Turkey and the USA

Since their inception, Turkish-American Relations have always been special. The United States (hereafter U.S.) could be proclaimed as the leader of the Western world since the First World War and a global “superpower” since the Second World War. On the other hand, since the establishment of modern Turkey in 1923, the country has given the utmost importance to Westernization and modernization and opted to stay within the Western political sphere. During the Cold War era, Turkey’s perceived threat from the Soviet Union brought the country closer to the West. Turkey joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1952, an
act that solidified Ankara’s alliance with the U.S. and the Western world. All of these factors made the U.S. and Turkey natural and traditional allies.

TURKEY AND THE WEST IN THE CHANGING WORLD: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi (Prof. Dr. Turan Güneş'e Armağan) Cilt 50, No. 3-4 (Haziran-Aralık 1995), s. 65-78
With revolutionary changes in the system, Turkey's strategic position has started to being evaluated. ln this context some observers in Turkey and the West have been examining how Turkey to be affected by these developments and how to continue to be potentially importanı actor in Europe, the Middle East and Asia politically, economically and strategically. They try to answer to a critical question is that whether Turkey will continue to be a bridge between the Wesı and the Middle East or not. In other words, it would be continue to be an important question is that wheıher Turkey accepts itself a European country or an Eastern country. So, the purpose of this assay is to examine threats and problems which Turkey face to face by evaluating last developments and how Turkey's political and strategic role and status in the Western Block being affected by these developmets. By doing so, policy options which Turkey may adopt will be trying to be explored.

During the Cold War, the leading component of Turkey’s value in the eyes of the United States was its role in the regional and global security networks that were put in place to deter Soviet aggression. “Security” and “geopolitics” were the key terms of the official American discourse regarding Turkey. “The principal reason for Turkey’s international significance,” says a State Department research paper, “is its geographic location athwart the strategically important Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus” (U.S. Department of State 1949, p. 45). A CIA intelligence report, dated 1951, stated: “The alignment of Turkey with the West is of primary strategic importance to the U.S. because of Turkey’s political and military strength and its geographical position . . . . The Turkish army would be a major obstacle to Soviet advances in the Middle East through Turkey . . . . Turkey is the only country in the Near East capable of offering substantial resistance to Soviet aggression” (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency 1951, pp. 3-4). Turkey’s geopolitical value, however, was a derivative one—derived from its proximity to and its capacity to defend the Middle East and its oil resources. And just as Turkey’s geopolitical value was derived from that of the Middle East, Greece’s geopolitical value, in turn, was derived from that of Turkey: “If Greece should fall to the Communists, the USSR would outflank the [Turkish] Straits and acquire natural harbors and more convenient airfields to threaten the oil resources of the Middle East and the sea routes through the Suez Canal.” (U.S. Department of State 1949, p. 1).

This security-based American outlook on Turkey left a lasting imprint on Turkish perceptions of themselves and of the outside world. This influence can be summarized by what can be called the “geopoliticization” of Turkish ideologies and discourses—military as well as civilian, right-wing as well as left-wing—all through the Cold War and beyond. Hence, Turkish political élites have perceived and presented Turkey’s global importance only in geopolitical terms, disregarding or mistrusting the country’s economic, political, cultural, and historical assets and other possible contributions to the outside world. “Our geopolitical value” has become the main argument, used by the Turkish élites against Western governments, to extract “geopolitical rents” from them. A related notion, “our sensitive geopolitical position,” was brought into play by the successive Turkish governments as an excuse to ignore or suppress domestic demands for political liberalization. Geopoliticization infiltrated into such deep layers of Turkish political thinking that long after the end of the Cold War, in response to the European Union’s insistence that Turkey liberalize its political regime in line with the Copenhagen Criteria, many Turkish political leaders continued to maintain that the EU could not possibly exclude Turkey because of “our geopolitical value.”

The deep impact of geopoliticization on Turkish political thinking manifested itself once again after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001, the subsequent U.S. bombardment of Afghanistan, and Turkey’s decision to participate in the U.S.-led coalition in the war against terrorism. Many commentators in the Turkish media and among the political élites immediately started to think that Turkey’s geopolitical value had now increased, especially for serving as the model of secular Islam as opposed to fundamentalist Islam. This geopolitical value, according to these commentators, could be used as leverage to extract more economic aid from the Western governments and international organizations without undertaking all of the required structural reforms in the economy, and to drive back some of the democratizing and liberalizing demands of the European Union. According to this line of thinking, democratization is not valuable in and of itself; it has only a geopolitical value. If democratization brings Turkey international prestige, if it serves a foreign-policy purpose such as accession to the European Union, then it may be cherished and promoted. However, whenever another factor emerges that serves the purpose just as well, then democratization can easily be brought to a standstill.

