policy, in the sense that actions ‘begin at home’ even if they must be conducted abroad” (Hill 2003: 21). As pointed out earlier, there exists thus a certain relation between both areas of domestic and foreign policy of states. In this regard, Beach argues that FPA “investigates questions related to the impact of the international system upon foreign policy, the impact of domestic determinants like public opinion and institutions, and how different decision-making processes matter for foreign policy trends or specifies actions” (Beach 2012: 5). Based on this discussion, these scholars agree that the FPA predominantly investigates decision-making processes and specific actions which shape the foreign policy of states.
Foreign policy analysis is considered among scholars as a sub-discipline within the study of international relations (IR). Hudson argues that “FPA-style work within the field of international relations per se is best dated back to the late 1950s and early 1960s” (Hudson 2005: 5). Nevertheless, throughout the decades this sub-field has changed and developed, within the study of IR, as a separate area of enquiry (Alden &
26
Aran 2012). Although, there are certain differences as Beach (2012) emphasizes that the sub-field FPA differs from the study of IR basically due the scope of what is intended to be explained. Expanding on this, the scholar also argues that the sub-discipline of FPA has a “narrower focus on explaining the determinants of the foreign policies of a single state (or collective actor) viewed either as general trends or as specific actions” (Beach 2012: 4).
While there are certain differences between the sub-field of FPA and the study of IR, there is at least one issue which both disciplines have in common which is known as the ‘agency-structure debate’. According to Hill “at the simplest level the debate has been about whether agents (those who are capable of action) are shaped by structures (whatever they may be) or vice versa” (Hill 2003: 26). Further, Alden and Aran argue that FPA scholars, as in other branches of the social sciences, are divided “as to the degree of influence to accord to structural factors (the constraints imposed by the international system) and human agency (the role of individual choice in shaping the international system) when analyzing foreign policy decisions and decision-making environments” (Alden & Aran 2012: 2). Yet, as this thesis’ main goal is to examine how the Arab Spring (structural factor) influenced Turkey’s foreign policy strategy (human agency) towards states in the MENA-region and in particular the case of Syria, it is thus relevant to include the agency-structure debate in this theoretical discussion and clarify both concepts ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ related to the foreign policy of states.
The ‘agency-structure’ debate is “often claimed to constitute the central problem in social and political theory” (Carlsnaes 1992: 245). Yet, Carlsnaes argues “at the heart of this problem lies an increasingly wide-spread recognition that, instead of being antagonistic partners in a zero-sum relationship, human agents and social structures are in a fundamental sense interrelated entities, and hence that we cannot account fully for the one without invoking the other” (Carlsnaes 1992: 245-246). In contrast, Hill argues “it has also often been presented as the agency-structure ‘problem’, which by extension should admit of a solution” (Hill 2003: 26). And he
27
assumes “causation always involves both structures and agencies, and that […] the two kinds of phenomena help to constitute each other in a perpetual process of interaction” (Ibid.). Taking this into account, Hill (2003) argues that it is not possible to come to permanent conclusion in order to limit the agents freedom of choice or its capacity for impact. Yet, the scholar states that “we may analyze the parameters of choice, constraint and change but human beings will always have the ‘wiggle room’ of specific historical circumstances in which to remake at least some of their word” (Hill 2003: 26). Besides, he also argues that shaping foreign policy of a state is considered as a “complex process of interaction between many actors, differentially embedded in a wide range of different structures” (Hill 2003: 28). Structures can have a restrictive consequence on actions of states in the international environment, however, decision-makers also have space for agency to shape a states’ foreign policy.
