The Davutoğlu Doctrine and Turkish Foreign Policy

loannis N. Grigoriadis, Bilkent University

ELIAMEP Working Paper No 8 April 2010

Summary

Turkish foreign policy under the AKP administration has been associated with the name of Ahmet Davutoğlu. Davutoğlu was the chief foreign policy advisor of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan before he was appointed foreign minister in 2009. As an academic, he has outlined his foreign policy doctrine in several writings, most important of which is his book “Strategic Depth.” This study explores Davutoğlu’s strategic vision, the extent to which this informs Turkish foreign policy, as well as its contradictions.

It is virtually impossible to discuss Turkish foreign policy since 2002 without a

reference to Ahmet Davutoğlu. Davutoğlu was one of the few academics who joined the

ranks of the Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi-AKP). Born in the

conservative, central Anatolian city of Konya, he came

from rather humble backgrounds to an academic career

in the field of international relations before moving to

politics, first as the chief foreign policy advisor to Prime

Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and later as foreign

minister. Having developed his strategic vision about

Turkey in his academic capacity, Davutoğlu belongs to

the very privileged group of academics who were given

the opportunity to put their theory into practice. While

his doctrine is often dubbed as “neo-Ottomanism,” the

use of this term is rather misleading. Ottomanism was a

nineteenth-century liberal political movement aiming to

the formation of a civic Ottoman national identity

overarching ethnic, linguistic and religious identities. The term was briefly reinstated as

“neo-Ottomanism” to characterize the foreign policy overtures of Turgut Özal in the late

1980s. While these involved increased interest in the Middle East, they share little of the

conceptual content of Davutoğlu’s vision. This study aims to outline Davutoğlu’s foreign

policy doctrine, evaluate its relevance to current Turkish foreign policy-making, as well as

its limitations.

The "Strategic Depth" Doctrine

While Davutoğlu’s early publications were based on rather outdated geopolitical models, his

vision underwent significant modifications from the late 1990s to the 2000s, something not

atypical for the majority of the AKP political leadership. Although geopolitics still comprises

a key framework of Davutoğlu’s strategic thinking, it

is supplemented by liberal elements, such as soft

power, conflict resolution and promotion of “winwin”

solutions. In his book “Strategic Depth,”

published in 2001, Davutoğlu elaborates on his

strategic vision about Turkey. He argues that Turkey

possesses “strategic depth” due to its history and

geographic position and lists Turkey among a small

group of countries which he calls “central powers”.

Turkey should not be content with a regional role in

the Balkans or the Middle East, because it is not a regional but a central power. Hence, it

should aspire to play a leading role in several regions, which could award it global strategic

significance.

In Davutoğlu’s view, Turkey is a Middle Eastern, Balkan, Caucasian, Central Asian,

Caspian, Mediterranean, Gulf and Black Sea country, can simultaneously exercise influence

in all these regions and thus claim a global strategic role. In view of these, he rejects the

perception of Turkey as a bridge between Islam and the West, as this would relegate

Turkey to an instrument for the promotion of the strategic interests of other countries.

Instead of letting other countries use Turkey to promote their regional and global strategic

role, Turkey should develop a proactive policy commensurate to its historic and geographic

depth, which is amplified by its Ottoman legacy. To achieve that aim, Turkey should

capitalise on its soft power potential. This is based on its historic and cultural links with all

the regions which it belongs to, as well as its democratic institutions and thriving market

economy. Turkey needs to put aside the militaristic image which its strong military and

history of military tutelage over society and politics has bequeathed. Instead, it should

promote conflict resolution, regional economic cooperation which would obviate the need

for regional intervention of great powers. In Davutoğlu’s own words:

...

Turkey enjoys multiple regional identities and thus has the capability as well

as the responsibility to follow an integrated and multidimensional foreign

policy. The unique combination of our history and geography brings with it a

sense of responsibility. To contribute actively towards conflict resolution and

international peace and security in all these areas is a call of duty arising from

the depths of a multidimensional history for Turkey.

...

Moving from Theory to Practice

Given that Davutoğlu, as chief foreign policy advisor to the prime minister and foreign

minister, has been an extremely influential actor throughout the AKP administration, it

makes sense to investigate to what extent his strategic doctrine has informed Turkish

foreign policy-making. The impact of Davutoğlu’s doctrine is evident in several of the

initiatives which the AKP government took in the field of domestic and foreign policy.

