TURKISH FOREIGN POLICY BETWEEN 1960-1971

8 6 $ .  < ( $ 5 % 2 2 .  9RO<HDUSS‹ TURKISH FOREIGN POLICY BETWEEN 1960-1971: NEO-KEMALISM VS. NEO-DEMOCRATS? Sedat LAÇøNER ‘I hope you will understand that your NATO allies have not had a chance to consider whether they have an obligation to protect Turkey against the Soviet Union if Turkey takes a step which results in Soviet intervention without the full consent and understanding of its NATO allies.’1 Lyndon B. Johnson, US President, 1964 ‘Atatürk taught us realism and rationalism. He was not an ideologue.’2 Süleyman Demirel, Turkish Prime Minister Abstract In the post-coup years two main factors; the détente process, and as a result of the détente significant change in the United States’ policies towards Turkey, started a chain-reaction process in Turkish foreign policy. During the 1960s several factors forced Turkish policy makers towards a new foreign policy. On the one hand, the Western attitude undermined the Kemalist and other Westernist schools and caused an ideological transformation in Turkish foreign policy. On the other hand, the military coup and disintegration process that it triggered also played very important role in the foreign policy transformation process. Indeed, by undermining Westernism in Turkey, the West caused an ideological crisis in Kemalism and other foreign policy schools. The 1960s also witnessed the start of the disintegration process in Turkish politics that provided a suitable environment for the resurgence of the Ottoman schools of thought, such as Islamism and Turkism. 1 2 The Middle East Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3, Summer 1966, p. 387. øhsan Sabri Ça÷layangil, Anılarım, (My Memoirs), (østanbul: Güneú, 1990), p. 125.   

 
 $ &" Finally, with the 1961 Constitution’s pluralistic approach, Turkey witnessed a divergence of political and social ideas. All these developments forced the governments to reshape its foreign policy. Keywords: Cyprus Problem, Democrat Party, Justice Party, NeoKemalism, Turkish Foreign Policy. INTRODUCTION As the first organized and successful challengers to Kemalism, the Democrats undermined Kemalist policies. The DP reshaped Turkish foreign, economic and domestic policies. The DP not only challenged Kemalism, but also the privileged Kemalist ‘class’, namely the bureaucracy, the army and the Kemalist elite. When they lost their economic and political privileges, the military initiated a coup to stop the Democrats’ reforms. Hence, the 27 May Coup can be viewed as a ‘revenge of the establishment’. After the coup, the military and military-supported governments tried to change DP policies and return to early Republican foreign and domestic policies. As has been seen, the domestic and foreign policies were not clearly distinguished and as a result of this, Turkish foreign policy was merely a branch of Turkish domestic politics. In the post-coup era, however, almost all political groups focused on foreign policy issues and made an effort to set up an ideological foreign policy framework. These efforts and international developments caused great change in Turkish foreign policy. This study will therefore explore the causes of this transformation. Moreover, in this period, Turkey saw the rise of a neo-Kemalist foreign policy approach, the Kemalist left. Although they used ‘Kemalism’ as a name, as will be seen, their foreign policy understanding was very different from Atatürk’s foreign policy understanding. In this framework, the chapter also examines the roots of this school and aims to explain the ideological ground of the leftist-Kemalist foreign policy approach. Furthermore, there is no doubt that one of the most important events,               which left traumatic marks on Turkish policy makers, is the Cyprus Crisis. The Cyprus Crisis changed almost everything in Turkish foreign policy. The Western attitude in the Crisis can be considered the greatest challenge to the Kemalist and liberal-conservative Westernism in Turkey. Turkey’s loneliness during the crisis created a great shock and caused a radical shift in Kemalist and conservative-liberal foreign policy understanding. Also, the Cyprus Crisis provided a good example to test the success of ideology in Turkish foreign policy. Finally, we will focus on Süleyman Demirel’s Justice Party’s foreign policy understanding and its implementation. In a period that witnessed the resurgence of Kemalism, the neo-Democratic Justice Party tried to establish a more balanced foreign policy and made efforts not to make the same mistakes of the DP. THE ARMY: KEMALIST REVENGE? Democrats vs. the Army The Army, which was the most respected and most powerful institution in Turkey, saw itself as the guardian of Kemalism and the state.3 In this context, the Democrats, aware of the importance of the army in Turkish politics, gave priority to the military needs at the cost of economic development.4 However, with the establishment of multiparty rule, the army inevitably lost its privileged position; hence it found itself in an identity crisis. Moreover, the Democrats’ anti-etatist policies relatively diminished the financial power of the military compared with the business and agricultural classes. In particular, the high inflation undermined the economic power of military officers. Also, they no longer enjoyed their previous level of direct representation in political power. The percentage of deputies from a military origin fell sharply after the 1950 elections and the same held true for the executive body where five of the six ministers of National Defence during the Menderes period were civilians, although 11 of the predecessors of the ønönü period had a military background. As a result, and as Vaner put it, ‘the change in ruling elites, which derived from important social transformations and reflected a shift in political structures, was perceived by the army as the degradation of its own institutional 3 4 Richard D. Robinson, The First Turkish Republic, A Case Study in National Development, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963), p. 88; Also see Daniel Lerner and Richard D. Robinson, ‘Swords and Ploughshares: The Turkish Army as a Modernizing Force’, World Politics, October 1960, pp. 19-44. William Hale (Trn. Ahmet Fethi), Türkiye’de Ordu ve Siyaset, 1789’dan Günümüze, (The Army and the Politics in Turkey, Since 1789), (østanbul: Hil Yayın, 1996), p. 94 and Morris Singer, The Economic Advance of Turkey, 1838-1960, (Ankara: Turkish Economic Society, 1977), p. 415.   

 
 $ &" prestige and a challenge to its image within society.’5 After the 1954 elections, the relations between the civilians and the army worsened as for the first time in centuries, the army was now under civilian authority. Under these circumstances, most of the army officers declared that they were Kemalist soldiers and that DP policies had damaged Kemalism. They saw no alternative but a military coup—called ‘revolution’ (devrim) by the Kemalist elite. For instance, the first report of the Constitution Commission, established by the coup, stated that the Menderes government was ‘antagonistic to the army, courts, university and Atatürk’s reforms.’6 For the army, the ‘revolution’ marked the beginning of the process of its affirmation in the political arena7 in order to protect Kemalism.8 Under the coup administration, Prime Minister Adnan Menderes, Foreign Minister Fatin Rüútü Zorlu and Finance Minister Hasan Polatkan, were executed by a military court on 16-17 September 1961 and 12 more politicians were also sentenced to death. The party was closed down and 200 people, including many deputies, were given prison sentences. After the coup, the military officers set up the Ulusal Birlik Komitesi (National Unity Committee, hereafter NUC). The NUC remained in power for more than a year to carry out the revolution’s reforms: banks were closed, the personal accounts of leading politicians and businessmen were frozen and loans were suspended. All inflationary policies were also cancelled, like large construction projects. The purchase of government bonds was made compulsory for wage earners. Price controls were introduced and land taxes were increased. On the other hand, the salaries of army officers were greatly increased and special army stores were opened.9 The Army Mutual Assistance Association (OYAK) was established and the army began collecting capital from its officers, 5 6 7 8 9  Semih Vaner, ‘The Army’, in Irvin C. Schick and Ertu÷rul Ahmet Tonak (eds.), Turkey in Transition, New Perspectives, (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp. 236-265, pp. 237-238. Türkkaya Ataöv, ‘The 27th May Revolution and Its Aftermath’ The Turkish Yearbook of International Relations, 1960-1961, p. 20. Vaner, ‘The Army...’, p. 328. Andrew Mango, Turkey, (London: Thames and Hudson, 1968), p. 89. Stanford J. Shaw and Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Vol. II, (Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press, 1977), pp. 414-415.              they started to run business like a civilian corporation. OYAK also set up army bazaars to support the officers.10 Moreover, the Democrat Party supporters or sympathisers were purged from the army and the bureaucracy and 147 academicians were dismissed.11 The Coup’s Ideology: Leftist and Kemalist The coup leaders were anti-Democrat and opposed all DP reforms. They named their policies Kemalist;12 however, their Kemalism was less pragmatic than that of Atatürk. They were idealist and aimed to transform the country without any compromise. Surprisingly, as will be seen, they were idealistic on foreign policy matters as well. Third, unlike Atatürk’s Kemalism, the importance of socialist ideas in their Kemalism was obvious. Social justice, equality, independence and anti-imperialism were the main pillars of the ‘revolution-like-coup’ and this leftist attitude was also reflected on their foreign policy approach. It should also be noted that the coup of 27 May 1960 is the first and last successful military coup made from outside the hierarchical structure of the Turkish Army.13The lack of hierarchical order made the coup more idealistic and romantic but less pragmatic and realistic. ‘Kemalist Measures’ and the Restructuring of Foreign Policy Machinery After the coup, the army declared that they would not give up the democratic multi-party political system; however, they attempted to maintain their Kemalist hegemony within a multi-party system. As such, they set a political structure around a politically strong army. The system was fully-democratic in appearance and the 1961 Constitution, made by the soldiers, was considered the most democratic Turkish constitution. Yet army control over political life was obvious and as a matter of fact that the 27 May Coup institutionalized the army’s place in Turkish politics. 10 Feroz Ahmad, The Making of Modern Turkey, (London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 130131. 11 W. F. Weiker, The Turkish Revolution, 1960-1961, Aspects of Military Politics, (Washington D.C.: 1963), pp. 54-55; Saw and Shaw, History of..., p. 415. 12 ùevket Süreyya Aydemir, htilalin Mantıı ve 27 Mayıs htilali, (The Logic of Revolution and The Revolution of 27 May), (østanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1973), pp. 512. 13 Ahmad, The Making…, p. 121.   

 
 $ &" In foreign policy, the 1961 Constitution aimed to restore Kemalist principles. As Server Tanilli put it, the Constitution accepted ‘independence’ and ‘peace’ as the two main pillars of Turkish foreign policy.14 The Introductory section underlined Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s ‘peace at home, peace in the world’-principle.15 Thus the Kemalist pacifist principle was constitutionalised by the Some of the Turkish Newspapers coup. Likewise, in that Welcomed the Military Coup section and in article V, 77, and 96, the independence principles were underlined.16 Apart from the independence and pacifist principles, other Kemalist principles, namely secularism, Kemalist nationalism, republicanism, etatism and populism were maintained. In particular, secularism continued to determine Turkey’s relations with the Muslim countries. Thus the coup aimed to secure Kemalism in foreign policy with constitutional obligations. Moreover, the 1961 Constitution drew a pluralistic legal framework in domestic matters in order to divide and balance the civilian power. As will be seen, this pluralism caused a resurgence of left and right ideologies, particularly the rise of Marxism. Thus the constitutional changes indirectly helped to create more alternatives in foreign policy, creating a pluralistic foreign policy in the future. Second, the state machinery was restructured. The National Security Council (NSC, Milli Güvenlik Kurulu) was also created. The members of the Council were the President, Head of the General Staff, four other generals (from Air, Naval, Ground and Gendarme forces), Prime Minister, Minister for Defence Affairs and Minister for Foreign Affairs. The body’s main task was to maintain Kemalism in state and society and to control politicians and bureaucrats. According to the 1961 Constitution, the NSC was more powerful than the Prime Minister, President, Cabinet and on 14 15 16  Server Tanilli, Devlet ve Demokrasi (State and Democracy), 6th Edition, (østanbul; Say Yayınları, 1990), pp. 593-595. Constitution of the Turkish Republic, (Trs.: S. Balkan, A. Uysal and K. Karpat), (Ankara: 1961), Intr. Section. Constitution...              some occasions even the Turkish Parliament. For example, the Constitution stated that the Cabinet had to consider decisions taken by the NSC,17 and in practice the Cabinet had to carry out NSC decisions without debate.18 The NSC also had great power in foreign policy decision-making, and, as an extension of the revolutionary ideology, the NSC’s priority in external relations was national security. Therefore the NSC looked at the foreign policy issue through the national security prism. The problem was that there was no clear definition for national security or as Orhan Erkanlı, Coup leader stated, national security covered all political issues: ‘From the price of rice to roads and touristic sites, there is not a single problem in this country which is not related to national security. If you happen to be very deep thinker that too is a matter of national security.’19 As a result, the NSC had incredible freedom in deciding domestic and foreign policies and in reality the Cabinet and foreign policy bureaucracy were only assistants to the NSC in implementing the policies. In addition to the NSC’s approach to foreign policy, the army also saw national security issues as its constitutional task. Therefore, neither the NSC nor the army consulted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Cabinet in many foreign policy issues. However, the political atmosphere brought on by the coup and by the 1961 Constitution caused some pluralistic changes in foreign policy making: Turkish foreign policy was made exclusively by the executive branch with minimum participation of other branches between 1923 and 1960 and foreign policy issues were considered national consensus issues.20 Therefore, the press and opposition could not freely criticize Turkish foreign policy until the 1960 coup. With the ‘new Constitution’ and new political environment, the former taboo regarding discussion of foreign policy was lifted and national consensus on foreign policy was broken. However, despite the more colourful press and 17 18 19 20 The 1961 Constitution, Article 118/3. Bülent Tanör, ‘Türkiye’de Dıú øliúkilerin øç Hukuk Rejimi’ (The Legal Regime of Turkey’s External Relations in Domestic Framework), in Faruk Sönmezo÷lu (ed.), Türk Dı Politikasının Analizi (The Analysis of Turkish Foreign Policy), p. 324. Ahmad, The Making..., p. 130. Nasuh Uslu, The Turkish-American Relationship between 1947 and 2003, The History of a Distinctive Alliance, (New York: Nova, 2003), pp. 39-40.   

 
 $ &" stronger opposition on foreign policy issues, it could not change the strong position of the NSC or the Army in the first years of the Coup. Another institutional change introduced was the creation of the Supreme Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi). In democratic systems, Supreme Courts are established to protect the people and minorities against the state’s ‘unjust’ policies. However, in Turkey the priority was protecting the state from the people and the Constitutional Court was set to protect the Kemalist state from the people, parliament and ‘unreliable politicians’. Also, the High Court of Justice was reorganised to try accused members of the DP21 and 592 leading members were brought to trial on Yassıada Island. Furthermore, other laws and institutions were introduced by NUC, like the State Planning Organization (SPO), which was formed to plan and control the official expenditures aimed at completely changing the Democratic economic structure because for the Kemalist elite, the Democrats’ liberal market economy was decaying the social structure of Kemalist ideology. Contrary to the Democrats’ market economy model, the NUC promoted a planned economy with an import substitution strategy. Moreover, the 1961 Constitution set a bicameral parliament and cut parliament’s duties of legislation, ratification of the treaties and the authorisation of the use of armed force (Articles 63, 64, 65 and 66). The lower house, with 450 deputies was to be elected for four years by a direct general election. The upper house, the Senate of the Republic (Cumhuriyet Senatosu), was to be composed of 150 members elected for a six-year term. Also, according to the constitution, 15 additional members were to be appointed by the President from individuals distinguished for their services in various fields, at least ten of whom were to be independent of political parties (Articles 70 and 72). Furthermore, the chairman and all members of the NUC were automatically appointed members of the Senate. With these amendments, the NUC aimed at a balanced political system to prevent civilian ‘autocracy’ over the elite and aimed to guarantee the military, bureaucrats and the Kemalist elite’s privileged position in society. The NUC also aimed to maintain the Kemalist values in the state system with the Constitution law and the institutions. With these reforms, the challenge to Kemalism had ended and once more the civil and military bureaucrats became the privileged and most respected group in society, and, as will be seen, they were dedicated to the preservation of the status quo. 21  Düstur, Dördüncü Tertib, two vols. (Ankara: 1961).              POST-REVOLUTION: THE NEED FOR A TRANSFORMATION IN FOREIGN POLICY The 1960 Revolution alarmed the United States and the world,22 as it became difficult to predict political developments in Turkey. Aware that they needed international support, notably that of NATO, the coup leaders moved quickly to dispel anxiety about Turkey’s international position, and pointed out that the reason for the coup was domestic not external.23 In his first speech on national radio, Alparslan Türkeú, the coup’s spokesman, declared Turkey’s position after the coup: ‘(…) We are addressing ourselves to our allies, friends, neighbours, and the entire world. Our aim is to remain completely loyal to the United Nations Charter and to the principles of human rights; the principle of peace at home and in the world set by the great Atatürk is our flag. We are loyal to all our alliances and undertakings. We believe in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), and the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO), and we are faithful to them. We repeat our ideal is peace at home, peace in the world.’24 Not only the army, but also the øsmet ønönü and JP governments had reaffirmed Turkish commitments to the West and the world.25 In particular, during the early 1960s, Turkey did not change the essence of its foreign policy;26 however, in the later years, Turkish foreign policy underwent remarkable changes. It can be argued that there were six main reasons for these changes: the failure of the DP policies; the army’s scepticism over the Democrats’ Americanism; the resurgence of opposition in foreign policy matters; the rise of the anti-Western Marxist school; the marriage between Kemalism and the left; and finally the Cyprus Crisis. We will now discuss the first two, and then we will focus on the other issues in the following sections. 22 23 24 25 26 New York Times, 28 May 1960, The Times 29 May 1960. Milliyet, 27 May 1960. Deniz Atiye Erden, Turkish Foreign Policy Through the United Nations, 1960-1970, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, 1974, pp. 46-47. øsmail Arar, Hükümet Programları, 1920-1965 (The Government Programs, 19201965), (østanbul: Burcak Yayınevi), pp. 312-350. Haluk Gerger, Türk Dı Politikasının Ekonomi Politii, (The Political Economy of Turkish Foreign Policy), (østanbul: Belge Yayınları, 1998), pp. 94-99.   