2.3 Analyzing foreign policy of states
As discussed earlier in this chapter, analyzing a states’ foreign policy is primarily examining the decision-making process within a certain state about specific actions at various policy areas (sum of relations) towards other states. These areas can vary from diplomatic relations, to economic cooperation, to cultural exchange, and collaboration on security or military issues between states. In order to analyze how a state shapes its foreign policy on these areas, it is necessary to discuss the decision-making environment and which political actors are involved. Beach (2012) argues that “we are dealing with intelligent, international actors that have the ability to learn from past events and respond creatively to a given context, actors can actively attempt to change a given context in order to make it more amiable to the achievement of their own goals” (Beach 2012: 17). This means that there is a degree of ‘agency’ that can influence a states’ foreign policy.
There are several actors who can influence a states’ foreign policy. According to Hill’s explanation politicians are “formally responsible for taking decisions in foreign policy, and who therefore carry the can at home and abroad” (Hill 2003: 52).
28
This means that in most states the minister of foreign affairs is responsible for shaping foreign policy. However, the same scholar argues that other functions such as the head of government or the head of state, can also play an important role in conducting a states’ foreign policy. Having said that, the division of responsibility among these functions can vary between states, based on the institutional character of a state. Besides, it is necessary to make a difference between formal and real power of these actors and never to “assume that decision are made as the official flow chart would have it, those who occupy the highest position in a state have the opportunity to dispose a great deal of influences” (Hill 2003: 55). However, in most political systems “any given area of policy will be conducted at the highest level by a combination of the head of government, free of any particular portfolio, and the departmental minister, the specialist” (Hill 2003: 56).
Foreign policy decision-making of states is generally conducted in a complex and unstructured environment. Given these complexities there are also unforeseen issues which can arise. Hill argues that this situation can provide political decision-makers to use their leadership foreign policy and “personify the state in their actions” (Hill 2003: 55-56). However, this situation depends on the personal and political qualities of the person involved, the issue at stake and the political structures in a state. But, important to note is that the same scholar argues that foreign policy problems are unstructured in advance, meaning that there is no clear framework or timetable for their consideration “in the way that domestic issue, often based on a manifesto commitment, expert report or parliamentary legislation, tends to be” (Hill 2003: 57). As mentioned in the introduction chapter, one of the main goals in this thesis is to analyze the foreign policy decision-making process in the Turkish Republic. Yet, to understand this process Table 1 illustrates the key political actors in Turkey’s foreign policy making.
29 2.4 Analyzing decision-making environments of states
As mentioned earlier, decision-making theories are important in order to analyze foreign policy decisions of states and its outcomes in relation to other states. Alden and Aran emphasizing “the foreign policy decision-making process is a major focus on FPA scholarship seeking to unlock and explain the complexities of state conduct in the international system” (Alden & Aran 2012: 14). Within this context, Hill argues that “decision-making must be the starting point if we wish to understand the dilemmas of acting in the international system” (Hill 2003: 51). Yet, there are a variety of decision-making theories prominent in the academic literature in order to analyze foreign policy, varying from the Rational Actor Model (RAM), to cognitive theories about (mis-)perception and to group decision-making. Despite the commonalities between these theories, political scientist Beach argues that the “baseline model used by most FPA scholars is the RAM, which theorizes that decision-makers are able to choose a foreign policy that maximizes gains with a minimum of costs” (Beach 2012: 25). Therefore, this research will focus on the RAM instead ofcognitive approaches or group decision-making models, with the purpose to analyze Turkish foreign policy decision-making process, regarding the case of Syria between the period from2011 until 2015.
Beach argues, referring to Oneal (1988) and Cashman (1993), that “in the RAM, decision-makers have a set of clearly ranked goals that they want to achieve, and they are able to use the available information to determine which choice will maximize the achievement of their goals with lowest possible amount of risk” (Beach 2012: 98). This means that the rational decision-making process aims to choose foreign policy actions that maximizes a states’ goals with the lowest possible costs. However, Beach states that “FPA scholars do not argue that factors associated with decision-making fully explain the foreign policy actions of states, nor that only one theoretical factor (such as the role of perceptions) is sufficient to explain fully foreign policy actions” (Beach 2012: 99). Therefore, as discussed earlier, agency at adomestic level, for instance the role of the leader, is important to take into account in order to
30
analyze foreign policy. In this regard, Beach argues that “theories of decision-making that depart from the RAM are arguably better able to capture the agency involved in foreign policy decision-making than more structural theories at the system level or state levels” (Ibid.). Having said that, this study will analyze Turkish foreign policy in line with the Rational Actor Paradigm of GrahamAllison.
