Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Comtemporary Lens in Inter
The Comtemporary Lens in Inter
Relations:
Migration and Foreign Policy Nexus in Turkey
Yelda DEVLET KARAPINAR*
Abstract Throughout history, diverse waves and
forms of migratory movements have
Immigration has gradually become one of
always affected Turkey. The Iranian
the main subjects of high policy debate in
Turkey. Such a tendency has manifested itself revolution, political turmoil in the
initially through Turkey- EU relations, where Middle East, the end of the Cold
immigration policy making has become one War, the Gulf War, and more recently
of the key issues of accession talks. The Syrian the Arab uprising and Syrian crisis
crisis and a massive influx of Syrians have
also acted as a catalyst for consideration of
have all resulted in a large number of
immigration policy as a “hot topic” of the people finding refuge in neighbouring
agendas of both foreign and domestic policy. countries, including Turkey. This is
This article aims to uncover the interrelations coupled with Turkey’s geo-political
between immigration policy and Turkish
position and geo-strategic importance
foreign policy and to identify major trends and
reorientations in immigration policy making. as a transit zone between the East
and the West, and ultimately has
Key Words contributed to Turkey’s becoming
a de facto country of first asylum
International Migration, Turkish Foreign as well as a destination. Turkey is
Policy, Turkey-European Union Relations, positioned at a significant juncture
Syrian Crisis. within the international migration
flows between Asia, Africa and
Introduction Europe. This connectivity to numerous
emigration and immigration countries
There is a considerable amount of
makes Turkey highly vulnerable to
literature written on different forms
changing trends of migration and
of migration into and out of Turkey.
requires Turkey to streamline its policy
responses accordingly. Given Turkey’s
* Dr., International Organization for Migration vision of becoming a regional power as
Mission to Turkey, National Project Officer,
Birlik Mah. Şehit Kurbani Akboğa Sk., No:24,
well as an international actor, this paper
Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey. aims to address the major trends and
E-mail: devlety@gmail.com reorientations in contemporary Turkish
103
PERCEPTIONS, Winter 2017, Volume XXII, Number 4, pp. 103-134.
Yelda Devlet Karapınar
104
Migration and Foreign Policy Nexus in Turkey
105
Yelda Devlet Karapınar
migration with its linkages to diverse incorporation, which calls for identity,
disciplines is also reflected in the citizenship, ethical as well as normative
study of international relations. The issues. Mitchell8 explains the late
issue itself has been marginalized in coverage of the study of international
international relations with, as Weiner migration by political science and
points out, certain questions often international relations scholarship
being overlooked:5 How do states’ based on three main relationships. The
actions shape population movements? first revolves around the assumption
Under which circumstances do such that international relations help to
movements lead to conflict and/or to shape international migration with the
cooperation? What do governments potential importance of state action
do in their domestic policies to adjust, to the dynamic process of migration
influence and control such population policy making. The second asserts that
flows? Building on these questions, migration may influence and serve
it is legitimate to investigate the root the goals of national foreign policies,
causes for the limited coverage of which would carry this transnational
migration studies by the discipline phenomenon from its traditional sector
of international relations. The of low politics to the realm of high
most common explanation of this politics. And the third emphasizes
marginalization lies behind the recent that “domestic” immigration laws
acknowledgement of international and policies may have an unavoidable
migration moving from the realm of international political projection.
low politics to high politics. Although
the political science literature related to
migration and international relations
is quite limited, there are a number of
The realist paradigm being the
scholars who have been directing their dominant approach during
research interests to this emerging field the Cold War period avoided
of study.6 having the topic of migration
become mainstreamed due to
Hollifield7 puts forward three lines of
the limited effect of migration
inquiry for scholars of immigration
within political science. Those include
on balance of power.
the role of the nation-state in controlling
migration and borders; the impact of
migration on international relations In other words, the realist paradigm
including institutions, sovereignty being the dominant approach during
and national security; and finally the Cold War period avoided having
106
Migration and Foreign Policy Nexus in Turkey
107
Yelda Devlet Karapınar
What are the contemporary drivers and of globalization due to their different
the dynamics behind contemporary levels of development. The conjectural
immigration policy making in Turkey? dynamics of the post Cold War era,
What role does migration play within the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and recently
the framework of foreign policy the conflict and fragility experienced in
making? Where does immigration diverse regional contexts have all called
policy stand in Turkish foreign policy for re-visiting the concept of polarity
today? The following section will try to in the contemporary structure of the
answer these questions in detail. international system.
