The Last Palmerston Government: Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics, and the Genesis of "Splendid Isolation."

2020 ◽  
pp. 179-202
Author(s):  
M. Hakan Yavuz

This chapter explores the extent of contemporary neo-Ottomanism’s influence in Turkey’s foreign policy and the political infrastructure for implementing it. It examines the dynamic of the mutually constitutive relationship between Islamization and Ottomanization within three stages of Turkish foreign policy: Europeanization (2002–2010); Arab Spring and Islamicization (2010–2013); “Splendid Isolation” (2013–present). The focus of the chapter is Ahmet Davutoğlu, who provided the ideological framework for neo-Ottoman foreign policy. The analysis probes Davutoğlu’s understanding of Ottomanism as Islamist, anti-Western, adventurist, and ideological. This leads to exploring why many pundits and critics of Turkey’s foreign and domestic politics use this specific term as an epithet to signal the gradual Islamicization of domestic politics and the growing presence of Islamic irredentism in foreign policy.


Author(s):  
Lisel Hintz

This chapter introduces the book’s aim of turning the concept of identity politics inside out. It presents Turkey as an empirical window onto these dynamics, familiarizing readers with puzzling shifts in domestic politics and foreign policy that do not correspond to shifts in geopolitical dynamics, international economic conditions, or the coming to power of a new party. For example, after the AKP made progress toward EU membership in its first term, the party’s subsequent terms witnessed a sharp reorientation of Turkey, a traditional Western ally, toward the Middle East. This period also demonstrates a rise in “Ottomania”—reviled until recently as delusions of imperial Islamic grandeur—which now permeates everything from pop culture to political campaigns. How was such a drastic reorientation of Turkey possible under the AKP? This introduction lays out how the book solves this puzzle by turning identity politics inside out and outlines the structure of the book.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 161-191
Author(s):  
Robert Joseph Medillo

Abstract Why and how did the Philippine Congress intervene in the policies of Arroyo (hedging), Aquino III (balancing), and Duterte (appeasement) on the South China Sea disputes? In particular, why and how did the Philippine Congress challenge each president’s attempt to forge either cooperation or confrontation towards China? Guided by the domestic politics – foreign policy nexus, this article explores the dynamic role of the Philippine Congress in the country’s foreign policy process. It combines comparative case-study and content analysis methods to examine relevant congressional records, government documents, public speeches, and news reports. This article finds that the impetus behind Congress’ intervention was to seek accountability, legitimacy, and transparency via registering a bill or passing a law, filing legislative resolutions, holding congressional hearings, calling for impeachment proceedings, delivering privilege speeches, and issuing press releases. This article offers its empirical and theoretical contributions to broaden current understanding of the relationship between domestic politics and foreign policy.


1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 32-49
Author(s):  
John Bendix ◽  
Niklaus Steiner

Although political asylum has been at the forefront of contemporaryGerman politics for over two decades, it has not been much discussedin political science. Studying asylum is important, however,because it challenges assertions in both comparative politics andinternational relations that national interest drives decision-making.Political parties use national interest arguments to justify claims thatonly their agenda is best for the country, and governments arguesimilarly when questions about corporatist bargaining practices arise.More theoretically, realists in international relations have positedthat because some values “are preferable to others … it is possible todiscover, cumulate, and objectify a single national interest.” Whileinitially associated with Hans Morgenthau’s equating of nationalinterest to power, particularly in foreign policy, this position hassince been extended to argue that states can be seen as unitary rationalactors who carefully calculate the costs of alternative courses ofaction in their efforts to maximize expected utility.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document