Allison published his book Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile
Crisis in 1971. According to Bernstein this book “sought to explain the process of
decision-making and thus the content of [foreign] policy” (Bernstein 2000:136). Allison presents in his work three decision-making models among others Model I: The Rational Actor. Yet, Allison argues that “most analysts explain (and predict) the behavior of national governments in terms of one basic conceptual model, here entitled Rational Actor or “Classical model” (Model I)” (Allison 1971: 4). According to the scholar the most analysts and ordinary laymen “attempt to understand happing in foreign affairs as the more or less purposive acts of unified national governments” (Allison 1971: 4-5). He continues stating that theories “of international relations focus in problems between nation in accounting for the choice of unitary rational actors” (Ibid.). In this regard, the trademark of the RAM decision-making model is “the attempt to explain international events by recounting the aims and calculations of nations or governments” (Allison 1971: 10).
Allison (1971) explains that in the case an analyst explains a particular event, it is impossible to pay attention to every detail leadingto that event. He argues that “the logic of explanation requires that he single out the relevant, important determinants of the occurrence” (Allison 1971: 4). In this regard, decision and policy are the terms that constitute the RAM. The scholar explains that the “decision presupposes a decide and a choice among alternatives with reference to some goal” and continues “policy means that the realization in a number of particular instances of some agent’s objectives” (Allison 1971: 28). Recalling that, both terms can be related to the earlier discussion in this chapter which considered the definition of foreign policy (analysis).
31
Allison’s (1971) Rational Actor Model consists of six components: unit of analysis, organizing concepts, dominant inference pattern, general propositions, specific propositions and evidence. Firstly, the unit of analysis in this model is the governmental action of choice. Allison argues that “governments select the action that will maximize strategic goals and objectives” and continues that “the “solution” to strategic problems are the fundamental categories in terms of which the analyst perceives what is to be explained” (Allison 1971: 32). Secondly, organizational
concepts are divided into four parts in which it describes the role of the national actor,
the problem the state is facing, the sum of activities of the government in order to find a solution and explains action as a rational choice. In particular, this Rational Actor Model focuses on a states’ goals and objectives where “national security and national interests are the principal categories in which strategic goals are conceived” and on foreign policy options including the consequences of these policy actions. In this regard, the rational choice of a state aims to maximize the value in order to meet with its goals as well as objectives.
Thirdly, dominant inference pattern explains that “if a nation performed a particular action, that nation must have had ends toward which the action constituted a maximizing means”. Fourthly, general propositions emphasize the importance of value-maximizing behavior by selecting the actions that results from “a combination of the nation’s (1) relevant values and objectives, (2) perceived alternative courses of action, (3) estimates of various sets of consequences […] and (4) net valuation of each set of consequences”. Fifthly, in case of specific propositions it describes that “the likelihood of successful deterrence is a function of the factors specified in the general proposition”. Finally, in order to examine the strategic character of the problem
evidence is necessary. Allison explains in this regard that “evidence about details if
behavior, statements of governmental officials, and government papers are then marshaled in such a way that a coherent picture of the value-maximizing choice (form the point of view of the nation) emerges” (Allison 1971: 32-35).
