Assessing Turkey’s middle power foreign policy in MIKTA: Goals, means, and impact
| Published date | 01 December 2016 |
| Date | 01 December 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020702016686382 |
| Author | Emel Parlar Dal,Ali Murat Kurşun |
| Subject Matter | Scholarly Essays |
International Journal
2016, Vol. 71(4) 608–629
!The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0020702016686382
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijx
Scholarly Essay
Assessing Turkey’s
middle power foreign
policy in MIKTA: Goals,
means, and impact
Emel Parlar Dal
Department of International Relations, Marmara University,
Turkey
Ali Murat Kur¸sun
Department of International Relations, Marmara University,
Turkey
Abstract
This study attempts to identify possible new roles for intermediary actors in the chan-
ging global architecture by focusing on Turkey’s middle power capacity in the nascent
middle power network of Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, Australia (MIKTA). It
looks at an overarching embedded analytical triad of goals, means, and impact, super-
imposed over positional, behavioural, and ideational sublayers. It tests the assumption
that the more a state holds together its middle power goals, means, and impact in a
combined way, the more leverage it can have as a middle power in the changing inter-
national political economy. After reviewing the existing literature on middle powers, the
first part of this paper outlines this embedded analytical framework. The second and the
third parts seek to operationalize this framework, in particular at institutional and state
levels in the example of MIKTA and Turkey. The fourth part delves into the opportu-
nities and challenges that Turkey faces in its MIKTA trajectory (in the light of the
conclusions drawn from the second and third parts). The study concludes that while
Turkey possesses fairly compatible goals and impact with those of MIKTA, it is still far
from channelling all of its capabilities to this new network due mainly to the domestic
and regional impediments it faces—as well as the lack of a comprehensive roadmap in
relation to MIKTA.
Keywords
MIKTA, Turkey, middle powers, global governance, G20
Corresponding author:
Emel Parlar Dal, Marmara University, Faculty of Political Sciences, AnadoluhisariCampus, 34820, Beykoz/
Istanbul, Turkey.
Email: emelparlar@yahoo.com
Introduction
The changing international political environment, marked by the ascendancy of
‘‘informal’’ groupings with flexible institutional mechanisms in the face of long-
standing ‘‘formal’’ international organizations, presents middle powers with new
opportunities to enhance their influence and power at the global level. These inter-
mediate (middle ranking) states, located between major and small states, are likely
to play greater roles in various diplomatic initiatives and platforms despite their
limited material, behavioural, and ideational capacities and their inefficiency in
using the appropriate means in order to create impact at the global level. This
last point is particularly visible in the minilateralist diplomatic practices of
middle powers in groupings such as the G20, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South
Africa (BRICS), and Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, Australia
(MIKTA). MIKTA can be more nuanced because all of its members are middle
ranking states (ranging from traditional to emerging states).
Putting MIKTA at the core of its narrative, this paper attempts to assess
Turkey’s middle power foreign policy and role—its strengths and its limitations.
The paper uses a two-staged interweaving framework grounded on two separate
triads: goals-means-impact and position-behaviour-identity. This approach to
middle powers has proven indispensable in grasping the evolving posture and
policies of middle powers both theoretically and empirically.
Against this background, this paper looks at the extent to which MIKTA’s
and Turkey’s middle power foreign policies and role correspond with each other
in terms of goals, means, and impact, and tries to relate this triad to middle
powers’ structural, behavioural, and ideational aspirations in world politics. This
paper mainly addresses the following three questions: On which positional/
structural, behavioural, and ideational characteristics have Turkey’s and
MIKTA’s middle powers goals, means, and impact been built and how can
Turkey’s evolving middle power foreign policy be linked to its engagement
with MIKTA? Are Turkey and MIKTA successful in using their goals and
means to obtain visible impacts? To what extent can MIKTA’s and Turkey’s
middle power goals, means, and impact complement each other and be inter-
mingled? With these questions, this study aims to fill the lacunae in both inter-
national relations (IR) and Turkish foreign policy literature on middle powers,
their networks and diplomatic practices in international organizations and
groupings.
The main methodological novelty of this paper is to (re)draw an intertwined
analytical framework informed by a double-triad model. While the first triad—
goals, means, and impact, borrowed from the Normative Power Europe (NPE)
literature—provides us with a relational method in explaining the nature and the
evolution of middle power foreign policy, the second triad of position, behaviour,
and identity adds to the first triad by offering broader theoretical insights and
understanding pertaining to middle powers. Another novelty is the assessment of
a new middle power network, MIKTA, and a middle power, Turkey, together on
the basis of an embedded approach. This approach facilitates the examination of a
Dal and Kur¸sun 609
To continue reading
Request your trial