Türkiye ve İran dış politikası üzerinde kamu diplomasisinin etkisi : Irak & Suriye örnekleri (2000 – 2016)

This thesis shall focus on the role of public diplomacy of the Republic of Turkey and the Islamic Republic of Iran to their foreign policy approaches since 2000; a case study largely dwells on the developments in Iraq and Syria. For Turkey, the focal starting point is since the time the Justice and Development Party won the 2002 general election. In case of Iran, this issue will be contemplated by considering the 8th - , 9th- 10th and 11th governments; that is, the government of Seyed Mohammad Khatami (2nd term in office; 2001-2005), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005 - 2013) and the government of Hassan Rouhani since 2013 as the 11th government. Turkey and Iran are effective, influential and powerful countries in the region in the sense that their foreign policy approaches toward each other and with respect to other States is of crucial importance both for the regional stability and for the wider global peace. Seeing that, the aim is to find the answer that to what extent their public diplomacy determines their foreign policy approaches in Syria and Iraq, what are the parameters and the tools of their public diplomacy and what has been or would be the outcome. The objectives that might help to reach the aforementioned aim is to understand what is/are the logic and policy behind their decision and selection of their regional interests considering the developments in Syria and Iraq. I have tried to analyze the paths and approaches they adopted in the application of different tools of public diplomacy by comparison and description. To this aim, in this study, the public diplomacy and foreign policy of Turkey and Iran towards developments in Iraq and Syria illustrated in terms of effectiveness and pro-activism, considering the impacts of their political culture, political structures, historical background, geographical location, ideological intentions and geopolitical position. Among many of these factors that directly affects their stances in various fields, is the characteristic of representing two different sects of religion of Islam, which, by itself, has caused many challenges such as sectarian or religious oriented alliances and conflicts during the ages. This fundamental nature, specially, becomes more subtly evident particularly since 2011 with the start of Syrian crisis. Other global and regional incidents like 9/11, the occupation of Iraq by the U.S. in 2003 and 2010 Arab Spring, each has also distinctly had its own share of its impacts on their stances towards their foreign policy approaches in Syria and Iraq. In the same manner, factors such as their lobbying power and the status of their engagement in the region based on their memberships in regional and international organizations have also relatively affected the framework of the strategic planning for their public diplomacy and foreign policy approaches. Under such circumstances, their political stances revealed and uncovered out of the emergence of new religious based coalitions and alliances and, as a consequence, has aggravated the ongoing crisis in the region. Such a climate became a dangerous incentive for these countries to set out a serious provocative show of power, albeit, not addressing directly to each other. Even if their foreign policy approaches may not be a direct reflection of this characteristic; it has become the root and cause of, at least, many misunderstandings and, as the result, many challenges. Competitive relations made them to utilize relatively similar instruments of public diplomacy; however, they could not stay untouched by the ramifications of the regional and global developments such as 9/11, the U.S. occupation of Iraq in 2003, Arab Spring in 2010 and the start of Syria crisis in 2011. Under the effect of these developments and their ideological and strategic preferences, their public diplomacy initiatives have not been proper for directing their foreign policies for the ultimate benefits of the region. More accurately, although they felt responsible to design new structure to promote their existing norms in public diplomacy either for the sake of success of their own domestic and foreign policy or, perhaps, establishment of sustainable peace in Syria and Iraq, there has not been much " serious will for cooperation" over Syria and Iraq; moreover, Iran and Turkey have been continuously criticizing each other. However, apart from these parameters, Turkey and Iran have been historically as bridges in terms of culture and economy; a characteristics which has not only given their ties a unique status in the region but also determine how these countries relate to each other in the regional developments. On the other side of the coin, the said regional developments provided new climate and opportunity for Turkey and Iran to benefit the power vacuum or lack of domestic authority in Iraq and Syria to promote either their optimal political system, rather than appropriate policies, or in an attempt to prevent any harmful shift of the regional balance of power, which can also be evaluated as their quest for the regional hegemony. So, theories that determined to explore the nature of foreign policy and public diplomacy of Turkey and Iran in Iraq and Syria, should consider the issue of regional hegemony, too. Accordingly, in the process of power employment by these countries in Syria and Iraq, soft instruments such as norms, values and identities are applied. That is, soft power applied besides hard power since the theoretical framework should consider both the hard and soft dimensions of power. Considering the fact that the "Constructivism" regards important places for values, norms and identity and looks at the relationship between the structure and broker and/or agent with interactive manner and as mutually constituted ( Wendt 2000) , it has more potential and capacity in analyzing the foreign policy of Turkey and Iran with regard to developments in Syria and Iraq. This theory pays attention not only to both materialistic and non-materialistic dimensions but also to micro and macro in a dynamic and non- stationary process. That is, it pays attention to those matters related to norms and realities regarding regional structure. In the social science, Structure is the intermittent patterned arrangements, which influence or limit the choices and opportunities available. On the other hand, Agency is the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices. Barker (2005, p.448). The structure versus agency debate may be understood as an issue of socialization against autonomy in determining whether an individual acts as a free agent or in a manner dictated by social structure. In such manner, in term of IR theory, this contribution considers the nature of their policies in the context of Constructivism, as it is able to explicate and analyze these two countries behavioral patterns. On the other hand, their relations has been always experiencing ups and downs but at the same time when economic factors and cooperation attain prominence vis-à-vis politics, along with cultural cooperation, it has worked as a core and motor of maintaining warm mutual relations. However, the fact is that this has not been able to help for regional peace because furthering trade and economic cooperation has only eased the path for furthering mutual political willingness. There are various aspects, such as regional and International interests, historical backgrounds, geographical and geopolitical location, memberships in regional and International organizations, which has made them pursuing different approaches in their diplomacies that inescapably affected their selection and preferences of coalition and corporation both in regional and global spheres. In this regard, there are some preliminary questions to ask in order to arrive at proper solid responses. These questions constitute the macro-level part of the present study; 1- What are the public diplomacy tools of Turkey and Iran in Syria and Iraq? 2- How their public diplomacy has managed to a contributive foreign policy for the achievement of peace and stability in Iraq and Syria? The Justice and Development Party has been on power in Turkey since 2002 .In the case of Iran, been different parties have been in power since 2002. That is, during 1997-2005 the reformists (Eslah-talaban) were in power in the 7th and 8th governments. Then Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the candidate from conservative party (Osool-garayan) won the elections in two consecutive terms as the sixth and seventh President in 9th and 10th governments from 2005 to 2013. Dr.Hassan Rouhani mostly influenced by reformist (Eslah-talaban) and much less affected by the "Moderates" (Eetedal-garayan), won the election in 2013 as the eighth President in the 11th government. The governing political parties in these countries and their political structures have affected the paradigms of their public diplomacy since, by definition, public diplomacy acts with the help of tools such as media and communication; considering that, the application of these tools varies in these countries based on the instructions of constitution law, political culture, political system, geography and historical background; moreover, the preferences of the governing political parties. I will conclude that the foreign policies of Turkey and Iran have been seriously influenced by their public diplomacy approaches in negative manner. This has caused them to become inconsistent albeit proactive under the effect of new developments, both global, regional and the needs of their domestic policies. More accurately, the existing situation has naturally made them more curious, concerned and beware of with regard to their mutual policies and stances as a kind of direct or indirect response.