 
 $ &" Failure of the DP’s Foreign Policy The failure of the DP in foreign policy was obvious. In the Middle East, the Baghdad Pact had resulted in a disaster for Turkey, and anti-Turkish feelings had dramatically increased in the Arab world, thanks to Menderes’ policies over Iraq and Syria and Turkey’s support for the former colonialist powers. Turkey’s pro-Western policy did not even make Israel happy. For the West, Menderes had sacrificed Turkish interests in the East to maintain Western support, while the Western attitude, especially over Cyprus, proved that the West would not support the Turks. As a result, in spite of its domestic success the DP foreign policy was considered a failure and this failure forced the new policy-makers to look for a new way, and encouraged the opposition to challenge the existing policies. Army Unhappiness with DP-Type Americanism The May 1960 coup was triggered by the deteriorating domestic political and economic situation in Turkey, yet the execution of the Minister for Foreign Affairs was significant and showed the extent of the Army’s unrest over the Democrats’ foreign policy. Under the heavy influence of the left-wing groups, the army perceived the Democratic foreign policies as a deviation from the Kemalist path, and the Democrats’ policy in the Middle East especially dissatisfied Army officers. For example, General Esengil argued that the Turkish army lost prestige and control over Turkey’s security while NUC member Karan claimed that Turkey had become a sacrificeable country for the American interests.27 For the army, Menderes’ foreign policy was a further deviation from Kemalist secularism, Westernism and realism.28 The Army was not happy with Democratic foreign policy and planned a radical change in foreign policy. Despite their words, the army was more sceptical about relations with the West. In addition, the revolution’s leaders were under the influence of left-wing groups and the army and thus attached greater importance to the concept of equality and national independence within bilateral relationships than the DP regime had. For the revolutionary leaders, secret agreements with the United States were against Kemalist realism and independence principles as the DP had placed total trust in the United States, even Turkish customs did not control the American goods sent to Turkey.29 However, the United States let Turkey down in foreign 27 28 29  Kenan Esengil, 27 Mayıs ve Ordudaki Kıyımlar (27 May and the Sacrifices in the Army), (østanbul: 1978), pp. 10-11; Orhan Erkanli, ‘Dıú Yardımlar ve Dıú Tesirler’ (Foreign Aid and Foreign Effect), Gerçek Fikir Ajansı Bülteni, No. 3, January 1966. George Lenczowski, Soviet Advances in the Middle East, (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Research, 1972), p. 49. Cumhuriyet (daily, østanbul), 2 July 1961.              policy, as seen in the Lebanon and Cyprus affairs. As one American Ambassador to Ankara accepted in his memoirs, the United States did not even ask Turkey when it used its bases in Turkey.30 As a result, the coup leaders made an effort to change secret agreements and the direction of Turkish-American relations; they even encouraged public debates on that matter. In particular, the army requested to increase Turkey’s power to decide the status of American soldiers and officers in Turkey. According to the 1954 Agreement with the United States, an American soldier was not under Turkish jurisdiction if he was on duty and the army considered these privileges an extension of capitulations in the Ottoman Empire. More generally, the army was against the DP’s Americanism and desired more balanced relations with the world on the basis of the principles of equality and independence. RISE OF NEO-KEMALISM (LEFTIST KEMALISM) IN FOREIGN POLICY Until the 1960 coup, the difference between foreign and domestic policies was not clear for Turkish political groups. For Atatürk, foreign policy was an extension of domestic goals and he saw foreign policy as a tool to maintain his reforms. ønönü followed Atatürk’s way and did not promote a distinct foreign policy theory. In the Menderes period, foreign policy matters increased importance, but foreign policy was still a ‘high politics’ issue, even for the parliamentarians. However, after the coup, with the effect of political polarisation, the gap between the political groups on foreign policy matters widened and the coup leaders, contrary to the previous Turkish leaders, encouraged public debates on foreign policy.31 These debates deepened the differences. The first response came from the Kemalist leftists who shared the ideology of the military coup. Particularly the Yön circle made efforts to set a different foreign policy ideology based on leftism and Kemalism. 30 31 George McGhee, ABD–Türkiye–NATO-Ortadou (USA-Turkey-NATO-Middle East), (Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi, 1992), p. 275. Changes in international relations also provided a suitable environment for such debates: Ömer Kürkçüoglu, ‘Dıú Politika Nedir? Türkiye’deki Dünü ve Bugünü’, (What is Foreign Policy? Its Past and Present in Turkey), AÜ SBF Dergisi / Ankara University SBF Journal, Vol. 35, Nos.: 1-4, January-December, 1980, p. 235.   

 
 $ &" Marriage of Kemalism and Leftism: Yön Movement32 Mustafa Kemal Atatürk had severely suppressed the Marxist movement in Turkey. However, in the so-called liberal atmosphere of the Constitution of 1961, works of many leading socialist writers and leaders were freely translated and circulated in Turkey. Socialist ideas were rising among the people and the intellectuals in the 1960s.33 The 1960 coup’s leftist ideas became more influential in certain sections of the Kemalist elite and bureaucracy, and their influence over the educated elite was remarkable. In particular, RPP members, during the ønönü era were exposed to the communist ideology and it can be said that the ønönist interpretation of Kemalism provided a suitable ground for Marxists in the state machinery. During the DP period, similar policies of the RPP and the Marxists, like etatism, anti-religious and anti-liberal economic policies connected these two political groups and increased the Marxist influence over the bureaucracy, the army and the RPP. This culminated in the 1960s when similarities between the leftist groups and the RPP increased and the leftist Kemalists became the strongest group amongst the Kemalist elite. The marriage of Kemalist Western scepticism with leftist anticapitalism and anti-imperialism resulted in reinterpretation of the goals of Turkish foreign policy and opened an era of criticism over Turkey’s Western orientation.34 Until that time, the Islamists had protested over Turkey’s commitments to the West, but they were weak, and had no influence over the state. On 20 December 1961, the leftist Kemalists established their influential journal, Yön (Direction). This journal provided the first serious and organised criticism of Turkish foreign policy. Yön advocated new security strategies for Turkey outside of NATO and propagated rapprochement with the Soviet Union.35 In doing so, for the first time in Republican history Turkey’s Western connections were severely criticised.36 32 33 34 35 36  ‘Yön’ means ‘direction’ in Turkish language. For Yön Movement see Hikmet Özdemir, Kalkınmada Bir Strateji Arayıı Yön Hareketi (Search for a Strategy in Development: The Yön Movement), (Ankara: Bilgi, 1986). Gönlübol, ‘A Short Appraisal of Foreign Policy of the Turkish Republic’, The Turkish Yearbook of International Relations, Volume 14, p. 8. Gönlübol, ‘A Short...’, p. 8. Mümtaz Soysal, ‘Yalnızlık’ (Aloneness), Yön, No. 143; Haluk Ülman, ‘Dıú Politikamızın De÷iúkenleri II’, Yön, No. 27, 20 June 1962, p. 16. Ergun Aydıno÷lu, Eletirel Bir Tarih Denemesi, 1960-1971, Türk Solu (A Critical History Essay, 1960-1971, Turkish Left), (østanbul: Belge Yayınları, 1992), pp. 3842.              While the need for change was real and there was serious concern over the Turkish-Western alliance amongst the academics, the army and politicians, no one knew any alternatives to the West. For example, when the Forum journal began a serious debate on Turkish foreign policy, academics claimed that any change from the traditional foreign policy was impossible although the need for such change was essential.37 The neoKemalist response came from Haluk Ülman, whose article can be considered the first serious Kemalist critique of Turkey’s pro-Western foreign policy. In his article, Ülman claimed that the international system was changing and the Soviet Union was no longer a threat. Ülman further claimed that NATO could not guarantee Turkey’s security, but might increase Turkey’s defence expenditure, and risk Turkish security by provoking other nations. Therefore, Turkey had to end all NATO commitments and he suggested that Turkey improve its relations with the communist bloc and the Third World.38 Ülman’s argument encouraged others and began an era of criticism. Leftist Türkkaya Ataöv, Do÷an Avcıo÷lu and Mümtaz Soysal, all lecturers at Ankara University, followed Ülman and claimed that Turkey’s pro-Western policies harmed Turkish interests.39 They also tried to reconcile Kemalism and leftist ideas with the aim of formulating a Kemalist-leftist doctrine arguing that the Kemalist reforms were socialist. Yön authors named Kemalism ‘national socialism’.40 For neo-Kemalists, Atatürk was the greatest leftist in Turkish history and the War of Independence and the Kemalist reforms were the greatest anti-imperialist, leftist achievements of the Turks.41 For example, Ataöv criticised Turkey’s policy towards the Algerian Independence War as ‘Turkey lost its credits, which it had gained with the War of Independence. The only way to get them back and to be a leader for the 37 38 39 40 41 ‘Dıú Politikamız Üzerine’ (On Our Foreign Policy), Forum, 15 December 1960 and Forum, 15 February 1962; Aydıno÷lu, Elestirel..., p. 55. Haluk Ülman, ‘Dıú Politikamızın De÷iúkenleri I’, (Changeable Factors of Our Foreign Policy I), Yön, No. 26, 1962, pp. 14-15. The Yön authors claimed that Atatürk aimed at Westernism, but he was against the West: Niyazi Berkes, ‘Gericilik ve Batının Zararlı Tesirleri’ (Reactionary Movements and the Bad Effects of the West), Yön, No. 58, 23 January 1963, p. 8. Yakup Kadri Karaosmano÷lu, ‘Atatürk’ün Özledi÷i Türkiye’, Yön, No. 47, 7 November 1962, p. 12; Sadun Aren, the leading socialist-Kemalist, also argued that, in particular, Kemal’s populism and etatism principles showed his socialist dream for Turkey: Sadun Aren, ‘Atatürk’ün Özledi÷i Türkiye’yi Kurabildik mi?’, Yön, No. 47, 7 November 1962, p. 14. ùevket Süreyya Aydemir, ‘Türk Sosyalizminin ølkeleri’ (The Principles of Turkish Socialism), Yön, No. 56, 9 January 1963, p. 8; Cahit Tanyol, ‘Açık Oturum Konusmaúı’ (The Open Negotiations Speech), Yön, No. 75, 23 May 1963, p. 11; Sadun Aren, ‘SBF’de Atatürk’ (Atatürk in SBF), Yön, No. 49, 21 November 1962, p. 5.   

 
 $ &" developing states was Kemalist Socialism.’42 Similarly, Avcıo÷lu saw Turkey’s place among the Third World states.43 In fact, the contradiction was obvious: as has been seen, Atatürk’s aim was never to be the leader of any group of nations. His first and only priority was Turkey, not the developing countries. Despite such obvious differences, the new leftists continued to use the Kemalist name. Avcıo÷lu, the leading columnist and publisher of Yön, suggested a revolutionary takeover by the Kemalist-leftist army officers in order to realise all these objectives because, for him, there were ‘native collaborators of imperialism’ in Turkey.44 These collaborators were the Turkish bourgeoisie and its representatives, namely the JP and other right-wing parties.45 Similarly, almost all leftist-Kemalists, like Çetin Altan,46 Türkkaya Ataöv,47 and Mehmet Ali Aybar48 claimed that Western imperialism was responsible for Turkish backwardness. For example, Ataöv argued that NATO and the United States brought nothing but infringement, instability and backwardness to Turkish society and risked Turkish security by provoking the Soviet Union.49 Another platform for the leftist-Kemalists was the Aydınlık journal. In fact, it was a Marxist-Leninist periodical in essence and shared very little with Kemalism; however, some of its members claimed that Mustafa Kemal was a good socialist and anti-imperialist. For example, Belli argued that the Kemalist reforms prepared a suitable ground for a socialist revolution, accusing the Democrats of being a bastion of ‘Western imperialism’ in the Middle East.50 Behice Boran also stressed socialism as an alternative for Turkey’s foreign affairs arguing that the alliance with NATO hindered Turkey’s economic progress and risked its security.51 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  Türkkaya Ataöv, ‘Atatürk’ün Dıú Politikası’ (Ataturk’s Foreign Policy), Yön, Turkish journal, No. 47, 1962, p. 18. Dogan Avcıo÷lu, ‘Emperyalizmin Çırpınıúları’ (Imperialism’s Last Struggles to Live), Yön, No. 98, 12 February 1965, p. 3. Do÷an Avcıo÷lu, Devrim Üzerine (On the Revolution), (Ankara: Bilgi, 1971); Türkiye’nin Düzeni (Turkey’s Order), (Ankara: Bilgi, 1970). Cumhuriyet (daily, østanbul), 15 November 1962. Çetin Altan, Onlar Uyanırken: Türk Sosyalistlerinin El Kitabı (When They are Awakening: Guide Book for Turkish Socialists), (østanbul: Dönem, 1967). Türkkaya Ataöv, Amerika, NATO ve Türkiye (America, NATO and Turkey), (Ankara: Aydınlık, 1969). Mehmet Ali Aybar, Baımsızlık, Demokrasi, Sosyalizm (Independence, Democracy, Socialism), (østanbul: Gerçek, 1968). Ataöv, Amerika… Mihri Belli, ‘Ulusal Demokratik Devrim’ (National Democratic Revolution), Aydınlık, 27 May 1966; Mihri Belli, Yazılar, 1965-1970 (Collected Essays), Ankara: Sol Yayinları, 1970), pp. 12-24. Behice Boran, Türkiye ve Sosyalizm Sorunları, (Turkey and the Problems of Socialism), (østanbul: Tekin Yayinevi, 1970), pp. 46-52.              The leftist-Kemalist foreign policy framework was based on three main assumptions. First, the West was imperialist and wanted to colonise Turkey and other Third World countries and therefore, Turkey’s efforts for integration into the West did not help Turkey’s development and security. Second, the Turkish Right and business class were collaborators with Western imperialism, and enemies of Kemalism. In order to implement an independent, Kemalist and anti-imperial foreign policy, a revolution led by the army and other ‘progressive’ forces was compulsory. Third, Turkey’s foreign policy must be independent, socialist and Third Worldist, friendly relations with the Soviet Union and the Third World were essential. The creation of a Marxist Turkish Workers Party (Türkiye çi Partisi, TIP) increased criticism of traditional Turkish foreign policy.52 The Marxists and other leftist groups, not only influenced and pressured government agencies, but also organised street demonstrations and attacks against American interests in Turkey.53 Foreign policy was crucial to the Marxists programme and, unlike the JP, RPP or other parties, the TIP focused on foreign policy.54 The TIP publicly criticised Turkey’s alliance with the United States, and accused the West of occupying Turkey economically and politically.55 They also accused Turkish foreign policymakers of this and attempted to prove that Mustafa Kemal was the greatest leftist in Turkish history by arguing that the RPP and the DP governments deviated from Kemalist policies. For the TIP, the real Kemalist foreign policy had to be based on independence and the struggle against the imperialist West,56 as the TIP declared its foreign policy objectives were: ‘to protect the national independence, 52 53 54 55 56 Mahmut B. Aykan, Turkey’s Role in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference 1960-1992, The Nature of Deviation from the Kemalist Heritage, (New York: Vantage Press, 1994), p. 55. Aydıno÷lu, Eletirel..., pp. 46-49. Türkiye çi Partisi Programı, (Turkish Workers Party Programme), (Ankara, TIP, n.d.). Cumhuriyet (daily, østanbul), 25 March 1965, Milliyet (daily, østanbul), 27 May 1967. Erkin Topkaya, Anayasa, Siyasi Partiler Kanunu, Program ve Tüzükleriyle Türkiye’de Balıca Siyasi Partiler, (Constitution, the Law of Political Parties and the Main Political Parties with Their Programmes), (Ankara: Ulusal, 1969), p. 442.   

 
 $ &" Republic, territorial integrity, equality in foreign policy…to struggle against imperialism and support the independence movements in the Third world and colonies.’57 Yön and the success of the TIP caused an ideological shift within them as the RPP became the home of leftist-Kemalism. In the 1960s, Bülent Ecevit created a new ideology for the RPP, Ortanın Solu (Left of Centre).58 Ecevit argued that the RPP had to change its so-called ‘non-Kemalist’ policies because as the greatest anti-imperialist, Atatürk’s policies were good examples of leftist policies. Ecevit, in reaction to the elitist approach of the single-party system of the 1930s-40s, argued that elitism had alienated people from the party and caused repeated election defeats in the multi-party period. A new understanding had to be given to people and class-policies.59 Ecevit further claimed that like Atatürk, the RPP had to follow a foreign policy based on more independence and good relations with the anti-imperialist states, namely the Third World and Soviet Union. One of the most significant features of Ecevit’s foreign policy understanding was its American scepticism. Ecevit publicly accused the Americans of destabilising the other countries in his 1966 party speech: ‘In America it has been disclosed with what “dirty game” the CIA is involved affecting domestic politics in friendly and allied countries. It pours money into elections in order to bring those who it wants into power and unseat those it does not want; in some countries it even stuffs poling boxes with false ballots. In order to prepare a pretext for smashing legal and domestic opposition, it has claimed that there was a great communist danger.’60 Though Ecevit could not find an opportunity to implement his ideology at this stage, in the 1970s he marginalised ønönü and his ideology from the party and leftist-Kemalism became the ideology behind Turkish foreign policy in the 1970s. 57 58 59 60  Ibid., pp. 443-444. For Ecevit’s new leftist ideology, see: Bülent Ecevit, Ortanın Solu (Left of Centre), (østanbul: Tekin, 1968). Güneú - Ayata, pp. 161-162. Ulus, daily paper supported by the RPP, 21 June 1966, as cited in George S. Harris, Troubled Alliance, Turkish-American Problems in Historical Perspective, 19451971, (Washington, D.C.: Hoover, 1972), p. 136.              Despite Marxist and Kemalist-leftist propaganda and the real need for change, Turkey needed time for such a great shift in foreign policy because the coup leaders and then ønönü needed fresh financial credits. Moreover, the Soviet Union was still a great menace, and Turkey saw no alternative to an alliance with the West. As a result, NATO and the alliance with the West were generally considered taboo issues in Turkey. For example, Kemalist-socialist Sadun Aren notes that the TIP party could not start a ‘NO to NATO’ campaign for fear that their party would be closed down by the courts.61 Only the Jupiter Missiles Affair and the Cyprus crisis demolished this taboo and allowed the neo-Kemalists to openly attack existing Turkish foreign policy. Apart from the leftists, even the traditionalist foreign policy experts started to criticise Turkey’s pro-Western policy and its neglect of the Third World. For example, Fahir Armao÷lu, a traditionalist, Kemalist academic, argued that Turkey could manage to improve its relations with the developing countries with NATO membership.62 61 62 Sadun Aren, TP Olayı 1961-1971, (TIP Affair, 1961-1971), (østanbul: Cem Yayınları, 1993), p. 67. Fahir Armao÷lu, ‘Türkiye ve NATO’, (Turkey and NATO), Forum, No. 193, 1962, p. 18.   