32 2.5 Critique on Rational Actor Model
It is important to notice that the RAM as a foreign policy decision-making model has also been criticized by academics in the literature. For instance, Beach (2012) argues that the basic central assumption in this model is that actors are so-called synoptically rational, referring that actors can be treated as if they are human computers. However, this does not necessarily mean that these actors will have perfect information about the consequences of their foreign policy decisions. Alden and Aran also argue that “foreign policy decision makers do not act in a purely rational manner that conforms to the core assumptions of realism and public choice theory” (Alden & Aran 2012: 20). Instead, the scholars argue that foreign policy decision-makers can be subjected to other influences, like prejudices, beliefs own perceptions (Ibid.). Therefore, this thesis will also take the political leaders role into account by analyzing Turkish foreign policy decision-making.
Having discussed so far the relevant theoretical perspectives concerning foreign policy (analysis) and decision-making processes of states, the following paragraph will present the main arguments of Strategic Depth, as Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy.
2.6 Strategic Depth: Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy
Hill states “foreign policy actions cannot be understood without an appreciation of their implementation phase, which is at least as important as that of decision-making, given that outcomes are so often markedly different from original intentions” (Hill 2003: 51). Therefore, it is thus important to discuss first the original intentions of Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy which has been grounded in the book Strategic Depth. Yet, the concept of ‘Strategic Depth’ in Turkish foreign policy is introduced for the first time in the academic work of Prof. Dr. Ahmet Davutoğlu in 2001. Davutoğlu has occupied several positions in Turkish politics among others as the chief foreign policy advisor to Prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (2007-2009), the Minister of Foreign Affairs (2009-2014) and he was the Prime minister of the
33
Turkish Republic between 2014-2016. Yet, Aras argues “in recent years, Turkish foreign policy has undergone significant changes in its understanding, vision, doctrine, tools and mechanism used” (Aras 2014). Murinson argues that Davutoğlu “has become the architect of the new Turkish foreign policy concept” (Murinson 2006: 946). However, Davutoğlu’s influence on Turkey’s foreign policy strategy became much more prominent during the years when he was serving as Turkey’s Minister of Foreign Affairs (Öniş 2011; Aras 2014). Yet, with the implementation of five new principles in Turkish foreign policy strategy, which can be considered as a new foreign policy doctrine, it has influenced several aspects of national and foreign policy of the Turkish Republic (Murinson 2006; Walker 2007; Hursoy 2011; Yalvaç 2012). These five principles will be discussed later in this paragraph, but first it is relevant to explain the main assumptions of the Strategic Depth doctrine.
Davutoğlu (2001) argues in his book that today’s Turkey has a unique position in international politics due to its location in geopolitical areas of influences and its historical roots in the Ottoman Empire. This position of the Turkish Republic is also distinctive because it unified the Muslim world during the period of the Ottoman Empire (1299-1918) and, therefore, it has the potential to become a Muslim power in the region once again. Having said that, the main argument of Davutoğlu’s doctrine is that the concept strategic depth is predicated on both geographical (geo-strategic location) and historical depth (Murinson 2006; Walker 2007; Hursoy 2011). Hursoy explains both concepts and argues that the “geographical depth refers to the traditional geographical continuity that penetrates the complex dynamics of relations between domestic, regional and global political and economic systems and ‘historical depth’ provides the possibility and an experience of chronological assessments of the links between the past, present and the future” (Hursoy 2011: 151). In this regard, the concept of Strategic Depth “assumes that Turkey’s geopolitical, geocultural and geoeconomic place in the world has significance in terms of the transformation of world politics and international system” (Yesiltas & Balcı 2013: 8). Also, Walker argues that today’s Turkey is courting new alliances with the intention to “maintain
34
optimal regional and global independence and influence, by specifically taking on a larger role in its former Ottoman territories, and by prioritizing ‘dialogue and cooperation’ over ‘coercion and confrontation’” (Walker & Kitchen 2011: 7). As Murinson claims, Turkey’s foreign policy is in this context predominantly based on the concept of Strategic Depth, which it “calls for an activist engagement with all regional systems in the Turkey’s neighborhood” (Murinson 2006: 948).