From the Truman Doctrine onward, and all through the 1950s, the geopolitical identities of Greece and Turkey, in the eyes of the Americans as well as the Western Europeans, were ambiguous. On the one hand, Turkey and Greece were seen, by the Americans and the Western Europeans alike, as part of the Near East and Eastern Mediterranean. As such, neither the Americans nor the Western Europeans thought of these two countries as belonging to Europe proper. In fact, in 1948, Turkey and Greece, together with Iran, were categorized as the GTI (Greece, Turkey, Iran) division within the newly created NEA (Near East and African Affairs) office of the U.S. Department of State (Kuniholm 1980, pp. 423-25). On the other hand, though, Greece and Turkey were members of such European and Western organizations as the Council of Europe, the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC, which later became OECD), and NATO. When Western European economies began to recover from the destruction and hardships of World War II, and particularly after European integration—a process that had been started, sponsored, and supported by the United States—culminated in the foundation of the European Economic Community (EEC), both Greece and Turkey began to express their desires to clarify their ambiguous geopolitical identities, to be accepted as European states, and to join the EEC.

The United States turned out to be the prime backer of the European aspirations of Greece and Turkey. This U.S. backing was motivated by two factors. First, the United States wanted to share the financial burden of Greece and Turkey with the Western European states. And second, the United States aimed to stabilize the Greek and Turkish economies and political regimes, and to consolidate the Western orientations of these states, by linking them firmly with the process of European integration. A 1960 U.S. National Security Council paper on U.S. policy towards Turkey stated: “Successful association of Turkey with the EEC would be in the U.S. interest since Turkey’s trading position would be strengthened, thereby lessening the danger of Turkey’s ever becoming excessively reliant upon Soviet bloc markets for disposing of its exports. Furthermore, association would probably lead to additional development funds for Turkey and generally to the acceptance by the EEC countries of greater responsibility for Turkey’s economic and political fortunes” (U.S. National Security Council 1960, p. 5). 

Both Greece and Turkey applied to the EEC for full membership in 1959. Both countries concluded very similar association treaties with the EEC in the early years of the 1960s. However, both countries had significant political forces—such as the supporters of the nationalist right, religious right, socialism, nonalignment, and the noncapitalist path—that were vehemently opposed to integration with the EEC, which they commonly perceived as an imperialist club. Nor did the political regimes of the two countries in the 1960s and early 1970s—tainted as they were with occasional military interventions and authoritarian rules—fit with the European pattern of liberal democracy. Hence, it is worth remembering that, let alone being admitted to the EEC, Greece was ousted even from the Council of Europe during the Colonels’ junta. The paths of the two countries toward Europe, which proceeded almost in tandem up until the mid-1970s, began to diverge significantly from that point onward. Hence, while Greece, after the fall of the junta and the restoration of democracy in 1974-75, underwent a rapid process of Europeanization,  Turkey lagged behind, oscillating between the three worlds.

It seems that this indecision and oscillation of Turkey had to do more with its domestic political forces than with the foreign policies of the European states or the United States. Hence, during the 1970s, Turkey’s pro-European center-right (represented by the Justice Party) was electorally weakened and, in terms of its ideology, cadres, and foreign and domestic policy, came under the domination of the anti-Western nationalist and Islamicist radical-right parties (the Nationalist Action Party and the National Salvation Party). The center-left side of the political spectrum, on the other hand, was occupied by the Republican People’s Party, which was itself advancing a left-wing populism with strong Third Worldist overtones. Needless to say, the radical left, which exerted a significant degree of influence on the center-left and on Turkish politics in general, was altogether opposed to any idea of Turkey’s integration with capitalist Europe. Turkey’s indecision toward Europe continues even today, after Turkey has finally become a candidate state “destined to join” the European Union. There still exist in today’s Turkey significant political forces defending various non-European options, ranging from Turkey being a regional power to Turkey being the leader of a Turkic union or of an Islamic union. The decision is Turkey’s to make, caught as it is between the opposing tides of the European and non-European options, upbeat with the upward stirrings of its geopolitical value and downbeat with its downturns.

Alternative models of differentiated integration with the European Union (EU) discussed in the context of Brexit might be inspiring for European and Turkish stakeholders who are concerned with overcoming the deepest crisis in bilateral relations of recent history. The forthcoming customs union modernization negotiations are likely to create an opportunity to bring Turkey-EU relations to a stronger mode of external differentiated integration as in cases of Norway or Switzerland and fix problems aroused by the current structure of the customs union. This paper examines Switzerland’s case as an alternative model of integration between Turkey and the EU which can be considered during the upgrade process. The paper compares and contrasts the Swiss model with the existing customs union and the European Commission’s (EC) two upgrade scenarios for the customs union which were proposed in December 2016. It lays out potential advantages and disadvantages of a Swiss model for Turkish-EU relati...