 
 $ &" Turkish Governments in the Inter-Coups Era (1961-1971) I. Gürsel Government (30 May 1960–5 January 1961) II. Gürsel Government (5 January 1961–20 November 1961) (20 November 1961–25 June 1962) (25 June 1962–25 December 1963) VIII. ønönü Government IX. ønönü Government X. ønönü Government II. Demirel Government (25 December 1963–20 February 1965) (20 February 1965–27 October 1965) (27 October 1965–3 November 1969) (3 November 1969–6 March 1970) III. Demirel Government (6 March 1970–26 March 1971) Ürgüplü Government I. Demirel Government THE øNÖNÜ GOVERNMENT AND THE FIRST SHOCK (1961–1964) Having strengthened its position and ensured the future of its reforms, the military decided to transfer power to elected civilians. After the general elections in October 1961, a ‘civilian’ government was finally restored under the shadow of the army.. Perhaps they would not have done so if the economy had gone well, but in the face of radical measures the economy almost came to a halt and as Shaw and Shaw have argued, not only businessmen but also workers and peasants began to show increasing unrest and a desire for the restoration of a civilian regime.63 After the coup, the RPP emerged as the most important political party. However, the people associated the RPP with the coup and the newly emerging mercantile class, in particular, and peasants feared that a possible RPP return to power would restore etatism and other early Republican autocratic policies despite the RPP’s programme in the post63  Shaw and Shaw, History of..., pp. 415-416.              coup era being more liberal than ever. In the elections of 15 October 1961, the RPP received only 36.7 per cent of the vote and the JP 34.8 per cent. The NTP gained 13 per cent and the Republican Peasants Party (RPP) gained 14 per cent of the vote. In the Senate the JP gained 47 per cent of the seats and the RPP received just 24 per cent.64 The result was a great disappointment for the NUC, and the Council even thought of invalidating the results; however, the agreement between the RPP and the JP prevented that, and the NUC agreed to retire from the scene and allow a coalition government to form under ønönü’s leadership. First, as a reaction to the DP’s activist Middle Eastern policy, ønönü made great efforts to keep Turkey out of the Middle East in the first years of the 1960s.65 In other words, ønönü tried to restore Mustafa Kemal’s noninvolvement policy in the region; however, as will be seen, the international developments would force Turkey into a more active Middle Eastern policy. Another foreign policy development of the second ønönü period was the Soviet attempt to improve relations with Turkey. The Soviet Union offered $500 million to ønönü on 1 January 1962,66 and a $25 million trade agreement was signed. However, ønönü did not dare institute a complete change in Turkey’s Soviet policy and declared that Turkey belonged to a different political system and could not change its foreign policy. On the other hand, the Soviet Union’s moderate Turkish policy influenced the Turkish elite and nourished the neo-Kemalist (leftist) approach. The neo-Kemalists claimed that Turkey should not lose the opportunity to improve relations with the Soviet Union in order to balance its foreign policy. Mehmet Gönlübol, a traditional Westernist, accused the neo-Kemalists of being totally ideological: ‘It is early to understand the real Soviet intentions. We cannot refuse the West at once just for a couple of words of Khrushchev.’67 When Soviet credit failed to restore the Turkish economy, ønönü turned again towards the United States and demanded more economic aid. The United States agreed to increase aid, and as Sander put it, Turkey supported the United States and the ‘colonialist states’ against the developing countries or colonies in order to show its gratitude to NATO.68 64 65 66 67 68 C. H. Dodd, The Crisis of Turkish Democracy, (Huntingdon: The Eothen Press, 1990), p. 223. Süha Bölükbaúı, Türkiye ve Yakınındaki Orta Dou, (Turkey and Its Near Middle East), (Ankara: Dıú Politika Enstitüsü, 1992), p. 5. Cumhuriyet, 2-3 January 1962; A. Suat Bilge, Güç Komuluk, Türkiye-Sovyetler Birlii likileri, 1920-1964 (The Difficult Neighbourhood, Turkey-Soviet Union Relations), (Ankara: Türkiye Iú Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 1992), p. 346. Mehmet Gönlübol, ‘Kıssadan Hisse’, (Moral of the Story), Forum, No. 205, 1962, p. 9. Oral Sander, Türk-Amerikan likileri, 1947-1964 (Turkish-American Relations, 1947-1964), (Ankara: Sevinç, 1979), p. 207.   

 
 $ &" The Jupiter Missile Crisis69 In the early 1960s, the US’ removal of its Jupiter missiles (IRBMs) from Turkey (and Italy) as a trade-off for Soviet missiles in Cuba (The Jupiter Missile Crisis) led to a crisis in Turkish–American relations: when the U.S. decided to deploy IRBMs, the Department of Defence and American Joint Chiefs of Staff placed Turkey with France, Alaska and Okinawa at the top of their list.70 However, the State Department recommended that France be listed ahead of Turkey for a variety of reasons. First, the State Department considered France a greater ally in NATO. Italy was the second and Greece along with Turkey held the third spot on the list.71 General Lauris Norstad, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe between 1956 and 1963, thought there could be strong opposition to the installation of IRBMs in Turkey since Turkey was on the Soviet borders and the IRBMs might trigger a fierce response from Moscow. The second problem was the suspicions of Turkey. As discussed before, some NATO members still considered Turkey an eastern country and could not accept it as a true European. Therefore, General Norstad reported that if the ‘Northern Europeans’ thought Turkey would receive the missiles, ‘it would blow the whole thing. They believe(d) the Turks would be too warlike with them.’72 The stereotype of Turks as a ‘warlike (if not barbarian) nation’ was very strong, even among the Americans. Similar to Norstad, Robert Murphy, a year later talked about ‘Turkish temperament’ 69 70 71 72  Also see Philip Nash, The Other Missiles of October, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and the Jupiters 1957-1963, (London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1997); Barton J. Bernstein, ‘The Cuban Misilse Crisis: Trading the Jupiters in Turkey’, Political Science Quarterly, Spring 1980, Vol. 95, No. 1; Peter Cross, ‘Inside the Cuban Misilse Crisis’, Military History, Nov. 2006, Vol. 23, No. 8; Lawrence Chang and Peter Kornbluh (eds) The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962: The Making of U.S. Policy, A National Security Archive Documents Reader, Second edition (New York: The New Press, 1998); Elizabeth Beatty, The Jupiter Missile Mystery, (Airmont, 1964). Cyrus L. Sulzlberger, The Last of the Giants (New York: Macmillan, 1970), p. 442; Nash, The Other..., p. 42; Jack Raymond, ‘Turkey to Get IRBM Base: Soviet Complaint Expected’, New York Times, 11 October 1959. Nash, The Other…, pp. 42-43. Ibid., p. 45.              and argued that the Turks might launch the missiles irresponsibly.73 The British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, opposed any sensitive information sharing with the Turks. In brief, the Turks were not considered a true ally and some NATO members objected strongly to Turkey as a missile host. As a result, the Eisenhower administration decided that major allies would come before minor allies in receiving IRBMs, France and Italy before Turkey.74 The Americans spent the first half of 1958 devoting their main effort to France; however, the Paris Government was primarily interested in joint control over all the NATO nuclear weapons and used the IRBM offer to shift the agenda.75 Greece was also among the candidates, yet the Greek Government, under public pressure,76 did not accept the IRBMs. In the words of Nash, ‘from the very beginning, Turkey was unique in its enthusiasm for the IRBMs’ but the reason was not the ‘Turkish temperament’ or ‘warlike nature’ but its weakness before the Soviet threat. Although some diplomats opposed the installation of the nuclear war heads in Turkish territories, as not to provoke the communists, the Menderes Government and the Army saw the nuclear weapons as a guarantee for Turkey’s security and a strong sign to the Russians to prove that the Western alliance was ready to use atomic weapons in an attack against Turkey. For the Turkish generals, the American nuclear weapons were an important part of the strength of the Turkish defence system.77 In this framework, the Menderes Government had agreed with the US that 15 Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads would be installed in Turkey. Turkey was practically informed for installation in December 1958 at a NAC meeting, yet the U.S. preferred to delay the process not to intimidate the Soviet Union for a while. The delay irked the Turkish side and when General Norstad restarted the process in late April 1959, Turkey agreed in principle to accept the missiles. However, it was obvious that Washington was not in a hurry to install the missiles in Turkish territories while the Turks were hardly informed about the process. The official reasons for the delay were funding difficulties and bureaucracy. The official documents were changed on 10 September 1959, and Ankara accepted the document without changing a word and signed it on 19 September.78 73 Ibid. Ibid. 75 Nash, The Other…, p. 49. 76 The Greek public opinion was increasingly hostile towards NATO because of the role of the British and Turkish members over the Cyprus issue. 77 William Hale, Turkish Politics and the Military, (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), p. 133. 78 Nash, The Other…, p. 66. 74   

 
 $ &" The missiles were installed in 1961 and became operational in the spring of 1962. The targets were cities in the Western Soviet Union, including Moscow and Soviet missiles. The Jupiter missiles in øzmir were liquid fuelled and used above ground (soft) launchers, which made them vulnerable to first strikes or prompt retaliatory launches.79 On paper they belonged to Turkey, yet they could only be used with joint permission of the both governments. Thanks to the Jupiter missiles, the Moscow target was now 16 minutes away and Khrushchev publicly expressed anger with the Turkish missile placement. The Cuban missile deployment was the Soviets’ response to the American missiles in Turkey.80 With the Cuban deployment, the Soviet missiles were outside of the USSR for the first time. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Turkish people and the state perceived the Jupiter Missiles as symbols of the NATO guarantee against a possible Russian attack.81 However, the United States gave the Jupiter missiles less strategic value considering a SSBN submarine could fulfil the same tasks. For the Kennedy rule the Jupiters in øzmir constituted a potential provocation and a technological dinosaur.82 As a result, the Kennedy Government decided to remove these missiles from Turkey (and Italy) as a bargaining chip vis-à-vis the Soviet Union following the Cuban Missile Crisis without consulting or informing Turkey.83 Oral Sander, a Turkish IR professor, argues that the US informed and made negotiations to persuade Turkey to remove the Jupiter missiles. Sander gives General Wood’s words in Congress as proof for his claim.84 However, we do not have any document on the Turkish side confirming General Wood. Even if the sides negotiated the withdrawal, we should accept that Turkey had no alternative but to accept anything imposed by the US in the missile issue. Another problem is the timing of consultation. The decision-maker in the IRBMs withdrawal was obviously the U.S. and Turkey knew the decision relatively late. Turkey was still unwilling to give up its IRBMs even in the final days of the withdrawal, and that is why the decision can be named unilateral. Turkey needed more tangible evidence of the U.S. strategic commitment with the Jupiters gone. On 23 January 1963, Ankara 79 80 81 82 83 84  Stephen J. Cimbala, Coercive Military Strategy, (Texas: A&M University Press, 1998), p. 59. Stephen J. Cimbala, Nuclear Strategy in the Twenty-First Century, (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000), p. 56. Turan Yavuz, Satılık Müttefik, Gizli Belgeler Iıında 1962 Küba Füze Krizi ve Türkiye, (The Ally for Sale, The Cuban Missile Crisis and Turkey in the Light of the Secret Documents), (østanbul: Do÷an Kitapçılık AS., 1999), p. 19. Cimbala, Coercive…, p. 59. Yavuz, Satılık Müttefik..., p. 19; Harris, Troubled..., pp. 91-94. Congressional Hearings, 89th Congress, 1st Session on Foreign Assistance Act of 1965, March 1965, Part V, pp. 734-735. Quoted in Sander, Türk-Amerikan…, p. 223.              announced publicly that the IRBMs would be dismantled.85 The Turkish politicians’ aim was to force the Americans to increase its commitments to Turkish security.86 This highly publicized ‘unilateral decision’ shocked all in Turkey and increased doubts in the minds of Turkish statesmen about the credibility of the Turkish-American alliance. Turkey had to accept the decision, but debates in Parliament showed that the removal deeply affected the proWestern political parties’ morale and confidence in the NATO and the U.S. against communism, including the Justice Party.87 Only the neo-Kemalists were ‘happy’. For them, Turkey had at last realized that the United States could not secure Turkey’s independence. Do÷an Avcıo÷lu declared the Cuban Crisis as the start of a new dawn in Turkish foreign policy88 and almost all political groups questioned the essence of the alliance with United States, which was considered a taboo in Turkish foreign policy. For example, leftist-Kemalist columnist Abdi øpekçi claimed that the alliance with the United States and the American bases in Turkey had risked Turkey’s security.89 At least it was understood that the US traded Turkey for Cuba in the crisis. The Jupiter and Cuban Crisis also showed how easy it was for the US to sacrifice Turkish interests for the sake of protecting its own. In the words of Çelik, 85 86 87 88 89 ‘Turks Give Up Missile Bases Long An Issue in the Cold War’, The New York Times, 24 January 1963. Nash, The Other…, pp. 163-165. Erkin, the Turkish Foreign Minister, argued in the debates in Parliament, that Turkish security was not in danger after the removal of the Jupiter missiles because Turkey would be protected by the traditional missile systems: TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, Vol. 11, 1963, 30. Session, 1. Otr., pp. 104-105; TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, Vol. 11, 52. Session, 4. Otr., pp. 221-225. Do÷an Avcıo÷lu, ‘Füzeler Kalkarken’ (When the Missiles are Rising), Yön, No. 59, 1963, p. 3 and Yön, No. 46, 1962, p. 3. øpekçi further claimed that the alliance with the West damaged the Turkish economy: Abdi øpekçi, Milliyet, 23 April 1962.   

 
 $ &" ‘The way in which the crisis was resolved made Turkish politicians and the public acknowledge the fact that the Americans would guarantee Turkey’s security only if it was to their advantage. Furthermore, the fact that Ankara had not been invited to participate in the negotiations to resolve the crisis contributed to the perception that Turkey was no more than a pawn in cold war politics. While Turkish officials may have been naïve for not coming to these realizations earlier, the Cuban Missile Crisis was a sort of rude awakening for them’.90 The removal of the missiles also ‘signalled a change in Turkey’s strategic position’ in the American strategy and ‘Turkey no longer held the position of extreme importance in the Cold War it had occupied heretofore’.91 In this context, it can be argued that the Jupiter and Cuban Missile Crisis were the first alarming signs for Turkish-US relations and forced Turkish politicians towards a more balanced foreign policy in the coming years. A major irritant in Soviet-Turkish relations was removed with the withdrawal of the Jupiter missiles, and this consideration helped to trigger a Soviet peace offensive to decrease tension between the two countries.92 THE CYPRUS CRISIS AND THE JOHNSON LETTER: THE REALITIES’ CHALLENGE TO WESTERNISM There is no doubt that the most important reason for the transformation in Turkish foreign policy during these years was the Cyprus Crisis and the Western attitude towards Turkey on this issue. After the Jupiter Missiles disappointment, the Cyprus Crisis once more caused the Turks to question the US’ commitments to Turkey’s security and interests. The armed clashes of 1963 between Greek and Turkish Cypriots stimulated the interest of the general public and many different political groups in Turkey on foreign policy matters.93 According to the founding Zurich and London agreements between Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom, these three states undertook to guarantee the independence, territorial integrity, security and constitutional structure of the newly established Republic of Cyprus. Also, the Cyprus Constitution set out that all governmental agencies and cabinet positions were to be shared between 90 91 92 93  Yasemin Çelik, Contemporary Turkish Foreign Policy, (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1999), p. 47. Meliha Benli Altunıúık and Özlem Tür Kavli, Turkey: Challenges of Continuity and Changes, (New York: Taylor & Francis Routledge, 2005), p. 110. Harris Troubled…, p. 95. Gönlübol, ‘A Short...’, p. 8.              the Greek and Turkish Cypriots in a 70:30 ratio. The ratio in the armed forces was to be 60:40.94 The Cyprus Constitution set up a sensitive balance between Turks and Greeks and saw none of them as a minority, but equal and sovereign owners of the island. Some of the articles of the Constitution were unalterable because any change in this sensitive balance was banned. As mentioned, the founding agreements also granted rights and responsibilities to Greece, Turkey and the former colonial United Kingdom as the written documents did not trust either side on the island. The President of the new Republic had to be a Greek Cypriot elected by Greek Cypriots and the Vice-President a Turkish Cypriot elected by the Turkish Cypriots with the right to a final veto on fundamental laws passed by the House of Representatives and on decisions of the Council of Ministers. The Government was composed of ten ministers (seven for the Greeks and three for the Turks). The Turkish ministers had to be nominated for appointment by the Vice-President. Obviously the Zurich and London agreements and the Constitution did not consider the island as a Greek island but as a Turkish-Greek island. However, the Greeks saw the issue in different way and the Enosis supporters in the Greek community dreamed of a solely Greek island. The Greeks considered the Republic as a "transitory stage', a "temporary period' which would eventually lead to an independent Greek state on the island. It was this ambition which caused the state to fail in Cyprus. First of all, the Turkish Cypriots were de facto deprived of all their government posts granted to them by the constitution. The Greeks were placed to all Turkish contingencies in security forces, and the ultra-nationalist Greeks made it impossible for Turks to fill their posts in politics and bureaucracy. As a result, the Cypriot state was usurped by the Greeks through the violation of the constitution. The Turks were unable to participate in the executive and legislative bodies. Moreover, many Greeks from Greece were brought to the island for settlement.95 The Greek militants first encroached upon the constitutional rights of the Turkish Cypriots and tried to change the balance in all Cypriot institutions. An armed campaign soon began and many in the Turkish Community were murdered by the Greek radicals. The aim was a mass change in the demography of the island. The murderers forced the Turks to immigrate to Turkey in order to make an ethnic cleansing on the island. After the mixed villages, the Turkish villages were attacked. Despite both the written agreements and the constitution, murders and rapes caused inter-communal fighting between the two groups. In Turkish eyes, the Turkish Cypriots were persecuted by paramilitary Greek groups, who 94 95 Farid Mirbagheri, Cyprus and International Peacemaking, (London: Hurst&Company, 1998), pp. 12-41; Zaim M. Necatigil, The Cyprus Question and the Turkish Position in International Law, (Oxford: Oxford University, 1989). Also see Sedat Laçiner, ‘Cyprus Problem and the European Union-Turkey Relations’, Journal of Turkish Weekly, 15 June 2009.   