Turkey’s new Middle Eastern policy is a clear example of this. Significant improvement has

been noted regarding bilateral relations with Syria, Iraq and Armenia, while little change

has been observed regarding Greece and Cyprus.

...

Turkey's Emerging Global Interests

Turkey’s growing interest in hitherto neglected parts of the globe is another feature of the

implementation of Davutoğlu’s doctrine. Sub-saharan Africa and Latin America attracted

unprecedented attention by Turkish diplomatic authorities. A series of Turkey-Africa

summits were organised in Turkey with the participation of numerous African leaders. In a

speech Davutoğlu delivered in December 2009, he stated that seven new embassies were

opened in 2009, while twenty-six would open in 2010 most of which in sub-Saharan Africa

and Latin America.

...

A Critique

The implementation of Davutoğlu’s foreign policy doctrine has contributed to a

transformation of Turkish foreign policy and the rising importance of Turkey’s diplomatic

role, especially in the Middle East. Yet it suffers from contradictions which might

undermine its successful implementation. Davutoğlu’s strategic vision faces a tough test in

the case of Iran. In accordance to this vision, Turkey has refused to side with Western

pressure aiming to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment programme and has followed an

independent policy aiming to put Turkey in the centre of a compromise solution. Prime

Minister Erdoğan also called for nuclear disarmament in the Middle East, implying that it

would be unfair to demand from Iran to freeze its nuclear programme, while Israel has

faced no criticism for its violation of nuclear proliferation treaties and development of

nuclear weapons. By trusting the good intentions of Iran’s leadership, Turkey is taking a big

risk. If Iran defies previous statements and does develop nuclear weapons, Turkey could be

one of the biggest losers in terms of regional security and might be embroiled into a

nuclear arms race with other Middle Eastern states.

...

Moreover, there is a serious contradiction

in relegating Turkey’s EU membership ambition to

simply one of Turkish strategic priorities. According

to Davutoğlu’s view, Turkey’s EU membership is

desirable, but it is not considered Turkey’s unique

strategic orientation. On the contrary, it is put into

context with Turkey’s multiple strategic

alternatives. Yet what this position misses is the

importance of Turkey’s reform process and EU membership for the management and

resolution of its own domestic conflicts. Davutoğlu has highlighted the resolution of the

Kurdish question and the Islamist-secularist confrontation as the most important conditions

for the implementation of Turkey’s strategic ambitions. Turkey’s EU membership process

has been the single most important trigger of the democratisation reform which reshaped

Turkey between 1999 and 2004. The continuation of this process which slowed down from

2005 onwards is still to a large extent linked to EU-Turkey accession negotiations. To the

extent that Turkey’s EU accession process is crucial for the resolution of Turkey’s two

lagging domestic conflicts, its strategic relationship with the European Union is of much

higher significance than any other alternative. As the difficulties in the implementation of

the Kurdish opening as well as the absence of a major overhaul of state-religion relations in

Turkey manifest, the resolution of these

disputes will be extremely difficult without

pressure emanating from Turkey’s EU accession

process. Hence Turkey’s EU membership

becomes indispensable for the realisation of

Turkey’s strategic potential. Turkey’s advanced

regional ambitions do not necessarily pose an

obstacle to Turkey’s European integration. One

could even argue that a regionally stronger

Turkey can be considered a more appealing

candidate for EU membership and a more valuable EU member state. The clarification of

this point would also help soothe European concerns that Davutoğlu’s doctrine is really

about shifting Turkey’s strategic priorities from Europe to the Middle East.

...

Conclusions - Policy Recommendations

Turkish foreign policy needs to give a new impetus to Turkey’s EU accession,

which has abated since 2005. This can help resolve Turkey’s crucial domestic conflicts,

namely the Kurdish question and the confrontation between Islamists and secularists. As

the European Union is uniquely poised to facilitate this process, Turkey’s EU membership

becomes crucial and cannot be treated as only one of Turkey’s strategic options.

European authorities should make it clear that Turkish aspirations to a leading

regional and a global strategic role are not incompatible with EU membership under the

condition that Turkey fully complies with the membership criteria. In fact, a Turkey which

enjoys an upgraded strategic position and cordial relations with its Middle Eastern

neighbours will be a more appealing EU member state and an asset in European strategic

planning.

For full-text of the paper; click here