After the Second World War, strategic collaboration between Turkey and the United States (USA) was not established on an already-existing relationship, since neither the USA nor Turkey had important strategic interests in one another during the interwar years (1919-39). Nevertheless, the interwar period had laid the groundwork and provided a logical basis for such cooperation. Prior to the First World War, Americans had already built up interests, mainly of a philanthropic and commercial nature, in the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean. At that time, American interests in Turkey included the Turkish missions of the Congressional American Board, trade and business, technical assistance furnished by individual Americans and private organizations, non-missionary philanthropy and other cultural enterprises, and archaeological expeditions sponsored by American universities. 1 In the aftermath of the First World War, another factor became increasingly important for American interests in the Middle Eastern and Eastern Mediterranean region in addition to philanthropic interests. It was the Middle East's vast oil reserves, capable of supplying 75-80 per cent of all Western oil demand. 2 Thus, Turkey started to be evaluated within the framework of the Middle East's increasing strategic importance. For example, an early draft of what became the Truman Doctrine stressed Turkey's proximity to the 'great natural resources' of the Persian Gulf. Turkey's geo-strategic location was of considerable importance to US interests since it could serve as a major base for US power projection into the Middle East in order to be able to secure the flow of oil. American interest in oil and its 'open door' policy for any business interest that wanted to operate in the Middle East was controversial, and in some respects constituted the first divergence of interests between the two countries. De Novo gives an example of this clash of interests: 'even in the event of the rumoured political deal whereby Great Britain would let Turkey have Mosul, 3 the USA would oppose any monopolistic concession in the area'. 4 The beginning of the Cold War period (1947) marked a different phase in Turkish-American relations. The Truman Doctrine highlighted the convergent strategic interests between Turkey and the USA, and Turkey's geo-strategic importance for the West became an asset for Turkey. Turkey became one of the beneficiaries of the Marshall Plan, which directed an extensive amount of economic aid to the country. Turkey's main objective was to attract US attention to the Eastern Mediterranean

Wilh revoluıionary changes in ıhe sysıem, Turüy's sırategic posilion has sıarıed LObeing evaluaıed.ln ıhis conıal some observers in Turkeyl and ıhe Wesı 2 have been examining how Turkey ıo'be ajfecıed by ıhese developmenıs and how lo continue lObe poıenıially imporıanı aclor in Europe, ıhe Middle Eası and Asia polilically, economically and sıraıegically. They ıry lo answer la a criıical queslion is ıhaı wheıher Turkey will coniılle to be a bridge beıween ıhe Wesı and ıhe Middle Eası or nol. In oıher words, iı would be continue lObe an imporıanı question is ıhaı wheıher Turkey accepls iıself a European country or an Easıern cowıty. So, ıhe purpose of ıhis assay is lo aamine ıhreaıs and problems which Turkey face lo face by evalualing lası developmenıs and how Turkey's poliıical and sıraıegic role and slalus in ıhe Wesıern Block being ajfeıed by ıhese d~elop""enıs. By doing so, policy opıions which Turkey may adopı will be ırying ıo explored.

8 Kasım 2022 tarihinde Amerika Birleşik Devletleri'nde (ABD) Meclis ve Senato seçimleri gerçekleşmiştir. Cumhuriyetçi ve Demokrat adayların kıyasıya mücadele ettiği ara seçimlerde, Türkiye'yi de ilgilendiren bazı önemli gelişmeler yaşanmıştır. Geçtiğimiz haftalarda Los Angeles Belediye Başkanlığı için mücadele eden adayların Türk düşmanlığının derecesinin ölçülmesi gibi bağlam dışı gelişmeler yaşandığını kaleme almıştık. Gerçekleşen ara seçimler, Başkan Joe Biden'ın yerini önümüzdeki iki sene boyunca güçlü bir şekilde mi tutacağı yoksa güven kaybı mı yaşayacağına dair fikir vermektedir. Görüldüğü üzere Demokratlar büyük bir hezimete uğramamışlardır. Kritik eyaletlerden biri olan Pensilvanya'yı, Demokrat Parti adayı John Fetterman kazanmıştır. Cumhuriyetçi Parti'nin adayı Mehmet Öz %3 farkla Fetterman'ın gerisinde kalmıştır. Bu analizimizde uzun zamandır protestocuların eylemlerine maruz kalan, senatoda yer almasına karşı çıkılan ve mağlup olan cumhuriyetçi aday Dr. Mehmet Öz'ün kampanya sürecine dikkat çekeceğiz.

Entering the second half of 2022, a number of issues confront the Greek polity – both political and economic. In the political sphere, the ongoing war between Russia and the Ukraine has had the positive effect of creating an even closer alliance between the governments of Greece and the USA.