 
 $ &" pursued Enosis, union with Greece. In time, thousands of Greek volunteers came to the island. For Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots, Enosis was against both international and Cypriot national law, and unacceptable to them. Turkey preferred to settle the question within NATO, or by direct negotiation with Greece. However, neither Greece, the UK, the US nor international organizations, such as NATO and the United Nations (UN) could stop the clashes. During the course of the events, the international community as well as Greece and Britain, which were the guarantors of the Cypriot State and held rights and responsibilities including military intervention in case of disruption in constitutional order, only preferred to watch. As the Greek policy of deporting Turks out of the island occasionally turned into massacres, the UN Peace Force (UNFICYP) was deployed in the island in 1964. This was the beginning of the never-ending adventure of the UN in the island. Though the UN arrived at the island, it neither managed to stop the violence nor was it able to put the rights granted to Turks into practice. In the meantime, the armament of the Greeks continued apace. Turkey accused Greece of encouraging the struggles to annex the island to Greece96 and when the problem could not be solved by the international community, Turkey advocated the partitioning of the island (taksim) or a federation of the two parts.97 However, the Greek Cypriots thought they were near victory as the Turks living in the enclaves were relatively weak economically and militarily. Therefore, they refused the partition option. When UN peace-keeping efforts failed, Turkey periodically reaffirmed its right to intervene in the clashes on Cyprus. Finally, ønönü implied that Turkey would use all the rights, which the Zurich and London Agreements of 1959 and 1960 gave Turkey, to stop the ‘genocide’ on the island.98 This meant a military occupation, and Greece replied that a Turkish invasion would result in Greece defending Cyprus. The American reaction to the Turkish warning was both severe and surprising. Turkish statesmen believed Turkey was one of the most loyal allies of the United States and that it had sacrificed some of its national interests for NATO.99 In this context, the Johnson Letter (5 June 1964),100 was a big disappointment for the Turks.101 96 T.C. Diúiúleri Bakanlı÷ı, Turkish Views on the Question of Cyprus, (Ankara: Turkish Foreign Ministry Report, 1964); Tözün Bahçeli, Greek-Turkish Relations since 1955, (Boulder and London: Westview Press, 1990). 97 T.C. Diúiúleri Bakanlı÷ı, Turkish View on Cyprus, (Ankara: Turkish Foreign Ministry Report, 1965), pp. 20-22. 98 Clement Dodd, ‘Turkey and Cyprus’, in David Shankland (ed.), The Turkish Republic at Seventy-Five Years, (Huntingdon: The Eothen Press, 1999), p. 74. 99 Yavuz, Satılık Müttefik..., pp. 18-19. 100 For the full text see The Middle East Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3, Summer 1966, p. 387; Hürriyet, 13 January 1966; Cumhuriyet, 15 January 1966; Haluk ùahin, Gece Gelen Mektup: Türk-Amerikan likilerinde Dönüm Noktası, (The Letter That Came at Night: The Turning Point in Turkish-American Relations), (østanbul: Cep, 1987).               As Gürel states, ‘the style used in the letter was not so polite.’ At the time, the letter was described by under Secretary of State George Ball as ‘the most brutal diplomatic note I have ever seen’. Ball characterized it as ‘the diplomatic equivalent of a time bomb’.102 However, its context was more upsetting than its style.’103 In his letter, President Johnson warned Turkey not to use the American military aid in Cyprus: ‘I must tell you in all candor that the United States could not agree of any United States supplied equipment for a Turkish intervention in Cyprus under present circumstances.’104 Although the Greek Cypriot stockpiles were American arms, the US never complained to Greece about this.105 Moreover, President Johnson threatened Turkey by saying that if Turkey intervened in the Cyprus crisis and if as a result of that action, the Soviet Union attacked Turkey, neither NATO nor the United States would support or defend Turkey: ‘(…) Furthermore, a military intervention in Cyprus by Turkey would lead to a direct involvement by the Soviet Union. I hope you will understand that your NATO allies have not had a chance to 101 Murat Metin Hakkı, Turkish researcher, has slightly different opinion on the issue. He argues that the American intervention was not a surprise for ønönü but just the expected and desired action: “smet nönü was secretly aware that the Turkish army did not have the military capability to launch a full-scale invasion of the island. While or doing military preparations, he simultaneously informed Lyndon Johnson of the Turkish invasion plans. He hoped that the U.S. President would then intervene diplomatically to stop any Turkish intervention, while presuming the great side to half attacks against the Turkish Cypriot population” For the details of this argument see Murat Metin Hakkı, The Cyprus Issue; A Documentary History, 1878-2006, (I. B. Tauris, 2007), p. 97. 102 Cited in Douglas Brinkley and Richard T. Griffiths, John F. Kennedy and Europe, (LSU Press, 1999), p. 126. 103 Sükrü Sina Gürel, Tarihsel Boyut çinde Türk Yunan likileri, 1821-1923, (Turkish Greek Relations in a Historical Dimension, 1821-1923), (Ankara: Ümit Yayıncılık, 1993), p. 58. 104 The Middle..., pp. 386-393. 105 Harry Scott Gibbons, The Genocide Files, (London: Charles Bravos, Publishers, 1997), p. 406.   

 
 $ &" consider whether they have an obligation to protect Turkey against the Soviet Union if Turkey takes a step which results in Soviet intervention without the full consent and understanding of its NATO allies.’106 In other words, NATO and the United States were threatening to abandon Turkey if the Soviet Union invaded. The Johnson letter represented a complete failure in Turkish foreign policy and the antiTurkish Western attitude was clear proof of the failure of the Turkish Westernist school in general. As ùahin pointed out, until the letter, Turkey was one of the rare countries where ‘no one said go home to the Americans.’107 The letter aroused indignation in the Turkish press. For example, the daily Cumhuriyet implied that the United States might stop Turkey by using military force, claiming that after the Greek fleet, the United States Sixth Fleet had sailed off towards Cyprus.108 The Turkish public during this crisis perceived the American intervention as a clear sign of political support for Greece.109 As noted by Halil, ‘the letter created the most ominous crisis Ankara had to face since the War of Independence110 and the letter was to shake the Turkish faith111 and with the Johnson letter, Turkish expectations of the American government proved fallacious.112 In the words of Robinson, even the Americanist Turks were ‘saddened and puzzled’.113 Moreover, the letter caused a resurgence of Kemalist Western scepticism. Turkish policy-makers were now aware of how wrong they were when they set a foreign policy based only on an alliance with the West while ignoring the East and the Third World. Thus, the letter bitterly harmed Turkish-American relations even up to the present day. In the following years, the Cyprus problem shadowed the relations and the Turkish policy-makers always remembered the American attitude. The problem also triggered anti-American street demonstrations and a harsh press campaign led by the Turkish left (including the Kemalist left) 106 The Middle East Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3, Summer 1966, p. 387. ùahin, Gece..., p. 10. 108 ‘Amerika’nın Altıncı Filosuna Mensup Altı Savaú Gemisi Kıbrıs Açıklarında’, Cumhuriyet (daily, østanbul), 12 June 1964. 109 Milliyet (daily, østanbul), 6, 9, 13 June 1964; Cumhuriyet (daily østanbul), 9-10 June 1964. It is also claimed that one of the factors that had affected Johnson in his ‘proGreek’ letter to ønönü was the Greek lobbying at the White House: ‘Johnson’s 1964 Letter to ønönü and the Greek Lobbying at the White House’, The Turkish Yearbook of International Relations, XVI, 1974, pp. 45-58. 110 Ali Halil, Atatürkçü Dı Politika ve NATO ve Türkiye (Kemalist Foreign Policy and NATO and Turkey), (østanbul: Gerçek, 1968), pp. 172-173. 111 ùahin, Gece..., pp. 21-26. 112 Mehmet Gönlübol, ‘NATO and Turkey’, in The Turkish Yearbook of International Relations, 1971, p. 5. 113 Roderic H. Davison, Turkey, A Short History, Second Edition, (Huntingdon: The Eothen Press, 1991), p. 161. 107               championed anti-Americanism in these campaigns.114 Thanks to the campaigns, the Turkish left increased its influence over the foreign policy matters. The US’ first aim with the Johnson letter was to stop a possible Turkish intervention in Cyprus. However, the British diplomats argued that the domestic considerations in the US also played a crucial role in the writing of the Johnson Letter. A telegram from the British Embassy in Washington to the Foreign Office dated August 25, 1964, said: ‘As you will have seen from the full page articles in the New York Times recently, the Greek-American lobby, here is very active and President Johnson in no position to throw away votes.’115 As a result, the US reached its aim with the letter116 and Turkey could not intervene in the clashes in Cyprus117 while the public and the press forced a sharp response from ønönü. His response stated ‘There are between us a wide divergence of views as to the nature and basic principles of the NATO… If NATO’s structure is so weak as to give credit to the aggressor’s allegations, then it means this defect in NATO needs to be remedied.’118 ønönü also said that the style and context of the letter were rude and disappointing for Turkey.119 ønönü implied that Turkey was not fully relied on in NATO by saying ‘a new world to be constructed and in which Turkey will have its rightful place’. American Ambassador Parker T. Hart also accepts that the language of the letter was “exceedingly tough”; “I had of course read this letter before I left Washington. It was it was an exceedingly tough massage, designed to prevent at all costs direct hostilities between Greece and Turkey, and it had been a very close call”.120 114 ùahin, Gece..., p. 25; Mango, Turkey, p. 94; Yılmaz Çetiner, ‘Turkey Turns AntiAmerican’, Atlas, August 1965, pp. 107-108; Gönlübol, ‘A Short...’, p. 9. 115 Gibbons, The Genocide…, p. 238. 116 Burcu Bostano÷lu, Türkiye-ABD likilerinin Politikası (Politics of Turkey-US Relations), (Ankara: ømge, 1999), p. 444. 117 The American reaction was not the only reason for Turkey’s decision not to intervene in Cyprus. In these years, Turkey suffered from a shortage of landing craft and other necessary equipment for a military operation on the island: Dodd, ‘Turkey and Cyprus’, p. 74. 118 The Middle East Journal, Summer 1966, pp. 386-393. 119 ‘ønönü’nün Johnson’a Cevabı’ (ønönü’s Response to Johnson), Milliyet, 14 Ocak 1966. 120 Parker, T. Hart, Two NATO Allies at the Threshold of War: Cyprus, a Firsthand Account of Crisis Management, 1965-1968, ( Duke University Press, 1990), p. 14.   

 
 $ &" The Johnson letter leaked into the Turkish press almost immediately for domestic consumption and generated profound popular reaction.121 ønönü accepted of the Washington invitation to discuss the matter in depth yet the U.S. visit did not stanch the flow of bitter feeling against the U.S. in Turkey. In the words of Harris “From that time forth, all Turkish governments would be on the defensive in regard to the American connection, and memories of the Johnson latter would color popular impressions of the United States for many years to come”.122 ønönü visited Washington on 22–23 June 1964 amid mounting public protest against the US, and met with President Johnson. Johnson also invited Greece’s Premier, George Papandreou to Washington. ønönü and Papandreou came separately to the White House and both leaders did not meet in Washington. Johnson acted like a mediator between Turkey and Greece and ønönü did not object to Johnson’s suggestion that the Turks and Greeks settle their differences in bilateral talks. The Greek Prime Minister was more nervous in the summit and bluntly rejected a proposed meeting with ønönü. Greece defended that US interference in the dispute was only useful in view of the UN’s mediation efforts. The US State Department hinted that Washington might no longer be able to prevent a Turkish military operation in Cyprus. ønönü commented in a New York stopover that nothing could be settled about Cyprus ‘until the US takes a stand’ for either side or the other.123 However, the US quickly returned the problem to the UN. The US’ ‘pro-Greek’ attitude, threatening and rude style along with the decaying American security guarantees against a possible Soviet attack naturally disappointed the Turks. The Washington visit did not restore the damage and the Cyprus problem became worse in the hands of the UN. Nevertheless ønönü’s U.S. visit can be considered as a success for Turkey in terms of Cyprus diplomacy; Both Johnson and ønönü obliquely reaffirmed in their final communiqué the validity of the London and Zurich 121 George S. Harris, Troubled Alliance, Turkish- American Problems in Historical Perspective, 1945-1971, (Washington D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1972), p. 15; Nur Bilge Criss, ‘A Short History of AntiAmericanism and Terrorism: The Turkish Case’, in Joanne Meyerowitz (ed), History and September 11th, (Temple University Press, 2003, p. 60). 122 Harris, Troubled..., p. 116. 123 ‘The Parable of the Blue Beads’, Time, 3 July 1964.               accords, which acknowledged the Turks’ right to intervene in Cyprus.124 It means that the U.S. indirectly accepted Turkey’s legal rights on the island although it did not prefer the Turks to use that right. The US prevented a possible Turkish military operation in Cyprus; however, neither the UN nor the nation-states could stop the violence on the island. The U.S.’ pro-Greek attitude brought no gains for the Americans or NATO in Greece. In the words of Paul Henze “Greek Cypriots, with clandestine aid from Athens, continued to erode the Zurich/London agreements.”125 Fighting on the island steadily escalated during the summer of 1964. As a result of the Greek terrorist attacks, Turkish Cypriots began to move from isolated, rural areas and mixed villages into enclaves. In June 1964, the House of Representatives, functioning with only its Greek Cypriot members, passed a bill establishing the National Guard and the right of Cypriots to bear arms was limited to the National Guard and to the Cyprus police. The decision was an obvious breach of the Constitution. In practice, the Greeks banned the right to bear arms, but only for the Turkish Cypriots. Worst of all, in June 1964, General Grivas was invited to Cyprus by Makarios to assume command of the National Guard. The Greeks formed a rule without the Turkish Cypriots and large numbers of Greek regular troops were being clandestinely infiltrated into the island. Turkey had to do something to protect the Turkish civilians and Turkish jets flew over the island to warn the Greeks. When the Greeks attacked Turkish people in Erenköy and Mansura, the Turkish air forces intervened to the fighting and attacked the Greek Cypriot armed groups besieging Turkish Cypriot villages. Makarios, the ‘President’ of Cyprus, issued an ultimatum to Turkey after the jet flights and threatened to attack every Turkish village in Cyprus if the air raids did not stop.126The Greek Air Force fighters also flew over South Cyprus as a show of force. A possible large-scale Turkish intervention was expected during these days, yet Turkey withdrew its forces from the island. With ønönü’s war threat and Turkish jets flying over the island, the U.N. force in Cyprus was created and the ‘Turkish Cypriots were saved from immediate extermination under the helpless gaze of the British troops’.127 During the Cyprus Crisis, for first time since the War of Independence, Turkey felt itself desperately alone and in need of new friends and support. Metin Toker, ønönü’s son-in-law, expressed the need for new friends: ‘it is 124 Harris, Troubled…, p. 117. Paul B. Henze, Turkey’s Political Evolution, Turkish- US Relations and Prospects for the 21st Century, (Haarelem, NL; SOTA, 2003), p. 67. 126 BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/10/newsid_3037000/30 37898.stm 127 Gibbons, The Genocide…, p. 222. 125   