108
Migration and Foreign Policy Nexus in Turkey
109
Yelda Devlet Karapınar
110
Migration and Foreign Policy Nexus in Turkey
started to question how to respond to that the 1990s acted as the baseline
the emerging new influx from Iraq. for the contemporary nexus between
Building on these challenges, President migration and Turkish foreign policy
Turgut Özal proposed the establishing from Central Asia to the Balkans as well
of a security zone within the territory of as the Middle East. Concepts such as
Iraq under international guarantorship, “activism” and “multi-dimensionalism,”
where the Iraqi people could be which were employed in Turkish
accommodated. Upon agreement by foreign policy during the 1990s, have
the US and a majority of the Western also prepared a legitimate platform
states, a no-fly zone, located at the for the structuration of the parameters
Northern Iraq and Turkish border, was of the Turkish foreign policy and
established to protect humanitarian migration nexus of the 2000s.30
operations and settlement of Kurdish
While it took some time for Turkey
refugees.28
to adjust her position within the
conjuncture of the post-Cold War
period, the end of the 1990s brought
While it took some time for forth an historical shift in terms
Turkey to adjust her position of mainstream threat perceptions.
within the conjuncture of the Those perceptions also called for a
post-Cold War period, the end de-securitization of Turkish foreign
of the 1990s brought forth policy.31 The traditional Turkish foreign
an historical shift in terms of policy was structured on two main
building blocks: while the status quo
mainstream threat perceptions.
aimed at preserving the established
order within the existing borders,
westernization focused on Western
Within this scope, the 1990s were oriented foreign policy structuration.32
mainly the period for Turkey to witness The traditional actors of foreign policy
an escalation of conflicts and wars in making were in particular considered
neighbouring countries, with a direct to be the products of a higher structure
impact on mass migratory movements with an isolated nature from all other
towards Turkey, initially from Iraq and political areas.33 As of the 1990s,
then from Bosnia, from which there however, a streamlining of Turkish
were 20,000 Bosnians between 1992- foreign policy at the international
1995 and 17,746 Kosovars in 1999 and regional levels has constituted its
who sought asylum in Turkey.29 Given main axis. It has also been a period
this migratory snapshot, one can say with an increasing number and
111
Yelda Devlet Karapınar
112
Migration and Foreign Policy Nexus in Turkey
113
Yelda Devlet Karapınar
foreign policy discourse that was In their study, Özdamar and colleagues
dominated by actual or potential use employ role theory analyses and
of force.42 It was also emphasized identify eleven Turkish foreign
that Turkey’s changing foreign policy policy conceptions, six of which were
conceptions towards the Middle considered to be more prominent before
East from 2002 to 2011 could best the Arab uprisings. Those conceptions
be understood through a “role theory included; “mediator”, “defender of
analysis”,43 which was described as regional peace and stability”, “regional
follows: subsystem collaborator”, “good
neighbour”, “bridge across civilizations”
“Role theory analyses the and “trading state”. However, the
cultural/ideational, geostrategic, authors underscore their observation of
political and economical a solid decline in some of those concepts,
determinants of a country’s particularly “mediator”, “defender
foreign policy, through eliciting of regional peace and stability”,
state elites’ cognitive filters “regional subsystem collaborator”,
and perceptions. Many studies and “good neighbour,” observing that
analyse Turkish foreign policy those were gradually replaced by new
with reference to state identity, conceptions such as “central/pivotal
culture, geographic location, country”, “active independent country”,
economic material factors and “developer” (i.e. assisting developing
strategic/military considerations, countries), “protector of the oppressed”
as well as state elites’ political and “model/example country”.45
preferences, but only a limited
number of these studies Turkey’s efficiency in dealing with the
implicitly refer to role theory.”44 economic crisis, considerable growth
in international trade, reaching an
agreement with the EU on a date for
Turkey’s active engagement negotiations in 2004, acknowledgement
with the EU via alignment to of the PKK as a terrorist organization
the acquis, the reform process, by the EU46 and the US,47 were some
and a membership perspective, of the events and developments that
were key defining factors of marked this period. However, we may
the “Europeanizing” of foreign consider 2010 as a turning point at
which the baseline of Turkish foreign
policy over this first decade of
policy started to move in a different
the 2000s. direction. Walker puts forth the
argument of Turkey’s new location as
114
Migration and Foreign Policy Nexus in Turkey
115
Yelda Devlet Karapınar
116
Migration and Foreign Policy Nexus in Turkey
117
Yelda Devlet Karapınar
118
Migration and Foreign Policy Nexus in Turkey
119
Yelda Devlet Karapınar
relations as well as border and human EU Acquis, there is also a more actual
security. International migration has national interest to modernize Turkey
the potential to be one of the key and to reform migration related
determinants of the foreign policy normative, administrative as well as
agenda from local to global scales. As operational frameworks. This can be
such, Turkish migration policy has considered as a very endogenous factor,
gradually become more politically which is generally not touched upon
debated and visible within the scope by mainstream scholars. So, in addition
of two main contemporary drivers to the motivations driven by the EU
that the country has been engaged in, accession process, Turkey has also its
namely the EU accession process and the own vision and strategic priorities
Syrian crisis. in terms of diverse fields including
foreign policy, economy, development,
trade and so on. Therefore, this
The contemporary migration endogenous domestic driver of all
policy provides the basis for recent developments in the migration
realm is critical to bear in mind when
multidirectional change as it
unpacking the politics of Turkey- EU
calls for Turkey’s participation, relations pertaining to migration.