Geo-economic tensions, notably associated with the rise of China, and global collective action problems – climate change; the COVID-19 pandemic – call for international cooperation to revise and develop rules to guide both the use of domestic subsidies and responses by governments to cross-border competition spillover effects. Current WTO rules dividing all subsidies into prohibited or actionable categories are no longer fit for purpose. Piecemeal efforts in preferential trade agreements configurations offer a basis on which to build but are too narrow in scope. Addressing spillover effects of subsidies could start with G20 countries launching a work program to mobilize an epistemic community concerned with subsidy policies, tasked with building a more solid evidence base on the magnitude, purpose and effects of subsidy policies. The aim of such an effort should be to extend trilateral deliberations on industrial subsidies held by the EU, Japan and US in 2018-2019 into a negotiation...

This article examines the rise of anti-American nationalism in Turkey. While Turkish public opinion has developed strong views against a set of foreign policies furthered by the United States, recent findings allude to the development of an emerging anti-US bias in large segments of Turkish society. The deterioration of the US image in Turkey could be considered a result of

Within the change in the geopolitical situation in the world at the end of the first decade of the 21st century, Turkey has once again fallen into a geopolitical cross-field. Surrounded by complicated geopolitical nodes, the Turkish state must find the successful formula for its survival as a regional power. Geopolitical vectors across Turkey are very diverse, which is a challenge to Turkey's stability. The new arena of a geopolitical collision between the US and Russia can have a destabilizing impact on the whole region.

During the Cold War Turkey had excellent relations with the United States of America. Both countries needed each other and saw the Soviet Union as their main rival. Strategic Partnership was established between the two nations and USA provided military assistance to Turkey in order to contain the Soviet Union. With the assistance of the USA, Turkey managed to neutralize Soviet threat and integrate into NATO. Turkey became a close ally of the West. After the Cold War, American-Turkish relations have gradually cooled and deteriorated significantly over the last years. The aim of this article is to analyze those factors that have caused the deterioration of American-Turkish relations.

NATO proved its resilience by adopting transformative policies that enabled it to adapt multiple security challenges arising in aftermath of the dissolution of the communist bloc. In the first two decades of the post-Cold War era, the Alliance was able to maintain its solidarity and cohesion during the crisis in the Balkans and the war on terrorism after the 9/11 attacks. Meanwhile, the USA declared 'pivot to Asia' strategy in response to China's rise against the USA's supremacy in the World leadership; and Russia was reemerging more assertively first in Crimea, and later in Syria. Amid changes taking place in the international environment, the foreign policy shift set forth by the Trump administration in favor of isolationism rather than internationalism recommenced the discussions regarding the relevance of NATO. In this sense, the study investigates how the new foreign policy approach of the USA administration could affect the future of NATO. In the first part, isolationist aspects of the USA policy is analyzed within the historical and contemporary contexts. In the second part, the study explores the implications of the new isolationist policy of the USA for the future of NATO. In the conclusion part, the findings of the study have been presented. The study has identified that the USA's recent isolationist policy degrades sentiment of solidarity in NATO, strengthens proponents of developing autonomous Europe defense capability, encourages illiberal-authoritarian trend among transatlantic countries, paves the way for the emergence of power contestation with implications of an arms race and nuclear proliferation, opens space for new alignments.

The coup attempt in 2016 emerged in the mid of a deep crisis. The efforts of the government to deal with the crisis by repressive means increasingly strained Turkey’s international reputation – which is crucial for the highly internationalised regulation of the Turkish economy. Nevertheless, AK Parti survived the coup attempt in July 2016. Employing a Gramscian understanding of hegemony and a Neogramscian approach on international relations, this chapter argues, that AK Parti survived the crisis and the coup attempt because there had been no alternative actor capable to politically organise bourgeois hegemony as AK Parti did it throughout the 2000’s.

https://books.google.de/books?id=enm6DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false

Turkey’s purchase of a Russian S-400 air defense missile system has raised questions concerning Turkey’s alliance with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the country’s future intentions. Nonetheless, a break with NATO is unlikely, as alliance dependence is still applicable for both Turkey and other members. Turkish government circles have cast the recent purchase as a means to gain more autonomy from and/or better bargaining power with Western allies. However, the purchase
of S-400s will not bring about the desired outcomes. Instead, it will generate a dual dependency characterized by vulnerability to Russia and an increased need for assurances from NATO. Turkey also seems to have reached the limits of its bargaining power, as the United States is placing more weight on punitive measures. The only explanation left for the purchase is the possibility that President Tayyip Erdoğan may be seeking a domestic rally effect via a confrontation with the United States to prevent​ possible challengers to his leadership from gaining momentum.