 
 $ &" natural for Turkey to search for strong friendships in the Third World.’128 Now, the desire for change was clear amongst the Kemalists, neoKemalists and leftists. The conservatives and Islamists also favoured an immediate change. Thus, the Johnson letter raised anti-Americanism and increased the importance of the neo-Kemalist group on foreign policy. Moreover, the third effect of the letter initiated a search for new friends in the international arena. Another effect of the letter was Turkey’s reluctance to join the new NATO military programs. For instance, Turkey decided not to join the NATO’s MLF (the Multilateral Force) program and withdrew its soldiers from the program.129 On 13 January 1965, the US Department of State announced that Turkey refused to participate in the MLF. Finally, the fifth result was that foreign policy matters became the centre of parliamentary debates. Now the governments were not free, as they had been. Flexible Response and Turkey The Jupiter Crisis and the Johnson Letter were both a direct result of the changing NATO and the US strategy against the Communist Block. According to President Dwight Eisenhower’s New Look strategy, the US was ready to respond anywhere to a Soviet-backed conventional threat with a nuclear strike against the Soviet Union itself. Massive Retaliation and uncompromising containment policies became a fixed policy during a period of lessened tensions and American military superiority.130 However, the development of Soviet long-range bombers, ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons and the ability to retaliate against the American nuclear power dramatically changed the balance of power. In addition, with the improved technology in communication and transportation, the US troops became more flexible, quick and effective since massive retaliation. However, the threat for Turkey was the same and Turkish security policies were set up according to Eisenhower and Truman’s promises to Turkey. In other words, Turkey set its security policies as if the balance between the Soviets and the US would last forever, yet President John F. Kennedy’s Flexible Response understanding 128 Metin Toker, ‘Bir Seyahatin Bilançosu’ (Balance of a Trip), Akis (weekly, Turkish), 3 July 1964, p. 7. 129 Baskın Oran (ed.), Türk Dı Politikası (Turkish Foreign Policy), Vol. 1, (østanbul: øletiúim, 2001), p. 691-692. 130 Stephen E. Ambrose, Rise to Globalism, American Foreign Policy since 1938, (New York: Penguin Books, 1993), p. 131.               (1961) called for mutual deterrence at strategic, tactical and conventional levels. Thus, the US was not limited only to nuclear arms. According to the Turkish politicians the new strategy protected the superpowers almost completely, but it did not provide total security for Turkey.131 The new strategy required a build-up of American conventional forces in order to increase the range of options prior to a last resort of nuclear war and avoid the dangers of nuclear proliferation.132 The new strategy, however, focused mainly on the Soviet threat to Western Europe and the risks for Turkey increased. The US security guarantees for Turkey’s protection from a possible Soviet attack decreased with the flexible response strategy. Turkey resisted the new strategy and only accepted it along with other members in 1967. The new strategy was not only a problem for Turkey, but for the other allies as well. There were obvious conflicts, even on matters of basic strategy. France, Italy and West Germany objected to the US’ new strategy. The US’ MLF concept of a 25-vessel fleet of Polaris-missile-equipped merchant ships, manned by mixed crews from NATO nations was the only specific proposal to ease the tension among the NATO øsmet ønönü, 1961 members.133 ‘The MLF was founded on the belief that Western Europeans wanted greater influence over nuclear weapons policy’;134 however, it did not satisfy the Europeans. In addition to the bilateral problems, the European opposition encouraged Turkey for a more ‘independent’ policy and Turkey decided not to join the MLF, though it had sent soldiers to the Ricketts ship. The Turkish soldiers returned home in January 1965. The decision was a direct response to the Johnson Letter and the US’ new strategy. In conclusion, the problem of mistrust between Turkey and NATO (and the US) vividly appeared in the Flexible Response Strategy era. As a result, the coming years would be more problematic with the NATO and forced Turkey to search for more friends apart from the NATO allies. 131 Nasuh Uslu, The Turkish-American Relationship Between 1947-2003, (Nova, 2003), p. 82. 132 John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), pp. 216-217. 133 ‘NATO’s Dilemma’, Time, 20 November 1964. 134 John W. Young, ‘Killing the MLF? The Wilson Government and Nuclear Sharing in Europe, 1964-66’, Diplomacy & Statecraft, June 2003, Vol. 14, No. 2, p. 295.   

 
 $ &" Turkey’s Economic Difficulties and Decreasing American Aid Another source of problems in Turkish-American relations was the issue of aid. After the Military Coup, the junta regime faced economic problems. The coup leaders argued that the DP heritage was catastrophic and the need for foreign aid and credits was obvious. Cemal Gürsel said that foreign debt was too high to repay and Gürsel’s prescription for the foreign debt was increasing US aid and credit: ‘Our foreign debt is so high and I do not know how we can pay such a debt and how we can restore our prestige in world135… However, it should not be forgotten that when we repay our debts the development of the Turkish economy and military, which are vital in the NATO system, will be badly affected. Regarding a possible rise in American aid, the US may increase its aid to Turkey as far as it understands us, and it should increase its aid.’136 Gürsel further claimed that Turkey needed large amounts of and longerterm credit in order to fulfil its duties in the NATO defence. In this context, Turkey demanded a $400 million dollar credit from the US in 1960, however, the American credit decreased from $167 million (1959) to $103 million (1960). When øsmet ønönü became Prime Minister in 1961, Turkey’s foreign debt was about $1.5 billion. The first thing ønönü did when he became Premier was meet with the American Ambassador, Raymond Hare, and he asked him to increase American economic aid to Turkey.137 Turkey repeated its aid and credit demands during US VicePresident L. B. Johnson’s Ankara visit on 26 August 1962. Both Ambassador Hare and Vice-President Johnson said that they fully understood Turkey’s immediate needs, and promised to act to help Ankara. As a result of these efforts, the US economic aid to Turkey rapidly increased from $126 million (1961) to $237 million (1963). However, the trend reversed in 1964 and the US aid to Turkey dramatically decreased to $148 million. In the following years, the level of American aid continued around this amount and caused economic problems in Turkey. The declining American aid also became one of the significant factors in cooling US-Turkey relations in the 1960s. 135 Resmi Gazete (Official Gazette), No. 10556, 20 July 1960, p. 1784. Resmi Gazete (Official Gazette), No. 10558, 23 July 1960, p. 1796; Sander, TürkAmerikan…, pp. 204-205. 137 Sander, Türk-Amerikan…, p. 205. 136               Changes in US Aid to Turkey 1959–1964 Year US Dollars / Million 1959 167 1960 103 1961 126 1962 188 1963 237 1964 148 Apart from the aid problems, the ‘Chrome Crisis’ worsened the economic relations. Chromium was one of the most important export goods for Turkey and the US was a major importer of Turkish chrome. However, the Soviet Union was dumping its chrome export materials in 1963, and, like many countries, US importers preferred the Soviet chrome instead of the Turkish.138 The problem could not be solved in the bilateral negotiations and thanks to the shift of the American chrome trade from ‘Turkish ally’ to the ‘communist Soviet Union’, Turkey faced great economic problems after 1963. The growing economic disagreements and declining American aid, along with the political crisis, continued to undermine Turkish-American relations. The Search for New Friends and the Response of the Nonaligned States With the failure of the NATO-sponsored negotiations between the Greeks and Turks, Turkey decided that the United States and Europe were pro-Greek in the Cyprus matter, realising that the anti-Turkish biases were still in the minds of the Europeans and the Americans. Thus, Turkey turned towards the non-aligned countries for political support over the Cyprus problem, and, as the issue was now a topic at the UN General Assembly, the non-aligned states were in the majority. Therefore, Turkey needed to persuade these countries to win UN support for its case.139 However, when 138 139 Ibid., p. 207-208. In particular, leftist-Kemalists argued that Turkey needed the Third World to solve the Cyprus problem: Ibrahim Camli, ‘Kıbrıs Meselesinin Çözümü Üçüncü Dünyanın øçindedir’ (The Solution for Cyprus Issue is in the Third World), Yön, No. 108, 23 April 1965, p. 7.   

 
 $ &" the UN General Assembly adopted a series of resolutions detrimental to Turkish interests in March-December 1964, which limited Turkish rights in Cyprus, Turkey realised the position it was in. The number of supporters for the Turkish side in the UN was just six, and four of them were CENTO members.140 As discussed, both the Atatürk and ønönü governments had focused on relations with the West and did not attach enough importance to the Muslim world or the developing nations in Asia and Africa; the Turks had no interest in their Middle Eastern neighbours and the Third World. A lack of experience in the region and the avoidance of regional affairs in early Republican foreign policy enabled successive Turkish governments to not only pursue but to justify this course.141 Further, Turkey had declared that it was against the non-alignment movement at Bandung and had supported Israel against the Arabs during the ønönü period. However, Greece had better relations with these countries. While Turkey acted as the representative of the capitalist-West, the Greeks had given full support for the non-aligned states in Bandung. Likewise, Makarios, the Greek President of Cyprus, was one of the most active leaders amongst the nonaligned countries. Therefore, Turkey’s attempts to persuade the nonaligned states failed. For example, the Cairo Conference (1964) decided against Turkey and in favour of the Greeks, with Egypt’s Nasser leading the opposition against Turkey and the Arab and Afro-Asia group following him.142 Indeed, in his memoirs, Turkish Ambassador Semih Günver stresses that the non-aligned states did not consider Turkey a member of their world143 and the only Arab-Muslim country that gave support to Turkey was Algeria, despite Turkey supporting the French against the Algerians at the UN in the 1950s. Thus, Turkey bitterly realised its isolated position because of its alliance with the West. It is true; Turkey had carried out an isolation policy in the Atatürk and ønönü periods, yet in those years Turkey had chosen isolation and neutrality, and now the world did not want Turkey. The Cairo Conference brought home the fact that Turkey had no time to lose in gaining the hearts of the Muslim, African and Asian states. For the neo-Kemalists, Turkey had to make efforts to gain the support of the socialist states as well. Ironically, the neo-Kemalists had attacked the DP governments for departing from a Kemalist national pact course, which caused the Cyprus Crisis to take such an unfavourable 140 Gönlübol, ‘A Short...’, p. 11. Bilge Criss and Pinar Bilgin, ‘Turkish Foreign Policy toward the Middle East’, Journal, No. 1, January 1997, p. 5. 142 Milliyet (daily, østanbul), 12-13 October 1964, Cumhuriyet (daily, østanbul), 12 October 1964. 143 Semih Günver, Tanınmayan Meslek: Anılar ve Portreler, (Unknown Occupation: Memoirs), (Ankara: A.Ü. SBF., 1982), pp. 156-159. 141               path.144 In reality, the DP ideology was not solely responsible; the early Republican ideology had also played a significant role in Turkey’s isolation, as the reactions of the non-aligned states were a declaration of the failure of ideological foreign policy considerations. This contradiction undermined the neo-Kemalist ideological framework in future years as well. Following the Turkish disappointment in Cairo, the Soviet Union renewed its offers to improve relations. Now Turkey was ready for such an improvement and succeeded in changing the Soviet position over the Cyprus issue. After his Moscow visit, Erkin, Turkish Foreign Minister, declared that there was a similarity and mutual understanding between Turkey and the Soviet Union on the Cyprus problem.145 A cultural agreement was also signed, and both countries declared that they would respect each other’s territorial integrity. All these developments met with general approval in the Turkish press146 that saw Turkey gaining new friends in addition to the West. Erkin accepted the radical shift in Turkish foreign policy and argued that it was a direct and natural result of the change in international politics and based on the Kemalist principles.147 Turkey also focused on the Muslim world, starting a diplomatic campaign at the World Islamic Conference and received clear support on the Cyprus issue. These victories were followed by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Republic (UAR), increasing their diplomatic representation in Turkey to the ambassadorial level.148 ønönü’s Cyprus and ‘pacifist’ NATO policies were severely criticised, not only by the leftist groups, but also the conservative JP, which was viewed as a neo-Democratic party. Despite the ønönü government’s rigid position over the Cyprus crisis, the JP accused the government of being timid on this issue. Nevertheless, the JP gave support to the government at international platforms, viewing the problem as a ‘national issue’.149 On the other hand, The Islamist Nation Party (Millet Partisi) severely criticised both the RPP and moderate neo-Democrats over the Cyprus crisis, accusing them of making co-operation with the ‘imperialist’ 144 ‘TIP Dıú Politikayı Bildiriyle Eleútirdi’ (TIP Criticised Foreign Policy with a Declaration), Milliyet, 14 October 1964. 145 TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, Vol. 33, 1964, 12th session, 1, p. 533. 146 Metin Toker, ‘Moskova Ziyareti’nin Anlamı’, (The Meaning of the Moscow Visit), Akis, 30 October 1964, p. 7, Cumhuriyet, 26 October 1964; Milliyet, 30 October 1964. 147 TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, Vol. 33, 1964, 12th session, 1, p. 533. 148 Aykan, Turkey’s, p. 57. 149 Hükümet Buhranı, Hükümet Tekili ve Kıbrıs Olayları Karısında AP, (JP Before the Government Crisis, Government Formation and the Cyprus Events), The JP Executive Committee Report, AP Genel Merkezi Neúriyatı, No. 4, Ankara, 1964, pp. 25-52.   

 
 $ &" West.150 The criticism forced the ønönü government to resign. It was replaced by the Suat Hayri Ürgüplü government on 21 February 1965, which lasted until 22 October 1965. The Programme for the Ürgüplü government of 26 February 1965, implied that Turkey had alternatives to NATO: ‘Our NATO membership and loyalty to the common security system never means we have to support a group (zümre) in foreign policy (…) We sincerely want to improve our relations with the Soviet Union. Good relations with the Soviet Union is a subject that we attach great importance.’151 Moreover, Turkish Foreign Affairs Minister Hasan Iúık visited Moscow and Peking to underline the policy change in Turkish foreign policy.152 The Turkish Prime Minister, Suat Hayri Ürgüplü, also visited Moscow in 1955, and the Soviet Foreign Minister paid a visit to Ankara in the same year. Furthermore, Turkey refused to join the Multilateral Force within the NATO proposed by the US.153 Another foreign policy initiative of the Ürgüplü government, which showed the shift in foreign policy understanding, was the ‘seven goodwill delegations’ affair. Turkey not only made efforts to persuade the Soviet Union and China to get diplomatic support for Cyprus, but also sent seven ‘goodwill delegations’ to the Asian, African and Latin American countries to explain Turkey’s position in the Cyprus problem. Isik, in his speech in Parliament, declared that the main aim of these delegations were not limited to the Cyprus issue, but the delegations would search for ‘opportunities to establish a longlasting co-operation’ with these countries.154 The Marxist propaganda’s impact was clear on the new Government, yet the radical differences in the programme cannot be explained in only ideological terms. It was obvious that the main factor was Western attitudes towards Turkey on the Cyprus issue and Turkey’s isolated position in the world. Indeed, when Resolution 2077 was adopted at the UN on 18 December 1965, Turkey once more realised its isolation: fortyseven African states and almost all Arab states (except Lebanon, Syria and UAR out of fifteen) voted against the Turkish argument.155 After the 150 MP 1965 Seçim Beyannamesi (The NP Election Declaration), MP Head Quarter, Ankara, 1965. 151 Kazım Öztürk, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Hükümetleri ve Programları, (The Governments of Turkish Republic and Their Programmes), (østanbul: Ak Yayınları, 1968), p. 601-602. 152 Frank Tachau, ‘Turkish Foreign Policy: Between east and West’, Middle East Review, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1985, p. 25. 153 Gerger, Türk Dı..., pp. 94-99. 154 The Bulletin of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, No. 5, 1965, p. 637. 155 Cumhuriyet, 18 September 1965.               shocking decision, the Turkish press and many parliamentarians had argued a structural change in foreign policy.156 As mentioned, the reason for the shift was not solely ideological, and the real needs forced Turkey into a different foreign policy, yet the radical left benefited most from these developments and tried to manipulate Turkish foreign policy towards the Third World and the socialist bloc.157 THE 1965 ELECTIONS AND NEW TURKISH FOREIGN POLICY: NEO-DEMOCRATS VS. NEO-KEMALISTS After the 1965 vote of the General Assembly over the Cyprus Crisis, Turkey understood that its previous attitude towards the Third World states had systematically alienated it from this influential group at the UN.158 As a result, almost all ideological groups focused on a new foreign policy framework and even ønönü promised a more diverse foreign policy.159 In addition to the leftist-Kemalists, neo-Democrats, Islamists and the ultraTurkists made efforts to form their own foreign policy ideological framework. In this environment, the 1965 elections put an end to the military-supported governments as the Justice Party (JP) came to power with 52.87 per cent of the votes. The RPP could only get 28.75 per cent of the votes.160 For the Kemalists, the JP’s election victory meant the return of the DP: ‘The DP’s legacy continues. The 27 May Revolution attempted to demolish it, yet it is now understood that we returned all the way back.’161 Leading leftist-Kemalist Avcıo÷lu, viewed the election results as a counterrevolution against Kemalism.162 The second effect of the elections was the confirmation of leftist-Kemalism’s victory over Kemalist Orthodoxy. It can be said that the 1965 election crystallised the differences between the political groups. TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, Vol. 2, 28th session, 27 November 1965, pp. 16-82; TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, Vol. 40, 1965, 115th session, 1, p. 545; Cumhuriyet, 19-20 September 1965. 157 Gönlübol, ‘A Short..., p. 12. 158 Deniz Atiye Erden, Turkish Foreign Policy Through the UN, unpublished PhD thesis, (University of Massachusetts, 1974), p. 143. 159 CHP Söz Veriyor, CHP 1965 Genel Seçimleri Bildirisi, (RPP Promises, RPP 1965 General Elections Declaration), (Ankara: CHP, 1965). 160 Feroz Ahmad and Bedia Turgay Ahmad, Türkiye’de Çok Partili Politikanın Açıklamalı Kronolojisi, 1945-1971, (The Explained Chronology of the Multi-Party Era in Turkey, 1945-1971), (Ankara: Bilgi, 1976), p. 299. 161 Fethi Naci, ‘Seçimlerden Sonra’ (After the Elections), Yön, No. 133, 15 October 1965, p. 6. 162 Dogan Avcioglu, ‘Yeni Dönem’ (New Era), Yön, No. 134, 22 October 1965, p. 3. 156   