Davutoğlu beliefs that “Turkey should guarantee its own security and stability by taking on a more active, constructive role to provide order, stability and security in its environs” (Davutoğlu 2008: 79). From this, he formulated the five main principles of the Strategic Depth doctrine in the following positions. Firstly, the balance between security and democracy in a country is required in order to establish an area of influence in its environment. Secondly, a so-called ‘zero-problems’ policy towards Turkey’s neighbors so that relations with neighboring regions and beyond can be improved. Thirdly, the creation of economic interdependence between Turkey and countries in its neighborhood in order to make and sustain peace in the close region. The fourth principle being an adherence to a multi-dimensional foreign policy aiming to be complementary to global actors instead of being in competition with them. Lastly, focusing on pro-activism in Turkey’s foreign policy also known as ‘rhythmic diplomacy’ through engaging in high-level political dialogues and negotiations (Ibid.). Having said that, these formulated principles and three concepts of the Strategic Depth doctrine will be clarified in detail below.
Yesiltas and Balcı (2013) argue that the concept of the zero-problems policy
aims to minimize the existing problems with Turkey’s neighbors and to form a line of stability around Turkey. This concept is based on the following six pillars: equal security for all, economic integration, coexistence of different cultures in a respectful manner, high-level political cooperation, high level of regional consciousness and understanding the relationship between security, stability and development. However, both scholars argue that this concept “has become the most contentious foreign policy principle in the AK Party era” (Yesiltas & Balcı 2013: 14).
35
In the case of multi-dimensional foreign policy the same scholars argue that this Turkish foreign policy principle “refers to having simultaneous and harmonious relationships with different international actors as by following the same multi-dimensional principles” (Yesiltas & Balcı 2013: 13). This can be done by creating so-called ‘simultaneous’ relationships with varying foreign policy actors. Both scholars also argue that this concept “does not conceptualize Turkish foreign policy as limited to one country and region in terms of actors, and neither is it restricted to a single problem” (Yesiltas & Balcı 2013: 14). Concerning the concept rhythmic diplomacy it emphasizes the tactical activity that entails both using simultaneous and harmonious diplomacy in different fields (Yesiltas & Balcı 2013). Davutoğlu argues that the aim of Turkey is to “intervene consistently in global issues using international platforms, which signifies a transformation for Turkey from a central country to a global power” (Davutoğlu 2008: 83). As discussed earlier in this paragraph, Turkey is courting alliances via a new style diplomacy with several states in the region and attempts to maintain optimal regional and global independence and influence. However, one of the objectives in this study is to analyze Turkey’s alliance formation since the Arab Spring. Therefore, it is necessary to know how the formation of alliances between states in international relations occur.
2.7 Formation of alliances between states
According to Walt (1987) alliances formation between sovereign states concerns the question how states choose their friends in international politics. In his work he defines an alliance “as a formal or informal relationship of security cooperation between two or more sovereign states” (Walt 1987: 1). Yet, this definition assumes “some level of commitment and an exchange of benefits for both parties; severing the relationship or failing to honor the agreement would presumably cost something, even if it were compensated in other ways” (Ibid.). In this regard, the formation of alliances is primarily focused on security cooperation between two or more states. Walt argues that “the forces that bring states together and drive them apart
36
will affect the security of individual states by determining both how large a threat they face and how much help they can expect” (Walt 1987: 1). Regarding this thesis it is relevant to analyze how the Arab Spring has influenced Turkey’s formation of alliances with states in the MENA-region, particularly regarding Syria based on the concepts ‘balance’ and ‘bandwagon’.