During George W. Bush-era between Turkey and the USA suspicion was available instead of confidence, despite Turkish-American relations go back to the long-standing Cold War years. Unfortunately, Turkish and American security perceptions and policies couldn’t be matched or harmonized, and it became very evident during the Iraq crisis. Turkey hesitated to give full support for this process since its basic concern was the creation of an independent Kurdish state and the disintegration of Iraq.
However, as known, Bush’s foreign policy style was different from President Obama’s foreign policy. As Bush didn’t give much importance to the concern of international society and allies, and his policy was called as unilateral, not multilateral. But, this self-oriented and so-called egoist foreign policy increased the anti-Americanism in the world not only in allied countries. And this caused the speculation of all American legitimate engagements in other countries. As a result of this “mismanagement” of the foreign policy of Bush administration, American existence and vital interests were questioned by all states and their societies.

В мае 2017 г. президент США Дональд Трамп прибыл с первым официальным визитом в Саудовскую Аравию, где сделал ряд заявления. Некоторые заявления и действия Трампа в Саудовской Аравии должны обеспокоить власти Турции. Это в первую очередь относится к оружейной сделке между США и Саудовской Аравией. Во время первого визита в королевство Дональд Трамп подписал с королем Саудовской Аравии Сальманом соглашение на поставку оружия. Подписанные соглашения включают в себя сделку на поставки оружия и военного оборудования на сумму около $110 млрд сейчас, и еще $350 млрд-в ближайшие 10 лет. Соглашение о сотрудничестве в области обороны направлено на повышение безопасности в регионе Персидского залива на фоне действий Ирана. Кроме того, оно также предназначено для поддержания способности Саудовской Аравии внести свой вклад в антитеррористические операции в регионе, снижая нагрузку на американских военных. Саудовская Аравия входит в возглавляемую США международную коалицию, которая с 2014 г. наносит удары по позициям боевиков «Исламского государства» (ИГ, запрещено в РФ)[i]. Несмотря на то, что между Турцией и Саудовской Аравией сложились, в общем-то, тесные отношения, Эр-Рияд является, пожалуй, самым большим соперником Анкары за лидерство в суннитском исламском мире. Поэтому для Турции невыгодно, чтобы Саудовская Аравия так усилилась в военном плане. Кроме того, Турция рассматривает Саудовскую Аравию как одного из потенциальных крупнейших богатых покупателей своего оружия. В рамках саммита «США-Исламский мир» в Эр-Рияде, Трамп выступил перед лидерами 55 мусульманских государств и в своем выступлении выделил организации ХАМАС и «Хизбалла», причислив их к списку ИГ и «Аль-Каиды» в качестве крупнейших поставщиков терроризма. «По некоторым оценкам, более 95% жертв терроризма сами являются мусульманами. Это трагедия эпических масштабов. Никакое описание страданий не может даже приблизительно отразить его в полной мере. ИГ, «Аль-Каида», «Хизбалла», ХАМАС-это не только бесчисленные погибшие, но поколения разрушенной мечты»,-добавил президент США[ii]. В секторе Газа резко отреагировали на слова Д.Трампа о ХАМАСе. Палестинские женщины в провели акцию протеста против высказываний президента США Дональда Трампа, обвинившего движение ХАМАС в связях с террористами. Десятки женщин собрались перед зданием Законодательного собрания Газы, держа в руках плакаты с надписями «Сопротивление-единственный путь!», «Арабы-не террористы!». «Решение Трампа назвать нас террористической организацией лишь доказывает его предвзятость в пользу Израиля,-заявил пресс-секретарь ХАМАСа Фаузи Бархум.-Мы категорически отвергаем это утверждение. Это искажение нашего имиджа и доказательства предпочтения Трампом режима сионистской оккупации». Одна из лидеров движения ХАМАС Мушир аль-Мысри в свою очередь отметила, что ХАМАС никогда не откажется от сопротивления. «ХАМАС никогда не откажется от сопротивления и продолжит отстаивать права палестинского народа вместе со