 
 $ &" Leftist-Kemalism’s Victory over the Traditional Kemalism The JP was not the only victors in the 1965 elections. The TIP, the main representative of the Kemalist-left, also succeeded in entering the Parliament, receiving 15 seats. The left’s success and the neo-Kemalists opposition to the ønönü-type Kemalism caused changes in the RPP as well. The Bülent Ecevit-led group rebelled against the ønönü administration by claiming that the RPP’s ideology must be a democratic, leftist Kemalism and ønönü recognised the leftist character of the party. The deviation from Kemalist Orthodoxy resulted in a split in the party and 48 RPP Parliamentarians and Senators accused the RPP of being socialist instead of being Kemalist. They resigned in order to establish the Republican Thrust Party (RTP, Cumhuriyetçi Güven Partisi) under the leadership of Turhan Feyzio÷lu. The foundation of the RTP underscored the leftist character of the Republican People’s Party. Moreover, in this period, the political parties mushroomed and the differences between the ideological groups became clearly distinguished. The resurgence of the Islamists, Turkists, ultra-Turkists, Leftists, Marxists, Kemalists-leftists (RPP, TIP), Kemalist-traditionalists (RTP), Democrats163 (DP) and neo-Democrats (JP) increased the political polarisation in Turkey. Unlike previous periods, all these groups focused on foreign policy matters and saw these problems as the main pillars of their ideology. The real struggle was between the neo-Kemalists and the neo-Democrats; however, the tension caused by the political polarisation limited the 163  The 26 former Democrat parliamentarians established a new party called the Democratic Party.              governments in foreign policy implementation and would create a terror environment in 1970s Turkey. The TIP’s victory and the swing to the left in the RPP regime increased ideological polarisation. The Return of the Neo-Democrats: JP’s Multi-Dimensional Foreign Policy164 In the wake of the coup, several parties like the Justice Party (Adalet Partisi, JP) and the New Turkey Party (Yeni Türkiye Partisi, NTP) were formed to secure the DP legacy, and the moderate conservative JP captured most of the DP votes. Although the JP could not declare that it was the successor of the DP because of the NUC, it advocated policies similar to those of the DP: economic Cemal Gürsel assigning the mandate to liberalism, conservatism in form government to Demirel politics, close co-operation with the United States against communism in foreign policy and more freedom in religious matters. During the first years (1961–1964), the RPP’s etatism and the JP’s liberalism were conflicting. The JP benefited from the failures of the weak ønönü coalition governments, and under Süleyman Demirel’s leadership, the JP gained a victory in the October 1965 elections. The JP attracted support from shopkeepers, small business circles, artisans, workers and the peasantry. The young party received 52.87 per cent of the votes, while the RPP gained only 28.75 per cent of the votes.165 The people’s reaction to the military coup and the RPP policies were clear. However, the JP did not perceive the election victory as revenge against the Republican elite. As neo-Democrats, they knew the power of 164 For Demirel’s own ideas on his foreign policy, see Cüneyt Arcayürek, Cüneyt Arcayürek Açıklıyor 5: Demirel Dönemi, 12 Mart Darbesi, 1965-1971, (Cüneyt Arcayürek Explains 5: The Demirel Period, 12 March Coup, 1965-1971), (Ankara: Bilgi, 1993), p. 125. For a comprehensive study on the Justice Party, see Levi Avner, The Justice Party of Turkey, 1961-1977, PhD thesis, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1983. 165 For the details of the figures and the elections, see Shaw and Shaw, History…, pp. 425-426; Ahmad, The Making..., pp. 138-139; Ahmad and Ahmad, Türkiye’de..., p. 299; J. Landau, Radical Politics in Modern Turkey, (Leiden: 1974), pp. 247-264.   

 
 $ &" the army and the bureaucracy and they were cautious not to provoke the military or the etatist-Republican elite, they even claimed that they were the only true Kemalists who can implement ‘real’ Kemalist policies.166 For them, their priorities were the restoration of the liberal economy and political structure during these years which were considered the first stage to full civilian government. From 1965 to 1970, the JP tried to implement its liberal economic and political program. The average growth rate in Turkey from 1965–1969 was around 8 per cent. Since the 1960 coup, it was the first time a single party had a majority in Parliament; however, the Kemalist elite, bureaucracy and the rising leftist opposition did not allow the full implementation of JP policies, as the 1961 Constitution weakened governmental powers vis-à-vis the public and opposition. The Kemalist-left in particular enjoyed this. A growing urban workers and large number of students became more active in politics. The masses were very interested in economic and foreign policy issues. With the growing economic gap between the rich and poor the ideological polarization became more apparent. The leftist opposition harshly criticized the JP’s relatively liberal economic policies calling them ‘capitalist and imperialist policies’. For the leftist opposition, the JP was one of the collaborators of Western imperialism in Turkey. The opposition also organized mass meetings and urged the Government to leave NATO and form good relations with the Communist Bloc. In addition to the leftist opposition, the Islamist and Turkist opposition were growing against the JP’s moderate policies. The Ideological Framework of the Justice Party’s Foreign Policy Unlike the country’s former charismatic leaders, like Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Adnan Menderes etc., Süleyman Demirel (born November 1, 1924) was an unglamorous technocrat of peasant origin. Demirel rose from a traditional and conservative village of Isparta province (øslamköy) to become a leading water expert. He served as an adviser to former Prime Minister Adnan Menderes. Though perceived as a conservative and even religious man, Demirel was a pragmatic rather than a fiery political leader.167 Although Demirel cultivated a pragmatic and technocratic image for the young JP, the party inherited the DP’s identification with right-wing populism, liberalism in economic issues and conservatism in social life. 166 Süleyman Demirel’s Speech, ‘Adalet Partisi’nin Kuruluúunun 5. Yılına Girerken’, (When the JP is 5 Years-Old), Zafer (daily), 11 February 1965. The Times argued Demirel had to persuade the army to continue: cited in Zafer (daily), 16 February 1965. 167 Don Paretz, The Middle East, (London: Westport, 1994), p. 188.               Similar to the DP, the JP’s foreign policy orientation was based on Cold War assumptions, nationalism, political conservatism, economic liberalism and pro-Westernism. Also, like the DP, the Justice Party was the follower of the Ottomanist school in foreign policy. It aimed for good relations with the Middle East and West, and was against isolationism. As an extension of the Ottomanist Turkish-Islam Synthesis idea, it pursued good relations with the Muslim and the Turkish world as well. The JP tried to apply this ideological orientation into Turkish foreign policy as long as the army allowed. Another feature of the JP’s foreign policy understanding was that economy was as important as security. As mentioned in the JP programme, for Demirel, foreign policy should support the economic development programmes of Turkey.168 The JP accepted a large role for state enterprises in a mixed economy understanding, yet it also encouraged the development of a stronger private sector. Demirel governments also encouraged foreign direct investments in Turkey. Despite similarities with the DP, neo-Democrats did not believe they could rely solely on the United States for security issues, therefore, unlike the DP, the JP did not defend an absolute pro-American stance; however, it was still Americanist and advocated closer relations with the United States.169 In the words of Mango, despite the ideological similarities between the DP and the JP, ‘the JP government did not prevent the emergence of a new look in Turkish foreign policy.’170 Second, unlike the neo-Kemalists, the JP continued to perceive communism as the greatest threat to Turkish society and security.171 As has been seen, the ønönü and Ürgüplü governments had used the Soviet factor to counter-balance ‘the pro-Greek’ American attitude in the Cyprus issue. However, the JP programme declared a new card: the Muslim world. The programme also aimed to improve relations with the UN and the Third World countries.172 This foreign policy principle was a natural extension of the JP’s neoDemocratic ideology. As a conservative, religious and capitalist party, the 168 Kazım Öztürk, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Hükümetleri ve Programları, (The Governments of the Turkish Republic and Their Programmes), (østanbul: Ak, 1968), p. 665. 169 Nasuh Uslu, ‘1947’den Günümüze Türk-Amerikan øliúkilerinin Genel Portresi’, (The General Portrait of Turkish-American Relations Since 1947), Avrasya Dosyası, Vol. 6, No. 2, Summer 2000, p. 209. 170 Mango, Turkey, p. 96. 171 ‘Solun Ardı Komunizm’ (There is Communism behind the Left), Yeni stanbul, 13 January 1965; ‘Komunizmi Buldu÷unuz Yerde Ezin, AP Komunizmin Karúısında’ (Destroy Communism When You See, JP Against Communism), Son Havadis, 13 June 1965; ‘Süleyman Demirel: Vatandaú Aúırı Soldan ùikayetçidir’ (Süleyman Demirel: People are not Happy with the Leftist Radicalism), Zafer, 16 June 1965. 172 Öztürk, Türkiye..., p. 663.   

 
 $ &" JP’s anti-Soviet attitude was understandable. Nevertheless, the fact was that the United States had let Turkey down, and to balance the United States, the JP government looked to Europe. The EC was seen as the new source of political and financial support. As a result, the JP championed Turkey’s integration Prime Minister with Western Europe. As Teveto÷lu, a leading Süleyman Demirel JP member, stated, the JP believed that integration with Europe was the only solution to Turkey’s security and development problems in a Cold War environment. 173 The JP, unlike the leftist-Kemalists, could not give up Westernism, because the West, for the JP, was not only a foreign policy choice but a guaranty of its existence inside. For them, integration with the West was the only way to stop the Kemalist elite from dominating the political system. In other words, though the JP was more cautious about the West, it had little choice but to look towards it. The JP never disavowed the principle of secularism, yet it also attempted to promote Turkey’s relations with the Muslim states, which Turkey had neglected since the Mustafa Kemal era, in order to balance Turkey’s dependency on the Western bloc. The JP’s moderate Islamic ideology also played a crucial role and made such a relation durable. The JP also made efforts to improve relations with the other Third World countries; however, Demirel did not consider these countries to be an alternative to the West, arguing that Turkey had to maintain good relations with the United States, Europe, Muslim countries and the Third World as he once asked: ‘What would Turkey do any taking her place with the Third World or among the socialist countries? What interest would she have in it? Turkey’s economic interests, her political interests, her defence requirements due to her geopolitical location and importance are in the policy she is pursuing today.’174 Inside, like the DP, the newly emerged JP also promoted tolerance of the open expression of traditional Islamic understanding. The rise of traditional Islam in Turkey ultimately affected Turkey’s relations with the Muslim countries. 173 Fethi Teveto÷lu, Dı Politika Görüümüz (Our Foreign Policy Perspective), (Ankara: Ajans Türk Matbaası, 1963). 174 Demirel cited in David Kushner, ‘Ataturk’s Legacy: Westernism in Contemporary Turkey’, in Jacob M. Landau (ed.), Ataturk and Modernization of Turkey, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1984), pp. 235-236.               In brief, Demirel’s balanced foreign policy was multi-dimensional (Çok Yönlü/Boyutlu Dı Politika). Moreover, similar to the Democrats’ foreign policy, the JP focused on economic issues and perceived economic development as an inseparable part of foreign policy. The 1965 Party Programme declared that Turkey’s foreign policy must contribute to Turkish foreign policy.175 The difference between the neo-Kemalists and the JP was that the JP, like the DP, was economy-minded and more pragmatic. These economic considerations also motivated the JP for economic integration within the European Community. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JP’S MULTIDIMENSIONAL FOREIGN POLICY Despite the resurgence of leftist-Kemalism and army pressures during the period 1961–1973, the Democrats’ successor, the JP, won the majority in all elections, either by itself or with the NTP (New Turkey Party). However, the Justice Party was prevented from forming a government until 1965. Instead, ønönü formed a series of weak coalitions. Furthermore, even though the JP won the majority of votes itself and formed its own independent governments in 1965 and 1969, it was effectively prevented from exercising full authority by the well planned strategies of the radical wing of the RPP.176 The Court of Constitution, established by the 1960 coup leaders, also blocked much of the JP legislation and apart from these obstacles; the bureaucracy was very reluctant to carry out JP policies. Moreover, the JP was aware that the real power was in the army’s hands, and was very cautious in its relations with the military and its supporters, namely the Kemalist bureaucracy.177 Thus, although the JP was 175 1965 Adalet Partisi Parti Programı (1965 Justice Party Programme), (Ankara: AP, 1965). 176 Kemal H. Karpat, ‘The Military, the State, and Politics’, in Metin Heper and Ahmet Evin (eds.), State, Democracy and the Military, Turkey in the 1980s, (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1988), pp. 137-158, p. 143. 177 Avner Levi, ‘The Justice Party, 1961-1980’, in Metin Heper and Jacob M. Landau (eds.), Political Parties and Democracy in Turkey, (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 1991), pp. 134-151, p. 145; Avner Levi, The Justice Party of Turkey, 1961-   

 
 $ &" in power, the army, the Kemalist elite and the bureaucracy still had much influence, as called the ‘hidden power’ by the JP.178 A final decision was taken by the Kemalist-elitist-Jacobean bureaucracy, the intelligentsia and Army. Süleyman Demirel frequently complained about this structure, calling it çoklu idare (government by many) and claimed that with such a constitutional structure it was impossible to govern properly. An anti-JP coalition used Kemalism to attack the liberal policies as Demirel accused anti-capitalists and leftists in the Kemalist institutions of using Kemalism to mask their real aims and interests and to prevent the government from implementing reforms.179 Demirel increased defence spending and gave clear support to the Army in many issues, yet military leaders remained suspicious of his party because of its roots in the DP and the JP’s image of being religious and traditional. Secularism vs. Pragmatism? Relations with the Islamic World Thanks to Turkey’s isolation in the international arena, the Cyprus Problem and the JP’s cultural-ideological orientations, the JP began restructuring Turkey’s policy vis-à-vis Muslim states. This shift was significant because for the first time in the republican Turkish history, a political party advocated in its party programme the Arab arguments against the West and Israel in the Middle East.180 As has been seen, Turkey had strictly refused to join any conference, meeting, or organisation based on common religious or Islamic-Ottoman cultural values during the Atatürk period, and similarly ønönü, the 27 May and Ürgüplü governments had never seen Islamic solidarity as an alternative or a card to use against the West.181 Under these circumstances it was understandable that no Arab countryside with Turkey in December 1965 when the Cyprus question was put to the rote at the U.S. General Assembly.182 However, now the JP perceived the Ottoman culture and Islam as an inseparable element of Turkish social and political life, claiming Turkey’s indifferent attitude to the Eastern world was damaging Turkey’s national interests.183 As a result, Turkey initiated a diplomatic campaign focusing 1977, unpublished PhD thesis, the Hebrew University (Jerusalem, Israel), 1983; Arcayürek, Cüneyt..., pp. 89-95. 178 Cumhuriyet (daily, østanbul), 25 August 1966. 179 Milliyet, 6 July 1969. 180 Öztürk, Türkiye..., p. 67. 181 Kemal Kirisçi, ‘Turkey and the Muslim Middle East’, in Alan Makovsky and Sabri Sayari (eds.), Turkey’s New World, Changing Dynamics in Turkish Foreign Policy, (Washington: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2000), pp. 39-58. 182 Kürkçüo÷lu, p. 20. 183 TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, Vol. 2, 28. Session, 27 November 1965, pp. 16-82.               on the Muslim states and the other Third World countries. For instance, high level meetings were arranged with the leaders of influential Muslim states, like Iran and Pakistan, and Turkish representatives were sent to attend various meetings which included non-aligned Third World countries’ and Islamic states’.184 According to Demirel, the main principles of Turkish foreign policy in his term would be: a. Seeking additional measures and guarantees, b. Searching for new ways and political development, c. To find new support.185 Turkey had strictly refused to join any conference or meeting based on common religion and cultural values as the Kemalist reforms aimed at a complete break with the Ottoman past. However, the experience of the 1960s proved that Ottoman culture and Islam were inseparable elements of Turkish social life and foreign policy. The successes of the DP and JP underlined the failure of the Westernist elite and the Cyprus crisis showed Turkey’s indifferent attitude to the Eastern world was harming its national interests. Thus, even the foreign ministry bureaucracy, the champion of Westernism in Turkey for centuries, began to accept that Turkey was not only a European country but also an Asian, Middle Eastern and developing Muslim country. A senior Ministry official, Hamit Batu, in an article published by the Turkish Foreign Affairs Ministry accepted that: ‘Turkey was admitted into the European Community because of its geopolitical and strategic situation. It is the only Muslim member of that community. It was affiliated with another culture. Its position in the European Community cannot be regarded as strong... Because of its past and present social personality, Turkey occupies a certain position in the eyes of the Asian and African countries, and should aim at maintaining it. This Asian-African policy should not be pursued only on a temporary basis to gain support for certain political causes. It should be pursued on a permanent basis to gain the ‘friendship’ and ‘intimate concern’ of the Asian and African countries.’186 184 Mahmut Bali Aykan, ‘The OIC and Turkey’s Cyprus Cause’, in Turkish Yearbook of International Relations, (Ankara University), 1995, Vol. XXV, p. 51. 185 Arcayürk, Cüneyt..., p. 125. 186 Hamit Batu, ‘Turkey’s Foreign Policy’, Bulletin of the Turkish Foreign Affairs Ministry, No. 6, March 1965, pp. 21-25. For Baykan, Batu’s article is historical and shows a remarkable change in the official understanding.   