Walt (1987) argues that when a state is confronted by a significant external threat they can balance or bandwagon against this threat. He defines balancing as “allying with [the] other against the prevailing threat” and bandwagon “refers to alignment with the source of danger” (Walt 1987: 17). States can choose in order to balance for two main reasons. Firstly, the survival of the states is at risk in case they fail to curb a potential hegemon afore it becomes too strong. Secondly, when a state chooses to join the weaker side it will increase the new member’s influence within the alliances, because the weaker side has a greater need for assistance (Walt 1987). With reference to bandwagoning behavior of states, the scholar argues “the belief that states will balance is unsurprising, given the many familiar examples of states joining together to resist a threatening state or coalition” (Walt 1987: 19). Hence, the scholar argues “balancing should be preferred for the simple reason that no statesman can be completely sure of what another will do. Bandwagoning is dangerous because it increases the resources available to a threatening power and requires placing trust in its continued forbearance” (Walt 1987: 29).
While there are different believes on how states can form alliances, it is relevant in line with the ideological assumptions as formulated in the Strategic Depth doctrine, to pay attention to the formation of alliances based on ideological solidarity. Walt defines this type of alliance formation “as a tendency for states with similar internal traits to prefer alignment with one another to alignment with states whose domestic characteristic are different” (Walt 1987: 181). Despite this, the scholar argues that the cause of alignment based on ideology as a cause is difficult to measure exactly, he states that “the record does show that when a new regime with a different ideology takes power, it tends to acquire new alliances partners” (Walt 1987: 182).
37
However, Walt argues that “if states base their foreign policy on the belief that ideology determines how other will act, they may cause other to behave in ways that appear to conform this belief” (Walt 1987: 184). This means that similar states will become each other’s allies because one state propose ‘friendship and support’, reflecting the belief that the receiving state will react in the same way. Nevertheless, the belief that ideology defines foreign policy of states “will often be a self-fulfilling prophecy” (Ibid.).
2.8 Conceptualization of variables
Based on the theoretical discussion in this chapter, particularly the assumptions of the Strategic Depth doctrine, the three variables diplomatic relations, economic
cooperation and cultural exchange will be conceptualized in order to analyze the sum
of relations between Turkey and Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and especially Syria.
Hill states “diplomacy is the human face of getting your own way in international politics, as well as a crucial instrument for building international stability” (Hill 2003: 138). The first variable, diplomacy/diplomatic relations will be conceptualized as “the range of non-violent foreign policy actions, including the use of declarations, meetings and negotiations with representatives of other foreign policy actors” (Beach 2012: 173).
Beach argues that “trade policy is a key economic foreign policy that can have substantial effects upon other countries” (Beach 2012: 186). According to Hill (2003) it goes beyond economic diplomacy and referring to the degree which an actor can pursue its goals through the use of economic instruments. Therefore, the second variable in this research economic cooperation will be conceptualized as the relation between states based on the total volume of “trade, investment or development aid” (Hill 2003: 148).
Hill argues “culture is entwined with propaganda as an instrument of foreign policy, but the two are not identical” (Hill 2003: 152). One of the main differences is that culture is considered as a form of soft power and propaganda as coercive one
38
(Ibid). Nevertheless, the third variable cultural exchange will be conceptualized as a set of “shared and enduring meanings, values and beliefs that characterize national, ethnic or other groups and orient their behavior” (Faure and Sjösted 1993: 3).
39
3. Methodology
Having discussed the aim of this research and the relevant concepts and variables in the previous chapters, this third chapter will deal with important methodological issues regarding the collection of data and how to analyze it for the purpose of this research. Firstly, this chapter will operationalize the three variables which were pointed out in the last section of the theoretical framework. Secondly, it will discuss the research design of this study which is based on both qualitative as well as quantitative methods. Finally, it will discuss the sources of the collected data and how to analyze this data.
3.1 Operationalization variables
As discussed before in the theoretical framework, a certain states’ foreign policy can be analyzed through examining both its foreign policy decision-making
process and the sum of relations between two or more states. These two components
vary from each other on the level of analysis. While the first one focusses on the analysis within a state, the second one emphasizes the interaction between states. Therefore, different research methods are required. However, before presenting the research design of this study, it is important to operationalize first the three variables as discussed in the previous chapter, namely: diplomatic relations, economic cooperation and cultural exchange.