membership and socialization
both at national, regional and The EU accession process has been a
global levels. catalyst on migration issues as well as
being one of the defining and central
issues of Turkey-EU relations in
the 2000s. Given the contemporary
Turkey’s modernization, political changes in global politics, international
reforms driven by the EU accession migration has gradually become a
process, EU requests of Turkey to adopt structural issue on the global political
the Acquis, and humanitarian assistance agenda. Similarly, the migration and
provided for Syrians arriving in Turkey foreign policy nexus has shifted from
might all be considered as valid points the periphery to the core in Turkey’s
in explaining Turkey’s positioning EU accession talks, in line with recent
over the current structuration of its developments in the EU migration and
immigration policy, however they asylum agenda in the aftermath of the
would not be enough. In migration Stockholm Program, that culminated
politics, it has become clear that the in the EU-Turkey Statement on 18
Turkish authorities have realized that March 2016. The overall framework
beyond the interest in adopting the of the EU-Turkey deal focused
120
Migration and Foreign Policy Nexus in Turkey
121
Yelda Devlet Karapınar
122
Migration and Foreign Policy Nexus in Turkey
123
Yelda Devlet Karapınar
124
Migration and Foreign Policy Nexus in Turkey
125
Yelda Devlet Karapınar
126
Migration and Foreign Policy Nexus in Turkey
relations. Turkey, in addition to its effort Agreement are also other elements
for alignment with the EU Acquis, also which prepare the legitimate basis for
continues to follow a genuine visa further securitization of immigration
policy via lifting of visa requirements policy. As the last point, the effects of
with many countries, with a vision of the Syrian crisis and the issue of foreign
enhancing its economic relations. fighters attempting to transit through
Turkey require still more attention on
the security dimension of migration
Turkey’s commercial relations management.
with diverse countries call for
In line with the increased level of
enhanced levels of interaction importance dedicated to external
with those countries pertaining dimensions of EU migration policy,
to facilitation of transnational Turkey has also been paying more
mobility to contribute to attention to the external dimension
the development of further of its immigration policy. The
economic relations. requirements of the EU-Turkey
Readmission Agreement also put
Turkey in a position to negotiate
Securitization has always been one of readmission agreements with the
the core pillars of Turkish immigration countries of origin for the irregular
policy alongside human rights and migrants, which directly offers another
mutual interests. Furthermore, this level of analysis for externalization of
mainstream trend of securitization Turkish immigration policy. There is
finds its contemporary justifications a genuine interest in understanding
in Turkey’s efforts for better the way that European migration
management of its borders and in the policy has been affecting Turkey via
institutionalization of an integrated its instruments of externalization
border management approach in including the readmission agreement,
line with that of the EU. Moreover, visa liberalisation dialogue, and
the crime prevention dimension of integrated border management
the issue with a particular focus on support. Moreover, Turkey’s efforts
combating migrant smuggling and to convince its Western partners to
human trafficking also calls for an establish a safe haven in Northern Syria
increased level of security to be one of as a response to Syrians’ massive influx
the core defining factors in Turkey’s may also be considered as an attempt
immigration policy. The requirements at externalization or management via
of the EU-Turkey Readmission externalization.