Прежде чем обратиться к нынешнему этапу турецко-американских отношений, следует вспомнить некоторые шаги пришедшей к власти в Турции в 2002г. партии «Справедливость и развитие» (ПСР), непосредственно связанные с американскими интересами. В 2003г. Турция отказалась участвовать в оккупации Ирака, в августе 2008г. в ходе пятидневной российско-грузинской войны фактически поддержала России, а теперь наладила теплые отношения с Ираном, а вот турецко-израильские отношения, наоборот, резко обострились. Не следует забывать, что в этом году Турция как временный член Совета безопасности ООН проголосовала против санкций ООН в отношении Ирана. США взвалили вину за это на Европу, поскольку она не желает видеть Турцию в своих рядах и тем самым толкает ее к Востоку. 23 сентября 2010г. стал для Турции историческим днем. Впервые в истории Турции и ООН на заседании Совета безопасности ООН председательствовал руководитель Турции. На повестке стояло обсуждение усилий по установлению мира. Разумеется, Гюль и тут не упустил удобного повода, чтобы потребовать от Израиля официального извинения. 24 сентября президенты Турции и США Гюль и Обама «на ходу» провели в Нью-Йорке встречу. В тот же день газета «Нью-Йорк Таймс» посвятила одну из своих статей нынешнему этапу турецко-американских отношений. В ней отмечалось, что «США обеспокоены турецко-иранскими и турецко-израильскими отношениями, Вашингтону начинают мешать активные внешнеполитические шаги Анкары. Финансирование ядерной программы Ирана осуществляется посредством турецких банков. Это, наряду с ухудшением отношений с Ираном, наносит ущерб усилиям США по установлению мира на Ближнем Востоке». В статье акцентировалось заявление президента Турции, озвученное на 65-ой сессии Генеральной ассамблеи ООН: «Если вы посмотрите на все вопросы, которые имеют важное значение для современного мира, то увидите, чтоони ставят Турцию в более выгодное положение. <...> Турция была известна, как «больной человек» Европы, а в настоящее время Турция является единственным «здоровым человеком» Европы». По его словам, Анкара вместе с международным сообществом, в частности Бразилией, будет продолжать прилагать усилия, направленные на быстрое и мирное урегулирование этой проблемы, и санкции ООН не должны подействовать на теплые турецко-иранские экономические отношения. «Если от Турции требуют не иметь каких-либо торговых и экономических связей с Ираном, это было бы несправедливо по отношению к Турции»,-заявил он. В этом плане президент Турции пошел еще дальше и 5 октября, выступая в Трапезундской торгово-промышленной палате, призвал турецких бизнесменов увеличить товарооборот с Ираном: «Те, кто не в курсе, могут возмущаться нашими торговыми связями с Ираном, однако турецко-иранская торговля имеет для нас важное значение». Напомним, что сегодня Иран является вторым (после России) крупным партнером Турции в энергетической сфере, товарооборот между двумя странами составляет $11 млрд., планируется

Թուրք-ամերիկյան հարաբերությունների ներկա փուլին անդրադառնալուց առաջ հարկ է վերհիշել 2002 թվականին Թուրքիայում իշխանության եկած Արդարություն եւ զարգացում կուսակցության (ԱԶԿ) մի շարք քայլերը, որոնք առնչվում են ամերիկյան շահերին: Թուրքիան 2003 թվականին հրաժարվեց մասնակցել Իրաքի օկուպացիային, 2008 թվականի օգոստոսին ռուս-վրացական հնգօրյա պատերազմի ժամանակ փաստացիորեն աջակցեց Ռուսաստանին, իսկ այժմ ջերմ հարաբերություններ է հաստատել Իրանի հետ, եւ փոխարենը`փոխարենը`կտրուկ սրվել են թուրք-իսրայելական հարաբերությունները: Չպետք է մոռանալ, որ այս տարի Թուրքիան`Թուրքիան`որպես ՄԱԿ-ի Անվտանգության խորհրդի ժամանակավոր անդամ, դեմ քվեարկեց Իրանի հանդեպ ՄԱԿ-ի պատժամիջոցներին, ինչի համար ԱՄՆ-ը մեղադրեց Եվրոպային, քանի որ վերջինս Թուրքիային չի ցանկանում տեսնել իր շարքերում եւ դրանով իսկ նրան մղում է դեպի արեւելք: 2010 թվականի սեպտեմբերի 23-ը Թուրքիայի համար դարձավ պատմական օր. Թուրքիայի եւ ՄԱԿ-ի պատմության ընթացքում առաջին անգամ Թուրքիայի ղեկավարն էր նախագահում ՄԱԿ-ի Անվտանգության խորհրդի նիստը: Օրակարգում էր խաղաղություն հաստատելու գործում ջանքերի ներդրման խնդիրը: Բնականաբար, այստեղ եւս Գյուլը բաց չթողեց Իսրայելից պաշտոնական ներողություն պահանջելու հարմար պահը: Սեպտեմբերի 24-ին Թուրքիայի եւ ԱՄՆ նախագահներ Գյուլն ու Օբաման Նյու Յորքում «ոտքի» վրա հանդիպում անցկացրին: Նույն օրը «Նյու Յորք թայմսն» իր հոդվածներից մեկը նվիրեց թուրք-ամերիկյան հարաբերությունների ներկա փուլին: Դրանում նշված էր հետեւյալը. «ԱՄՆ-ին անհանգստացնում են թուրք-իրանական եւ թուրք-իսրայելական հարաբերությունները, Վաշինգտոնին սկսում են խանգարել Անկարայի ակտիվ արտաքին քաղաքական քայլերը: Իրանի միջուկային ծրագրի ֆինանսավորումն իրականացվում է թուրքական բանկերի միջոցով: Դա, Իսրայելի հետ հարաբերությունների վատթարացման հետ մեկտեղ, վնասում է Մերձավոր Արեւելքում խաղաղություն հաստատելու ԱՄՆ ջանքերին»: Հոդվածում ուշադրություն էր հրավիրված ՄԱԿ-ի Գլխավոր ասամբլեայի 65-րդ նստաշրջանում Թուրքիայի նախագահի հնչեցրած հայտարարությունների վրա. «Եթե այսօր դուք նայեք համաշխարհային խնդիրներին, ապա կտեսնեք, որ դրանք Թուրքիան դրել են առավել շահեկան վիճակում: Ժամանակին Թուրքիան Եվրոպայի հիվանդ մարդն էր, մինչդեռ այսօր նա Եվրոպայի միակ առողջ մարդն է: Թուրքիան, Բրազիլիայի հետ համատեղ, հանդես է գալիս Իրանի միջուկային ծրագրի դիվանագիտական լուծման օգտին, եւ ՄԱԿ-ի պատժամիջոցները չպետք է ազդեն թուրք-իրանական ջերմ տնտեսական հարաբերությունների վրա: Եթե ցանկանում են, որ մենք Իրանի հետ ընդհանրապես առեւտուր չանենք եւ ոչ մի տնտեսական հարաբերություն չունենանք, ապա դա Թուրքիայի հանդեպ անարդարացի մոտեցում է»: Այս առումով Թուրքիայի նախագահ Գյուլն ավելի առաջ գնաց եւ հոկտեմբերի 5-ին, հանդես գալով Տրապիզոնի առեւտրաարդյունաբերական պալատում, թուրք գործարարներին կոչ արեց