 
 $ &" The Ministry’s approach was closer to the JP’s foreign policy because diplomats, unlike the neo-Kemalists, did not see the Third World or the communist world as an alternative to NATO. For them, Turkey’s NATO membership was not an obstacle while the leftist-Kemalists argued that Turkey’s NATO membership prevented good relations with the rest of the world. Despite the change in the Ministry’s approach, the impact of the traditional Westernism also continued among the diplomats. Ambassador økizer reveals this mode of thinking in his memoirs: ‘The only thing I can recall about Ambassador Olcay, Turkey’s ambassador to India, was that he was a radical admirer of the Western world. I do not know what the reason was: The missionary school he attended or the family roots? He was always disparaging the Asian nations. For example, once he confessed that the Pakistanis sicken him. For him the Indians were also disgusting… For instance he avoided shaking the hands of Indians.’187 Under light of the above information it can be argued that the JP’s new foreign policy indicated a clear departure from the traditional approach. Though international developments forced a new way, the JP’s warm feelings about the Muslim world could not be explained by only referring to external factors because the JP was referring to Muslim states as ‘Turkey’s brother countries’ and declared that one of its main aims was to improve Turkey’s relations with the Muslim states in the Middle East and Africa.188 Turkey’s practical aim was clear; to get support of the Muslim countries against Greece in a platform where the Greeks were not represented and thus to counter-balance the Greek propaganda in the West and the UN.189 Like Turkey, in these years the Arabs were also upset with the West’s attitude vis-à-vis the Arabs and Israel in the Palestinian question and were seeking to establish an Islamic organisation to benefit from the religious solidarity. King Faisal of Saudi Arabia led the attempt to create political co-operation and solidarity based on the common Islamic values and to ensure Turkey’s attendance at a future Islamic conference upholding such an idea.190 For the Kemalists, this obviously would violate 187 M. Yılmaz økizer, u Bizim Garip Hariciye ve Dı Politika, Anılar, Olaylar, (Our Strange Foreign Ministry and Foreign Policy, Memoirs and Events), (østanbul: Sucuo÷lu Matbaası, n.d.), p. 73. Olcay then became the Minister of Foreign Affairs. 188 Hükümet Prograıi, (Government’s Programme), (Ankara: Basbakanlik Devlet Matbaası, 1965), pp. 40-41. The programme also stated that Turkey had supported Arabs in the Arab-Israeli question and the Arabs could trust Turkey in the future. 189 The Bulletin of Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, / Dıileri Bakanlıı Bülteni (The Bulletin), No. 4, January 1965, pp. 67-68. 190 The Bulletin of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs / Dıileri Bakanlıı Bülteni (The Bulletin), No. 24, September 1966, pp. 44-45.               one of the main principles of Turkish foreign policy, namely secularism. However, Turkish statesmen did not refuse Faisal’s invitation for such a conference. Even Turkish President Cevdet Sunay, a former general, met with Faisal to discuss the matter. Turkey remained uncommitted, yet seemed to be supportive of the general idea of convening an Islamic conference in which Turkey would participate191 and viewed such a conference as a great advantage against Greece.192 For the first time in Republican history, the Demirel government changed Turkey’s stand vis-à-vis Israel and the Arabs and in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War announced that Turkey would not permit the United States to utilise Turkish bases to support Israel.193 The Turkish Foreign Minister, øhsan Sabri Ça÷layangil, also advocated an immediate Israeli withdrawal at the UN General Assembly meeting and gave clear support to the Arabs194—the first time Turkey did not follow the United States and other Western states in the UN voting and supported the Arab argument.195 Thanks to Turkey’s pro-Arab policies, even Nasser’s Egypt and Syria thanked Turkey and some Arab states, including Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Libya supported Turkey in the Cyprus problem.196 Domestically, the religious, conservative groups enthusiastically supported the JP and even the leftist TIP and the Communist groups warmly welcomed the JP’s proArab Israel policy. The JP, with the support of the left and right continued this policy. The first results of the change were seen in the Turkish-Egyptian relations. New ambassadors were appointed in 1965 and Turkish Foreign Minister Ça÷layangil made the first official visit between the two countries 191 Aykan, Ideology..., p. 64. In the 1965 Jeddah Muslim Congress, Turkey enjoyed 36 Muslim countries’ political support on the Cyprus issue as the Congress condemned the Greek attacks in Cyprus. Cumhuriyet (daily, østanbul), 23 April 1965. Similarly, that same year, Iran, Libya and Pakistan gave support to Turkey in the UN against the Greek initiative as a sign of Muslim solidarity. These goodwill gestures were welcomed in an isolated Turkey and inevitably affected Turkey’s foreign policy. Nadir Nadi, Cumhuriyet (daily, østanbul), 21 December 1965. 193 TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, (The Records of Grand Assembly), Birleúim 115, Oturum 1, 18, 1967, pp. 168-169. 194 The Bulletin of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, No. 33, 1967, p. 40 and pp. 55-56; The Bulletin of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, No. 17, February 1966, p. 70. 195 Kemal H. Karpat, Milliyet (daily), 23 June 1967; Bölükbaúı, Türkiye ve..., p. 5. 196 Some of these declarations are: Turkey-Saudi Arabia Declaration (27 January 1968), Turkey-Libya Joint Declaration (31 January 1968) and Turkey-Irak Joint Declaration (1 May 1968): The Bulletin of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, No. 40, 1968, pp. 49-63; The Bulletin of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, No. 42, pp. 50-51; The Bulletin of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, No: 44, 1968, pp. 37-40. 192   

 
 $ &" on 15–19 January 1969.197 The improved relations also increased the flow of Arab tourists to Turkey and the volume of trade in favour of Turkey.198 Turkish exports to Arab countries increased by about 38 per cent in 1970. Apart from the Cyprus Crises and Turkey’s problem with the West, the Arab defeat and humiliation in the June 1967 Arab-Israel wars continued to Turkish-Arab rapprochement. Problems with the West in both sides caused a new regional awareness among Turks and Arabs. Both needed each other move and “towards the end of the 1960s and early 1970s, there was a new spirit, a new willingness and a new awareness among TurkishArab relations.”199 However, despite consensus on the Arab-Israeli conflict, Turkey’s participation in the first Islamic Conference caused a political crisis at home. The first attempts to organise an Islamic conference had failed, but the Al-Aqsa mosque fire of 1969, started by some Zionists, changed the balance in the Middle East. The fire aroused great indignation among the Muslim nations against Israel and following the fire, Hassan II, the King of Morocco, invited all Muslim leaders, including Turkey, to an Islamic conference to show Muslim solidarity against Israel. According to the invitation to Rabat, the two issues discussed would be the Al-Aqsa fire and the status of the city of Jerusalem. For the Demirel-led JP, the invitation was a perfect opportunity for Turkey to make its return to the Islamic world. Inönü opposed the invitation arguing that such a meeting would violate the Kemalist, secularist standing and the Turkish constitution because Kemal had refused all invitations for any meeting based on Islamic values. Moreover, Inönü argued that Turkish participation at the Rabat Conference would harm Turkey’s neutrality vis-à-vis Israel and the Arab states.200 The left saw Demirel’s decision as an election-tactic,201 but the army also expressed its unease. Furthermore, some leftist-Kemalists argued that Turkey might risk its neutrality in the region by involving itself in Egypt-Saudi Arabia competition.202 Turkey participated in the conference, but it was not represented by the President or Prime Minister, 197 øsmail Soysal, ‘Seventy Years of Turkish-Arab Relations’, in Soysal, Between East and West, Studies on Turkish Foreign Relations, (østanbul: The ISIS Pres, 2001), p. 291. 198 Kemal. H. Karpat, ‘Turkish and Arab-Israeli Relations’, in Kemal H. Karpat, Turkey’s Foreign Policy in Transition, 1950-1974, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), p. 132. 199 Oya Akgören Mughisuddin, Turkey and the Middle East: Systemic and Subsystemic Determinants of Policy, 1960-1975, (Ankara: Foreign Policy Institute, 1993), p. 62. 200 TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, (The Records of Grand Assembly), 3, 1970, pp. 450-451. 201 Milliyet, 19, 22, 26 September 1969; ølhan Selçuk, ‘Ortado÷u’da Türkiye’, (Turkey in the Middle East), Cumhuriyet, 2 October 1969. 202 Kayhan Sa÷lamer, ‘øslam Paktı ve Türkiye’, (Islamic Pact and Turkey), Cumhuriyet, 20 February 1966.              but by the Foreign Minister. The Turkish representative also declared that Turkey was a secular state and that its participation should not be viewed as an antisecular statement. Moreover, Turkey said that it could not discuss any other issue, except the Al-Aqsa fire in the conference. n his response to the invitation, Turkish President Sunay refrained from using the word Islam and underlined Turkey’s secular characteristic203 as Demirel argued, ‘Whatever the name of the conference is not important, its agenda is well known: The AlAqsa fire and the status of Jerusalem. That’s all. It is not a religious meeting, but political. True Muslim states participate, but this does not make the meeting anti-secular.’204  PUBLIC OPINION AND FOREIGN POLICY, 1965 (*) ‘What country is our best friend?’ a. b. c. d. e. f. US – 18% West Germany – 24% Pakistan – 23% Iran – 4% We have none – 25% Others – 6 % ‘Which one is our greatest enemy?’ a. b. c. d. e. f. Greece – 42% Russia – 34% US – 8% We have more than one –4% Others – 10% Don’t know – 2 ‘Do you approve of Turkey’s membership in NATO?’ a. b. c. d. Approve – 78% Disapprove – 7% Don’t Know – 4% Unanswered – 11% --- At the conference, the Turkish (*) Omnibus Study, Turkey, performed for delegate said that Turkey would the PEVA (Market Studies & Research) of Istanbul, Ankara, 1965. support any document to promote Company Quoted in Vali, Bridge..., p. 107. the Arab position or criticize Israel, but opposed any full condemnation of Israel and opposed the Palestine Liberation Organization’s (PLO) participation in the conference as a full member.205 The Turkish stance at the conference pleased neither Israel nor the Arabs. The domestic opponent also increased their criticism about the JP foreign policy. The only benefit for the JP was the conservatives’ support domestically. Moreover, the Rabat Conference proved that NATO membership was not an obstacle for improving its relations with the developing countries and that despite its good relations with Israel, Turkey had been invited and this invitation showed that Turkey was still considered a natural member of the Muslim world. 203 øhsan Sabri Ça÷layangil, Anılarım, (My Memoirs), (østanbul: Güneú, 1990), p. 63. The Bulletin of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, No. 60, 1969, pp. 19-20. 205 Cumhuriyet, 4 October 1969. 204   

 
 $ &" The Rabat Conference was followed by the conventions of Islamic Ministers for Foreign Affairs, at which the secretariat succeeded in drawing up a charter for the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.206 However, Turkey did not send its Minister, but the General Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Jeddah. The Turkish representative did not oppose the idea of establishing a General Secretariat for the Organization; however, Turkey cautiously refrained from committing itself to regular participation in the conference. Turkish delegates also pointed out the political difference between Turkey and the other Muslim countries. In addition to participating at the Rabat Conference and the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, the JP also refused to allow the United States forces to utilise NATO bases to intervene in the Jordan Affair as part of its new eastern policy.207 Demirel explained Turkey’s position as follows: ‘We live in a dangerous region. We have to be in good relations with the regional countries. The block we are in could not change this reality.’208 In brief, the rapprochement between Turks and Arabs began in 1965 and continued in the following years. The main reasons for the change were Turkey’s relations with the West209 and the Arab defeats and humiliation before Israel. The increasing problems in Turkey-West relations nourished Turkey’s relations with the rest of the world. Similarly the Western support to Israel and the war defeats forced the Arabs to find new friends like the Turks. All these were clear signs of the radical shift in Turkey’s Kemalist foreign policy towards the Muslim world. 206 Landau, The Politics…, pp. 188-189. The Bulletin of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs / Dıileri Bakanlıı Bülteni, No. 72, 1970, p. 27. 208 Demirel, in Çaglayangil, Anılarım, pp. 125-126. 209 Ömer Kürkçüo÷lu, Türkiye’nin Arap Orta Dousu’na Karı Politikası, 1945-1970 (Turkey’s Foreign Policy Towards Arab Middle East, 1945-1970), (Ankara: Sevinç Matbaası, 1972), p. 210. 207               The Bilateral Cultural Agreements Between Turkey and Arab States (1958-1975)210 Algeria 1958 Lebanon 1959 Tunisia 1964 Egypt 1965 Morocco 1966 Jordan 1968 Syria 1972 Iraq 1974 Saudi Arabia 1974 Libya 1975 Kuwait 1975 Relations with the West: the EEC and United States Demirel suffered from the army and bureaucracy’s obstinacy at home and feared a possible military intervention. In this context, he saw the West as a guarantee of safety for non-Kemalist political groups and Turkish democracy. Thus, Demirel attempted to fasten the integration process with the European Community. Furthermore, the need for new financial assistance211 and for political support after the United States disappointment had pushed Turkey into the EC. The Turkish economy was far from capable of competing with the EC economies, nevertheless, in May 1967, the third year of the preparatory stage, the Demirel government demanded negotiations to start the transition stage to entry. This proves that the motive behind Demirel’s EC policy was more political than economical. Although economic considerations, like new concessions for Turkish agricultural and industrial exports, improved conditions for Turkish migrant workers and financial aid was also important, the main motive for entry was political. The negotiations concluded with the Additional Protocol on 22 July 1970 and became effective in January 1973. Thus, the transitional stage was started.212 The Protocol deigned a 210 Ömer Kürkçüo÷lu, ‘Development of Turkish-Arab Relations: A Historical Appraisal’, in Ali L. Karaosmano÷lu and Seyfi Taúhan (eds), Middle East, Turkey, and the Atlantic Alliance, (Ankara; Foreign Policy Institute, 1987), p. 220. 211 Demirel clearly underscored the need for foreign aid in his speech: Demirel in ‘øktisadi Geliúme Var’, Son Havadis (daily), 25 June 1965. 212 Roswitha Bourguinon, ‘The History of the Association Agreement between Turkey and the European Community’, in Ahmet Evin and Geoffrey Denton (eds.), Turkey and the European Community, (Opladen, Germany: Leske&Budrich, 1990), p. 54;   

 
 $ &" programme for the creation of a customs union, but in order to reach a customs union, a strict preparation programme was planned, which would abolish Turkish tariff barriers for EC exports within 12 to 22 years. It also provided free access for all Turkish industrial goods, except textiles and petroleum products, while free movement of labour and capital between the EC and Turkey would be phased between the 12th and 22nd year. Finally, the second financial protocol would provide $195 million over a five-year period.213 Despite the United States’ changes in Turkish policy, similar to the Democrats, neo-Democrats could not give up their Americanist ideas. They were more cautious in American policy,214 but they still could not accept Turkish security without United States’ support.215 Demirel stated: ‘We must search a way not to demolish Turkish-American friendship. Also we should remember that the strongest relations are based on mutual interests rather than emotions.’216 In addition, Demirel saw the United States as a financial aid source for his economic reforms and as an ideological model for the ‘new Democrats’. For instance, at the first congress of the JP, Demirel had displayed his picture with American President Johnson to underline his close ties to the US. Turkey’s rush for an agreement with the EC, and the agreement itself showed Demirel’s enthusiasm for integration with the West. Contrary to the communists, neo-Kemalists and the Islamists, Demirel, despite his Eastern policy, did not neglect the EC and United States. Therefore, the leftists and the Islamists blamed Demirel for selling Turkey to the West, calling him ‘Morrison Süleyman’.217 When Demirel, as a young engineer, replaced øsmet ønönü as the new Prime Minister, Demirel’s rise was quickly interpreted by the Kemalist pundits as an Meltem Müftüler, The Impact of External Factors on Internal Transformation: Turkish Structural Adjustment Process and the European Community, PhD Thesis, The Temple University, Florida, 1992, p. 81. 213 Additional Protocol, Official Journal of the EC, No. 293, 27 December 1972; Mehmet Ali Birand, ‘Turkey and the European Community’, The World Today, February 1978, pp. 52-61; Redmond, John, The Next Mediterranean Enlargement of the European Community: Turkey, Cyprus and Malta?, (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1993), p. 27. Also see Mehmet Ali Birand, Türkiye’nin Ortak Pazar Macerası: 1959-1985, (Turkey’s Common Market Adventure), (østanbul: Milliyet, 1985). 214 Arcayürek, Cüneyt..., p. 125. 215 ‘Muarızlarımız Ne Yaparlarsa Yapsınlar, Gideceklerdir’, Son Havadis (daily, østanbul), 13 January 1965; øhsan Sabri Ça÷layangil, ‘Türkiye’nin NATO’daki Yeri’, (Turkey’s Place in the NATO), in Türkiye ve NATO, (Turkey and the NATO), (Ankara: Türk Atlantik Andlaúması Derne÷i Yayınları, No. 1, n.d.), pp. 123-127. 216 Haber (daily), 2 May 1965. 217 Gerger, Türk..., 1998), p. 114.               ‘American plot’ to punish ønönü.218 For instance, Metin Toker, son-in-law of ønönü who was considered his unofficial spokesman, directly accused the US of involving Turkish domestic politics: ‘As far as I know, we seriously intended to land on Cyprus for the first time during the summer of 1964. That initiative was blocked by that famous letter of Johnson... This is the emotional basis of the anti-American sentiment that would be left in Turkey for years to come... A short time later, Johnson also had a diagnosis of smet nönü. As a result of this diagnosis, he tried to find a prime minister to replace smet nönü... An American general whose name is Porter arrived in Ankara. He was sent to Ankara by President Johnson himself. His mission was to find a prime minister who would accept the various propositions that nönü had rejected. General Porter’s visit coincided with reports of CIA agents conducting surveys in Ankara. Turkey saw the real face of America on that occasion and the debate on America in Turkish public opinion started... This is exactly what the United States would not permit to continue. Eventually, General Porter and the CIA’s agents found what they were looking for. This was Demirel... to whom the destiny of Turkey has been entrusted since 1965’.219 Relations with the Soviet Union As discussed above, the Jupiter Crisis and the Cyprus Crisis forced Turkey to balance its relations vis-à-vis the Soviet Union and the United States. As the Soviet Union sought some sort of accommodation with Turkey, the relations developed with the Soviets. A series of official visits initiated by the President of the Senate, Suat Hayri Ürgüplü, began on 29 May 1961. The Turkish parliamentary delegation visited Moscow from 29 May to 14 June 1963. The delegation returned with excellent impressions and Soviet promises for economic aid, friendship and easy financial terms for industrial projects.220 Ürgüplü’s visit could be considered the start of a new phase in Turkish-Soviet relations; however, the real thaw began with the 1964 Moscow visit of Turkish Foreign Minister, Feridun Cemal Erkin, (30 October6 November 1964). Cemal Erkin’s Soviet visit was first 218 Cengiz Çandar, ‘Some Turkish Perspectives on the United States and American Policy Toward Turkey’, in Morton Abramowitz (ed.), Turkey’s Transformation and American Policy, (New York: The Century Foundatiton Books, 2000), p. 128. 219 Metin Toker, Demokrasimizin smet Paalı Yılları, 1944-1973 (The Years of Our Democracy with General øsmet ønönü), (Ankara: Bilgi, 1991), pp. 195-211 as cited in Çandar, ‘Some...’, p. 129. 220 Kemal H. Karpat, ‘Turkish Soviet Relations’, in Kemal H. Karpat (ed.), Turkey’s Foreign Policy in Transition, 1950-1974, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), p. 88.   