127
Yelda Devlet Karapınar
128
Migration and Foreign Policy Nexus in Turkey
129
Yelda Devlet Karapınar
Endnotes
1 Anthony Giddens, Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Cambridge,
Polity Press, 1984.
3 Douglas S. Massey, Joaquín Arango, Graeme Hugo, Ali Kovaouci, Adela Pellegrino
and J. Edward Taylor, “An Evaluation of International Migration Theory: The North
American Case”, Population and Development Review, Vol. 20, No.4 (1994), pp.699-751.
4 Caroline Brettell and James Hollifield (ed.), Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines,
New York, Routledge, 2008.
6 James F. Hollifield, “Migration, Trade and the Nation-State: The Myth of Globalization”,
UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs, Vol.3, No.2 (1998), pp.595-
636; Peter Andreas, “The Escalation of US Immigration Control in the Post‐NAFTA
Era”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol.113, No. 4 (1998), pp.591-615; Peter Andreas and
Timothy Snyder (eds.), The Wall Around the West: State Borders and Immigration Controls
in North America and Europe, Rowman&Littlefield, 2000; Eytan Meyers, International
Immigration Policy: A Theoretical and Comparative Analysis, New York, Palgrave
Macmillan, 2004; Myron Weiner, The Global Migration Crisis: Challenge to States and to
Human Rights, New York, Harper Collins College Publishers, 1995.
7 James Hollifield, “The Politics of International Migration: How Can We Bring the State
Back In?”, in Caroline Brettell and James Hollifield (eds.) Migration Theory: Talking
Across Disciplines, New York, Routledge, 2008.
9 James Hollifield, “The Politics of International Migration: How Can We Bring the State
Back In?”, in Brettell and Hollifield (eds.) Migration Theory, p.183.
10 Juliette Tolay, “Coming and Going: Migration and Changes in Turkish Foreign Policy”,
in Ronald H. Linden (et al.), Turkey and Its Neighbors, Foreign Relations and Transition,
London, Lynne Reinner Publishers, 2012, pp.119-143.
11 Ibid.
12 Kenneth N. Waltz, The Theory of International Politics, Menlo Park, Mass Addison-
Wesley Pub. Co., 1979.
130
Migration and Foreign Policy Nexus in Turkey
131
Yelda Devlet Karapınar
28 Ibid.
29 Directorate General on Migration Management, at http://www.goc.gov.tr/icerik3/
kitlesel-akinlar_409_558_559 (last visited 26 April 2017).
30 Şaban H. Çalış, “Ulus Devlet ve Kimlik Labirentinde Türk Dış Politikası”, in Şaban
H. Çalış, İhsan D. Dağı ve Ramazan Gözen (eds.), Türkiye’nin Dış Politika Gündemi,
Ankara, Liberte Yayınları, 2001, p.7.
31 Özlem Tür and Ahmet K. Han, “A Framework for Understanding the Changing Turkish
Foreign Policy of 2000s”, in Özden Zeynep Oktav (ed.), Turkey in the 21st Century Quest
for a New Foreign Policy, Burlington, Ashgate, 2011, p.7.
32 Baskın Oran, “Türk Dış Politikasının Teori ve Pratiği”, in Baskın Oran (ed.) Türk Dış
Politikası: Kurtuluş Savaşı’ndan Bugüne Olgular, Belgeler, Yorumlar, Twelfth Edition,
Vol.1, İstanbul, İletişim Yayınları, 2005, pp.46- 49.
33 Information gathered from a roundtable on Turkish foreign policy followed Chatham
House Rule on 5-8 March 2015.
34 Şule Kut, “The Contours of Turkish Foreign Policy in the 1990s in Turkey”, in Rubin
and Kirişçi (eds.), World Politics, p.8.
35 Osman Bahadır Dinçer and Mustafa Kutlay, “Türkiye’nin Ortadoğu’daki Bölgesel
Güç Potansiyeline İlişkin Ampirik Bir İnceleme”, Akademik Ortadoğu, Vol. 6, No. 2
(2012), pp.61- 97; E. Fuat Keyman and Onur Sazak, “Turkish Foreign Policy in the
Transatlantic Context: From Soft Power to Smart Power”, Strategic Research Center
of the Turkish Foreign Ministry, (2012): http://ipc.sabanciuniv.edu/en/publication/
turkish-foreign-policy-in-the-transatlantic-context-from-soft-power-to-smart-
power/#sthash.QUdETWYO.dpuf (last visited 16 March 2017); Oğuzlu, “Soft Power
in Turkish Foreign Policy”, pp. 81-97.