The first variable diplomatic relations is earlier conceptualized as “the range of
non-violent foreign policy actions, including the use of declarations, meetings and
negotiations with representatives of other foreign policy actors” (Beach 2012: 173). This explanation focusses predominantly on the use of non-violent instruments by a state in its foreign policy activities to other states. Keeping this in mind, this first variable will be analyzed by measuring the following three foreign policy activities of the Turkish Republic towards Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and in particular the case of Syria. Firstly, it will analyze the total number of Official State Visits of Turkish
40
political leaders towards the earlier mentioned four states in the MENA-region at three different levels: Minister of Foreign Affairs, Prime Ministerial and Presidential level between 2003 until 2015. Secondly, it will examine the number of High-Level
Meetings Abroad of these three Turkish political leaders in the same period of time.
Finally, it will measure the total number of Official Press Releases and Statements by the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding these four states between the pre-Arab Spring period 2007 until the post-pre-Arab Spring era 2015.
The second variable economic cooperation has been conceptualized in line with Hill’s (2003) definition as the relation between states based on the total volume of trade, investment or development aid. While this definition is solid and does not necessarily require any further explanation, it will howeverbe helpful to specify what is intended within the parameters of trade, investment and development aid. Firstly,
trade can include a scale of different economic activities, however, regarding this
study the emphasis will be based on the measurement of both the import and export volume (in dollars) between Turkey, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and particularly Syria. Secondly, regarding the parameter economic investment, this research will analyze the financial contribution of Turkey’s businesses analyzing its total volume (in dollars) of outward foreign direct investment (FDI) towards the mentioned four states in the MENA-region. With reference to the last parameter, development aid, a variety of diverse visions among scholars and politicians exists on what can be considered under that subheading, shifting from economic assistance to public diplomacy of states. Therefore, development aid will, for the purpose of this study, beconsidered as part of a cultural exchange between states.
Finally, the third variable cultural exchange has been conceptualized in broad terms focusing on “shared and enduring meanings, values and beliefs that characterize national, ethnic or other groups and orient their behavior” (Faure & Sjösted 1993: 3). Because this general description of the concept can cover a wide-range of aspects that can be considered as part of cultural exchange, it is relevant to operationalize the concept based on concrete parameters so that it can be measured in a systematic
41
manner. Yet, these parameters have been divided into three parts. Firstly, measuring the development in Turkey’s tourism sector by focusing on the total number of foreign visitors to Turkey categorized by nationality from Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria between the pre-Arab Spring period until the post-Arab Spring period annually. These numbers will indicate the degree of popularity of Turkey as a holiday destination. Secondly, it will analyze the total number of foreign students studying in Turkey at the level of University from Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and especially Syria yearly. Yet, this parameter will measure the cultural exchange via education between Turkey and these four states. Lastly, public diplomacy of a state can function as a cultural promotion instrument to other countries in the world. Therefore, the contribution of Turkey’s public diplomacy agency’s role in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria will be examined through measuring the total number of mosques built or restored by the Turkish Republic in these countries and the number of Turkology (Turkish language) courses organized to educate people in these states during the same period of the pre-Arab Spring 2007 until the post-Arab Spring era, 2015.
Having discussed the operationalization of the variables of diplomatic relations, economic cooperation and cultural exchange, and why certain parameters in specific will be measured, the question at stake is how to analyze these three variables regarding Turkish foreign policy towards states in the MENA-region. In this regard, the following paragraph will focus the attention on the research design of this investigation.
3.2 Research design: single case study and process tracing
The research design of this study is based upon a combination of both qualitative and quantitative methods, known in the academic literature as a mix-methods approach. Yet, the main purpose of a good research design is to present an argument which answers the question about how to make valid descriptive and casual inferences (King, Keohane & Verba 1994). However, there are certain differences between both these methods. While qualitative research methods focuses primarily on