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War caused to speculate the position of Turkey and the merit of Turkey's geopolitical location in American strategic thought. It became very certain during and after the Iraqi crisis of 2003. Up to the recent developments, particularly the reflection of this perception caused some negative implications to the relations of these old allies. The main purpose of this essay is to figure out how Turkish-American relations will be affected by the post-Cold War developments. In the new era, both of these Cold War allies tried to reshape their regional and global security policies. However, regional interests of both states look likely to be convergent and it seems that they will take part in the same side of strategic evaluation.

With the U.S. Treasury’s August decision to impose sanctions on two members of Turkey’s cabinet in response to the detention of Pastor Andrew Brunson, Turkey and the United States have entered a new stage in an ongoing cycle of crisis. This is the third major issue between the two countries since the beginning of the Trump administration.

Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi (Prof. Dr. Turan Güneş'e Armağan) Cilt 50, No. 3-4 (Haziran-Aralık 1995), s. 65-78.

Wilh revoluıionary changes in ıhe sysıem, Turüy's sırategic posilion has sıarıed LObeing evaluaıed.ln ıhis conıal some observers in Turkeyl and ıhe Wesı 2 have been examining how Turkey ıo'be ajfecıed by ıhese developmenıs and how lo continue lObe poıenıially imporıanı aclor in Europe, ıhe Middle Eası and Asia polilically, economically and sıraıegically. They ıry lo answer la a criıical queslion is ıhaı wheıher Turkey will coniılle to be a bridge beıween ıhe Wesı and ıhe Middle Eası or nol. In oıher words, iı would be continue lObe an imporıanı question is ıhaı wheıher Turkey accepls iıself a European country or an Easıern cowıty. So, ıhe purpose of ıhis assay is lo aamine ıhreaıs and problems which Turkey face lo face by evalualing lası developmenıs and how Turkey's poliıical and sıraıegic role and slalus in ıhe Wesıern Block being ajfeıed by ıhese d~elop""enıs. By doing so, policy opıions which Turkey may adopı will be ırying ıo explored.

Allies such as the United States should not base their policy toward Turkey solely on the current state of relations. A broader perspective that panoramically sees the past and the glimpses of the future would provide a more accurate picture for assessment.