36 Ahmet Davutoğlu, Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Konumu, İstanbul, Küre
Yayınları, 2001.
37 Joshua W. Walker, “Turkey’s Imperial Legacy: Understanding Contemporary Turkey
through its Ottoman Past”, in Jerry Harris (ed.) The Nation on the Global Era: Conflict
and the Transformation, Leiden, Brill, 2009, p.394.
38 Cameron S. Brown, “Turkey in the Gulf Wars of 1991 and 2003”, Turkish Studies, Vol. 8,
No.1 (2007), p.93.
39 Walker, “Turkey’s Imperial Legacy”, p.394.
40 Ahmet Davutoğlu, Stratejik Derinlik, p.563.
41 Tarık Oğuzlu, “Turkey and the Europeanization of Foreign Policy?”, Political Science
Quarterly, Vol. 125, No.4 (2010), pp. 657-683.
132
Migration and Foreign Policy Nexus in Turkey
42 Özlem Tür, and Ahmet K. Han, “A Framework for Understanding the Changing Turkish
Foreign Policy of 2000s” in Özden Zeynep Oktav (ed.), Turkey in the 21st Century Quest
for a New Foreign Policy, Burlington, Ashgate, 2011, p. 20.
43 For role theory and Turkish foreign policy nexus, see, Bülent Aras, The New Geopolitics of
Eurasia and Turkey’s Position, London, Frank Cass, 2002; Bülent Aras and Aylin Görener,
“National Role Conceptionsand Foreign Policy Orientation: The Ideational Bases of the
Justice and Development Party’s Foreign Policy Activism in the Middle East”, Journal
of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2010), pp.73- 93.
44 Özgür Özdamar, B. Toygar Halistoprak and İ. Erkam Sula, “From Good Neighbor to
Model: Turkey’s Changing Roles in the Middle East in the Aftermath of the Arab
Spring”, Uluslararası İlişkiler, Vol. 11, No. 42 (Summer 2014), p. 98.
45 Ibid., pp. 93- 113.
46 Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/521 of 26 March 2015 updating and amending the
list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position
2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and
repealing Decision 2014/483/CFSP, at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:JOL_2015_082_R_0009&from=EN (last visited 01 June 2017).
47 U.S. Department of State, Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, at http://www.
state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm (last visited 1 June 2017).
48 Walker, “Turkey’s Imperial Legacy”, p.395.
49 UNHCR Global Trends, at http://www.unhcr.org/576408cd7.pdf (last visited 15
March 2016).
50 IOM, Retrieved on http://missingmigrants.iom.int (last visited 15 March 2016).
51 2016 Türkiye Göç Raporu, Ankara, İçişleri Bakanlığı Göç İdaresi Genel Müdürlüğü
Yayınları, No.40, Nisan 2017, p. 25.
52 Meral Açıkgöz and Hakkı O. Arıner, “Turkey’s New Law on Foreigners and International
Protection: An Introduction”, Turkish Migration Studies Group at University of Oxford,
TurkMis, Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, Briefing Paper 2, at https://www.
compas.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/files/Publications/Briefings/TurkMiS/Brief_2_Ariner_
Acikgoz_2014.pdf (last visited 06 February 2015).
53 Juliette Tolay, “Coming and Going: Migration and Changes in Turkish Foreign Policy”,
in Ronald H. Linden (et al.), Turkey and Its Neighbors, Foreign Relations and Transition,
London, Lynne Reinner Publishers, 2012, p. 133.
54 Joseph S. Nye Jr., Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, United States, Public
Affairs, 2004.
133
Yelda Devlet Karapınar
55
European Council, at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-
releases/2016/03/18-eu-turkey-statement/(last visited 15 March 2017).
56 Directorate General on Migration Management, at http://www.goc.gov.tr/icerik6/
return-statistics_915_1024_10104_icerik (last visited 15 March 2017). UNHCR,
Retrieved on http://www.unhcr.org/576408cd7.pdf (last visited 15 March 2016).
57 Ahmet İçduygu and Damla B. Aksel, “Two-to-Tango in Migration Diplomacy:
Negotiating Readmission Agreement between the EU and Turkey”, European Journal of
Migration and Law, Vol. 16, No. 3, (October 2014), pp.337- 363.
58 Özdamar, Halistoprak and Sula, “From Good Neighbor to Model”, pp. 93-113.
134
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.