 
 $ &" scheduled to take place on 18 March 1964, yet as a result of the Soviet Union’s ‘pro-Greek’ position, Ankara postponed the Foreign Minister’s departure to Moscow. When the Soviet Ambassador in Nicosia visited Fazıl Küçük, Turkish Vice-President and the leader of the Turkish Cypriot Community, Turkey considered this first Soviet visit as a clear indication that the Soviet position on Cyprus had changed.221 Thus, Cemal Erkin departed to Moscow on 30 October 1964. Erkin was one of the most Westernist names in the Turkish government and had been sceptical of the Soviets. The Moscow visit, however, affected Erkin and he also accepted the inevitability of improving relations with the Soviet Union and persuaded Prime Minister ønönü to take the necessary steps in this direction.222 After the visit, the Soviet Union called for a peaceful solution based on the territorial integrity, independence and the legal rights of Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities. The joint Turkish-Soviet communiqué issued at the end of the visit also called for the strengthening of good neighbour relations between the two countries. Both sides declared that the relations should be based on mutual respect for territorial integrity, independence and differences in political and social systems. The need for increased commercial relations was also emphasized.223 In addition, a cultural agreement with a broad scope, including exchange of students, was signed by Turkey and the Soviet Union. A few months later, Erkin’s visit was followed by an Ankara visit by the delegation from the Supreme Soviet, headed by Nikolai Podgorny, in January 1965. The visit was the first Soviet official visit to Turkey in more than 25 years.224 While in Ankara, Podgorny said that relations between the two countries were progressing. He also expressed his hopes for continuous mutual visits. The Soviet delegation’s Ankara visit initiated a new series of official visits by the leaders of the two countries and Soviet Prime Minister Aleksei Kosygin also visited Ankara (20-27 December 1966). Demirel, before the Kosygin visit, received Romanian Prime Minister Ion Gheorghe Maurer and Bulgarian Foreign Minister Ivan Basyev.225 The Demirel Government also sent official delegations to Russia, Poland and Albania. On 13 September 1967, a few days before the Moscow visit, Demirel went to Romania, another communist country. All these were clear messages to the communist world and deemed as ‘mild 221 Karpat, ‘Turkish…’, pp. 91-92. Karpat, ‘Turkish…’, p. 90. 223 Karpat, ‘Turkish…’, p. 92. 224 Çelik, Contemporary…, p. 49. 225 By the end of 1964, Turkish delegations had visited Romania and Bulgaria to improve bilateral relations in trade and tourism. In 1965, the Bulgarian Minister of Trade, Ivan Budinof, was the first Bulgarian minister to visit Turkey in 21 years, and while visiting, discussed the improvement of trade. 222               flirting with the communists’ by the American weekly, Time.226 Demirel and Kosygin negotiated on the Soviet’s $200 million industrial-aidpackage and the recent $1,4 million Czechoslovakian arms shipment to Greek Cypriots. Demirel warned Kosygin for possible use of these arms against the Turkish Cypriots. Kosygin said he regretted the sale but he claimed the sale was completely out of his hands. Süleyman Demirel strongly emphasised that ‘Turkey is sticking to NATO’, yet he assured the Soviet PM during the Ankara visit that it should not interfere with relations between two countries. Demirel accepted Kosygin’s official visit invitation as a gesture to prove his sincerity in developing relations with the Soviet Union. However, not to provoke the Americans, the Demirel Government announced new arms agreements with the US that would provide Turkey with about $670 million in military aid between 1966 and 1970. Turkish-Soviet relations gradually developed during the Demirel years. Many heavy industry investments in particular were realized by Turkish – Soviet cooperation.227 Karpat even argues that, despite early expectations, the JP government expanded the relations faster and more profoundly than its predecessors.228 Turkish Prime Minister Süleyman Demirel accepted a Soviet invitation to visit Moscow. Demirel went to Moscow on 19 September 1967. Demirel also visited the Caucasus and Central Asia regions of the Soviet Union. Premier Demirel signed an economic cooperation agreement there under which Turkey developed huge public projects with Soviet industrial and financial assistance. Turkey accepted a $ 200 million credit from the Soviet Union for seven industrial projects in 1967.229 By the end of the 1970s, Turkey received more Soviet economic assistance than any other Third World country except Cuba and the number of Soviet-aided Turkish industrial projects increased 44 per cent. Trade soared after the visit230 and the power changes in Ankara did not disrupt relations.231 The joint communiqué issued after the visit publicly declared that there was no question between the two countries which could cause clashes on fundamental interests. The Turkish foreign minister went to Moscow in 1968 and President Cevdet Sunay followed him in 1969. Thanks to Sunay’s visit, the Soviet Union increased financial aid to Turkish industrial projects like the øskenderun Steel and Iron project. 226 ‘A Polite Distance’, Time, 30 December 1960. Cem Birsay, ‘The Integration…’, p. 94. 228 Karpat, ‘Turkish…’, p. 97. 229 Robert S. Eaton, Soviet Relations with Greece and Turkey, Occasional Papers, No.2 (Hellenic Foundation for Defence and Foreign Policy, Athens, 1987), pp. 8-9. 230 The volume of Turkish-Soviet trade reached the level of $74.8 million in 1969. 231 Rubinstein, Soviet Policy toward Turkey, Iran, and Afghanistan, pp. 26-27, 35-36. 227   

 
 $ &" Parallel to the Turkish-Soviet relations, the Turkey-Balkans relations also developed. Trade volume increased and Turkey signed co-operation agreements with Balkan and other Eastern European countries. Turkey, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia began to discuss a possible Trans-Balkan highway project running through Belgrade, Istanbul, Ankara and Hatay. The Romanian Prime Minister, Gheorghe Maurer and Bulgarian Foreign Minister, Ivan Bashev visited Turkey in 1966. The Bulgarian premier, Todorov Zhikov, also visited Ankara in March 1968. Developing friendlier relations with the Soviet Union affected Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East and Turkish-American relations. Turkey was more reluctant towards the American calls in the region. During the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, for instance, Turkey, who had allowed the US to use Turkish bases to support its intervention in the Lebanon war in 1958, did not permit the US to use the NATO bases in Turkey for refuelling and supply activities. As will be seen, the US would not be permitted to use the military bases for direct combat or logistical support in 1973 too.232 Different from the Menderes years, the US faced a clear reluctance in the use of NATO facilities in Turkey for non-NATO contingencies during the 1960s. As a result of the anti-American public pressure and the US’ new strategy, the level of co-operation between the US and Turkey changed as Ankara began to put several restrictions on US activity on its soil. Through the Defence Co-operation Agreement of July 1969, the US, different from in the Democratic Party years, recognised ultimate Turkish sovereignty over all installations and emphasised their NATO character.233 However, Turkey did not fully depart from the Western Bloc and allowed limited use of US facilities for the Middle Eastern crisis and conflicts. For example, during the 1967 and 1973 wars, the US was permitted to use the bases in Turkey as communication stations. Turkey developed closer relations with the Soviets and other communist countries, yet it was difficult to fully trust the Soviet Union. Apart from historical experiences with the Russians, the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia and the Soviet naval build up in the eastern Mediterranean weakened the Turkish attempts for neutrality. After the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, both the JP and the RPP declared that Turkey’s place was among the NATO members. Moreover, when the Turkish air force bombed Greek positions to stop the Enosis terrorism and attacks against Turkish civilian targets, the Soviet Union protested Turkey. The Soviet invasion in Czechoslovakia and the Soviet protest in Cyprus prevented any expectations in broadening relations. Thus the TurkishSoviet rapprochement never replaced Turkey’s commitment to the NATO 232 233  Çelik, Contemporary…, pp. 49-50. Altunıúık, Turkey..., p. 107.              security system and Turkey remained loyal and reliable actor for the Western states.234 CONCLUSION: TOWARDS A MULTILATERAL FOREIGN POLICY In the post-coup years, two important factors started a chain-reaction process in Turkish foreign policy which would continue until the 1980s. The first factor was external, the détente process, and as a result of the détente there was a change in the United States’ policies towards Turkey. Turkey’s security challenge remained the most important issue in the 1960s and Turkey was still exposed to the Cold War. However, after the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, the change in East-West relations became more visible and the détente process allowed for United States strategies while at the same time Turkey lost confidence in the US.235 In the beginning of the 1960s, the weakening Turkish fears about the Soviet threat also helped the change. The second American shock came with the Johnson Letter, in which the United States threatened Turkey not to intervene in the Cyprus problem. In addition, other European countries’ pro-Greek declarations let Turkey down, and forced Turkish policy-makers to search for a new foreign policy. During the Cyprus crisis, Turkey turned its face towards the Muslims states and the Third World. Moreover, the Western attitude undermined the Kemalist and other Westernist schools and caused an ideological transformation in Turkish foreign policy. The second factor was internal, the military coup and disintegration process that it triggered. As will be seen below, the disintegration nourished the ideological crisis and forced the ideological groups to find new approaches in foreign policy. Coup and the Ideological Transformation in Foreign Policy The European and American attitudes not only undermined Westernist assumptions in foreign policy, but also made the Turkish elite extremely sensitive to criticism from within the Western bloc. In fact, by undermining Westernism in Turkey, the West caused an ideological crisis in Kemalism and other foreign policy schools. Moreover, the 1960 military’s leftist orientation nourished socialist ideas among the Kemalists. 234 Cem Birsay ‘The Integration of Regional Efforts for Strengthening Stability Initiatives in the Wider Black Sea Area and Turkey’s Position’, in Peter M. E. Volten and Blagovest Tashev (eds.), Establishing Security and Stability in the Wider Black Sea Area: International Politics and New Emerging Democracies , (IOS Press,2007), p. 94. 235 Karpat, ‘Introduction’, p. 8.   

 
 $ &" This development led to a transformation in the RPP from pragmatic, realist and pro-Western Kemalism to an idealist, leftist and a more Western sceptic Kemalism. Although this ideology could not find an opportunity to implement its policies, this ideology under the Ecevit governments would influence Turkey’s foreign policy in the 1970s. The 1960s also saw the start of the disintegration process in Turkish politics which made a suitable environment for the resurgence of the Ottoman schools of thought, such as Islamism and Turkism. As noted above, the neo-Democrats were no exception and similar to the Kemalists, they had to set a new foreign policy understanding in the post-coup era. They were now more cautious about the West and more understanding towards the East. Finally, after the 1960 coup and thanks to the 1961 Constitutions pluralistic approach, Turkey witnessed a divergence of political and social ideas.236 The Right wing was composed of Islamists, Turkists, and liberals, while the Kemalists (all of them), Marxists, Socialists and separatist Kurdists made up the Left wing of the political system. For Kili, this new environment represented a ‘struggle’ after the Kemalist period; ‘... since 1960 Revolution Turkish politics has been characterised by a ‘struggle’ between ideologues, sharply different political views, and by the breakdown of elite unity.’237 The effects of the Ottoman legacy were clear. The Islamists were suggesting a better relationship with the Islamic world, while the Turkists were dreaming of a Turkic world which included all Turkic peoples from the Balkans to China. The liberals advocated more freedom and integration with the Western political and economic system. The tradition of the conservative-liberal Democratic Party aimed to include all of these approaches, which can be called a Turkish-Islam Synthesis with proWesternism. By contrast, the left-wing wanted neither the West nor the East. For them the Islamic world was the symbol of backwardness, while Western capitalism was the symbol of colonisation and exploitation of the Third World. They advocated a more balanced foreign policy. They believed that Turkey was a Third World country and it must co-operate with those countries. Also, for them, Turkey should improve its relations with the Soviet Union and must not rely on only the United States. In the midst of divergent ideologies, Kemalism became the object of refutation as it represented the ideology of the establishment.238 Islamists, liberals and 236 Mohammad Sadiq, ‘Intellectual Origins of the Turkish National Liberation Movement’, International Studies (New Delhi), Vol. 15, 1976, pp. 509-529, p. 509. 237 Kili, Kemalism, p. 2. 238 List was made by the author according to the Turkish Foreign Ministry documents; Turkish newspaper collections and George Ginsburgs and Robert M. Slusser, A               Marxists heavily criticised the Kemalist (Mustafa Kemal’s and ønönü’s Kemalism) foreign policy. All these critics forced the governments to reconsider its foreign policy. In this trend, the Marxist impact on Turkish foreign policy was significant. Calendar of Soviet Treaties, 1958-1973, (Rockville, Maryland: Sijthoff&Noordhoff, 1981).   

 
 $ &" ANNEX 1: OFFICIAL VISITS BETWEEN TURKEY AND THE SOVIET UNION IN 1960s239 14 March 1960: Trade Protocol for 1960 was signed with two lists. 16 February 1961: Trade Protocol for 1961 between the USSR and Turkey was signed in Moscow. It is based on trade and payments agreement of 8 October 1937. (Soviet machines and equipment, lathes, automobiles, paper, glass etc; in exchange for Turkish wool, cotton, tobacco, dried fruit, leather, etc. 29 May 1961: Suat Hayri Ürgüplü, the President of the Senate, visits Moscow 6 January 1962: Trade Protocol was for 1962 was signed. 9 June 1962: Agreement on establishment of wire –telephone communications and on existing radio- telegraphs service. 9 October 1962: Protocol concerning conclusion of construction of glass factory built with Soviet aid. 29 May-14 June 1963: The Turkish parliamentary delegation visits Moscow 18 March 1963: Trade Protocol for the period of 1 April 1963-31 March 1964 25 April 1963: Protocol of the Joint Commission providing for the joint construction of a dam on the border river Akhurian. 9 March 1964: Trade protocol for 1964-1965 31 August 1964: Announced that a joint project would be carried out to build a high dam on the Arapçay River 5 November 1964: Joint communiqué on a visit by Foreign Minister Erkin; Agreement on cultural and scientific exchange 30 October-6 November 1964: Turkish Foreign Minister Feridun Cemal Erkin visits Moscow 24 December 1964: Exchange of notes on mutual waiver of fees for visas. 239  List was made by the author according to the Turkish Foreign Ministry documents; Turkish newspaper collections and George Ginsburgs and Robert M. Slusser, A Calendar of Soviet Treaties, 1958-1973, (Rockville, Maryland: Sijthoff&Noordhoff, 1981).              January 1965: Soviet President Nicolai Podgorny and parliamentary delegation visits Ankara 19 February 1965: Supplementary trade agreement to the current trade protocol for 1954-1965. 22 March 1965: Joint on the visit of PM Ürgüplü 17-22 May 1965: Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko visits Turkey 7 August 1965: Turkish Prime Minister Suat Hayri Ürgüplü visits Moscow 24 November 1965: Contract for preparation by the Soviet organization blueprints for a dam on the frontier river Akhurian (Arapçay) 7 December 1965: Exchange of letters providing for Soviet deliveries of machinery and equipment. 18 February 1966:Trade protocol for current years 20-27 December 1966: Soviet Premier A. Kosygin comes to Turkey 27 December 1966: Communiqué on visit by Kosygin 1967: Turkey concluded an economic agreement with the Soviet Union worth $200 million in cheap credits. 19-29 September 1967: Turkish Prime Minister Süleyman Demirel visits Moscow, Central Asia and the Caucasus regions of the Soviet Union 1968: Turkish Foreign Minister visits Moscow 9 February 1967: Trade protocol for 1967-1968 24 February 1967: Agreement on veterinary matters (with appendices) 28 February 1967: Protocol on the redemarcation of the SovietTurkish border established by the Treaty of Kars of 1921 and the protocol of 1926, with supplementary technical protocol and 2 appendices. 25 March 1967: Agreement on delivery of equipment, materials and furnishing technical assistance to Turkey in construction of several industrial objectives and conditions of payment therefore, 10 May 1967: Contract on Soviet technical assistance in the construction of an aluminum plant 30 May 1967: Announcement that the USSR had informed Turkey that 10 Soviet warships would pass through the Bosporus and Dardanelles. 13 June 1967: Contract on Soviet technical assistance in construction of oil refining plant.   

 
 $ &" 29 August 1967: Agreement on air communication (with 3 appendices). Agreement on inauguration of direct air service. 29 September 1967: Joint com. On a visit by PM Süleyman Demirel 23 February 1968: Trade protocol for 1968; Exchange of notes concerning recomputation of saldo of cleaning accounts, limit of technical credits and all payment commissions in case of change in the gold content of accounting unit 19 April 1968: Agreement to establish a direct railway passenger service 7 May 1968: Contract on drawing up blueprint for a metallurgical combine to be built in Turkey 19 June 1968: Joint communiqué on the visit of the Foreign Minister of Turkey 22 July 1968: Protocol on Soviet assistance construction of a factory for production of large panel prefabricated housing 1969: Turkish President Cevdet Sunay visits Moscow 13 March 1969: Trade protocol for 1969-1970 19 March 1969: 6 document on the procedure and technical principles for work on the redemarcation of the frontier. 3 June 1969: protocol approving technical blueprint of metallurgical works to be built with Soviet assistance 13 August 1969: Exchange of notes on Soviet technical assistance in the construction of an electric transmission live. 10 October 1969: Agreement on construction of a steel works at øskenderun. 21 November 1969: Joint com. on the visit of the President of Turkey. 23 March 1970: Trade protocol for the 1970-1971 23 August 1970: Agreement on Soviet grant of credit for construction of a metallurgical plant 21 October 1970: Agreement on road transportation. 2 March 1971: Supplementary protocol to the Trade and payments agreement of October 8, 1937, 9 March 1971: Trade protocol for 1971-1972