This is a book chapter on Turkish-U.S. economic relations with recommendations to upgrade bilateral ties toward complex interdependence. The book:
Turkey and Transatlantic Relations, Sasha Toperich and Aylin Unver Noi (eds.), Washington, DC: Center for Transatlantic Relations SAIS
Paperback ISBN: 9780990772125. ―released on October 24, 2017. https://www.brookings.edu/book/turkey-and-transatlantic-relations/

ABSTRACT:
Despite the great geopolitical importance of U.S.-Turkish bilateral relations and multilateral cooperation in which both countries participate, it is noticeable that only a small number of authors outside the United States and Turkey deal with this topic
directly. As both countries are considered to be important players in the international arena, such small number of authors outside the bilateral circuit can be understood as illogical in academic terms. Especially if we take into account a large number of countries which, after the adoption of Davutogluʼs foreign policy doctrine, found themselves in a stronger international interaction with Turkey. Therefore, we consider
that a selective review and critical analysis of scientific literature on modern U.S. - Turkish relations can provide the possibility of a deeper insight into the current Turkish foreign policy. In this paper author gives a critical review of thirty-five academic papers. In order to facilitate transparency and more complete analysis, the author suggests a classification of papers according to three criteria: the time frame of the
paper, the attitude of the author (towards the given problem), and theoretical approach of the author. The aim of this paper is to review the literature, and enable the reader to
summarize certain conclusions which then can be used as guidelines for further research of U.S.-Turkish relations, and the Turkish foreign policy in general.
Key words: the United States, Turkey, foreign policy, bilateral relations, apology, criticism, realism, constructivism, liberalism.

APSTRAKT: Rad daje kritičku analizu dela literature o odnosima SAD-a i Turske sa ciljem da domaćoj akademskoj javnosti ponudi dublji uvid u aktuelnu tursku spoljnu politiku i tako pruži smernice za dalje istraživanje. Uprkos velikoj geopolitičkoj važnosti američko-turskih bilateralnih odnosa, kao i multilateralnih oblika saradnje u kojima obe zemlje učestvuju, mali broj autora izvan SAD-a i Turske direktno proučava ovu temu. Kako obe države zauzimaju značajno mesto na međunarodnoj sceni, ta činjenica se može shvatiti kao svojevrsna akademska nelogičnost. Naročito ukoliko se u obzir uzme veliki broj država koje su se, nakon usvajanja Davutogluove spoljnopolitičke doktrine, našle u jačoj međunarodnoj interakciji sa Turskom. Autor je analizom obuhvatio trideset i pet stručnih i akademskih radova, a njih je radi lakše preglednosti klasifikovao u skladu sa tri kriterijuma – vremenskim okvirom rada, stavom autora prema datom problemu i teorijskim pristupom u izučavanju problema. Analiza odabrane literature pokazala je kako se istraživački fokus tokom protekle decenije pomerao sa prirode odnosa dve države na objašnjenje prirode novonastalih problema, kao i da je stav autora prema perspektivama američko-turskih odnosa u velikoj meri determinisan aktuelnim sledom događaja. Autor zaključuje da se realistički i konstruktivistički pristup snažno preporučuju kao najpodesniji teorijski okvir za dalja istraživanja savremenih američko-turskih odnosa. Ključne reči: SAD, Turska, spoljna politika, bilateralni odnosi, apologija, kritika, realizam, konstruktivizam, liberalizam. P itanje odnosa SAD-a i Republike Turske poslednjih godina često je obrađivano u akademskoj literaturi. Ovaj " trend " započeo je nakon terorističkog napada na SAD 11. septembra 2001. godine i do danas ne gubi na aktuelnosti. Odnosi dveju država predmet su brojnih naučnih istraživanja koji se neposredno bave ovom

Yeni Türkiye son altı yılda İsrail, ABD ve Rusya gibi üç ülkenin yenilmezlik imajını yerle bir etti.
Bu aktörlerin verdiği gazla zafer sarhoşluğuna kapılan “The Cemaat” ile PKK gibi “terörize piyonları” ise hezimete uğrattı. Bu üç ülke ve iki terörist yapıya, 2011’den sonra bütün gücüyle Türkiye’ye karşı mevzilenen İran’ı da dâhil etmek lazım.

This paper argues that despite periodic downward fluctuations the overall trend of economic development of the region of western Anatolia, in the closing decades of Ottoman rule, was in an upwardly linear line. Culmination of this economic trend was the development of banks in smaller urban markets of the region such as Mersin in the 1900s.

This paper focuses exclusively on Valley of the Wolves: Palestine -a political action film -to better understand Turkish audiences' interpretations of Turkish geopolitics, Turkey's role in the Middle East and Israel-Palestine relations in particular. Along these lines, this paper investigates Turkish audiences' interpretations of such political-entertainment text by including online inquiries: a survey and analysis of the film comments. Results of the study suggest that respondents' interpretations of the film vary with some commonalities.

This article examines the rise of anti-American nationalism in Turkey. While Turkish public opinion has developed strong views against a set of foreign policies furthered by the United States, recent findings allude to the development of an emerging anti-US bias in large segments of Turkish society. The deterioration of the US image in Turkey could be considered a result of the recent US involvement in the Middle East, as well as socio-political shifts inherent to Turkey's democratization process.