LIBERAL THEORY BUILDING IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

2011

It is certain that liberal theoretical thinkers and their approaches contributed to the studies of international relations (IR) in one way or another. Despite this fact, their different perspectives on theorizing the issues and level of practicalities make us question in what level and understanding they contribute to the studies of IR. Immanuel Kant, Michael Doyle and Daniele Archibugi are just three of the liberal thinkers whose general framework of studies focus on the concepts like democracy and peace in a domestic but also in a global scale. I firmly believe that their liberalism-oriented studies in issues like democracy and peace are their main contribution to the study of IR.

To start with Kant, it is important to underline that what his works tell us is his prescriptive, normative and practical approach. Unlike contemporary theorists’ perspective of a more descriptive and explanatory approach compared to Kant, he uses a language of practicality as an answer to “what ought to be done”. This approach may sound more like a politician’s but he justifies himself by telling that there is a hard line of separation between politicians and philosophers and this line should not be crossed. Due to this separation, he finds the chance to operate in a practical level and still be a theorist not a politician. Thus, this practical and prescriptive approach leads its way to a need for perpetual peace in his arguments. Despite his inclination to a realist understanding while underlining states’ role in the power politics and security issues, he stands firm in his liberal method through supporting concepts like equality, democracy and peace.

What Kant contributes to the theoretical understanding in IR is his approach to the concept of “peace” and its necessary conditions to be real. One of these necessities is republicanism in both state and global level which, according to Kant, is essential for the perpetual peace. He underlines the importance of avoiding wars between states and to achieve this condition he suggests to abolish armies, obligatory military service and foreign debts of states. In addition, he emphasizes that conditions like equality of states, protection of freedom and rights, transition to republican ruling and a federation of states are necessary to achieve peace in domestic and global spheres. The need for a federative and cosmopolitan way of administration among states is one of the most important issues for peace and stability. In my opinion, Kant is more like a constructor of a system, not like an observer or theory maker compared to most IR scholars. As one can claim that concepts of democracy and war can be differently understood in different theoretical understandings (i.e. the definition of war as the armed or unarmed conflict or the definition of democracy in liberal or republican approach). His way of thinking, as he underlines also, is a completion of “what ought to be done” perspective which furthers him from a descriptive approach. However, nobody can deny that his approaches effected many scholars including IR theorists in aspects like possibilities of avoiding war and establishing peace.

Doyle stands in a different but close point to Kant’s. His need to describe the nature of liberalism in the aspects of democracy and peace, and consequent efforts to generate approaches of “what ought to be done” places him in a different point than Kant’s. The question Doyle asks about is the foundation of liberalism and its international implications. He questions the challenges that democratic peace faces. In general he underlines the economical and political grounds and their liberal perspectives that helped democracies to achieve. So, whether they are conservative or social democratic, liberal thoughts are bases for democracy and peace as Doyle argues. According to him, there are four points of necessity for democracy and peace which are judicial equality, representative legislatures, rights for private property and free market. They are all concepts of liberalism and he claims that these domestic forms are sources for similar international understandings. He shares Kant’s arguments that believing in freedom of individuals in domestic level leads to a belief in the sovereignty of states in the international level which, as a result, brings peace and understanding. Doyle’s efforts to describe the conditions and attributes of liberal approach make him more like a theory builder and I find it necessary to be able to do that in order to be able to contribute to IR.

Compared to Kant and Doyle, I believe that Archibugi is the closest liberal thinker to be able to theoretically contribute to IR studies. The concept he chooses is named cosmopolitan democracy and he underlines the importance of three issues: democracy inside nations, democracy among nations and democracy in the global level. To be theoretically valid he first frames the topic of democracy such as its inability to be imposed from outside or its structure of historically shaped form. Then he underlines several points to be able to construct a healthy democracy such as ensuring equality of states, non-interfering their sovereignties and avoiding international conflict. The establishment of democracy brings the peace and the desire for peace is a motivation to establish democracy. In addition, he suggests an international system that embraces democratic states as well as their citizens and NGOs that are to be effective in decision making process. He shows European Union as an example as its members share similar democratic values, respect each other’s territories and support the representation of citizens in, at least, parliamentary level. Then he shows the lacking sides of the United Nations which he thinks is the most probable form to be able construct a cosmopolitan democracy. His way of thinking is clearly theoretical as he defines the ground (democracy) he stands for; he observes a possible example (European Union) for his planned concept; he suggests opinions for a better union of states, citizens and NGOs instead of United Nations. In my opinion, his approach of “what ought to be done” is very well absorbed through his descriptive understanding.

I believe that all three liberal thinkers contributes to the theoretical studies in IR in one way or another. They all have a perspective from concepts like peace and democracy and how to achieve them. Kant, compared to other two, seems to be a more practical and prescriptive thinker who argues about the things that should be done in order to establish peace. Doyle seems to be trying to both describe and prescribe which makes closer to theoretical IR thinking compared to Kant. In my opinion, Archibugi is the closest one to frame the issues of peace and democracy in a theoretical and hypothetical way as he both describes the issues, observes examples and presents new models.

DIFFERENTIATING CRITICAL FROM PROBLEM-SOLVING

2011

Theories, not only in international relations (IR) but also in other studies of social sciences, offer us new perspectives and understandings in a framework of their writers’ ideological and/or scientific viewpoints. Some scholars, intentionally or unintentionally, choose to be more specific on the structures and underlying reasons while criticizing and creating solutions for them accordingly. There are some others who choose to take structures as given and try to come up with solutions and roadmaps at that given conditions. In this paper, I will argue about the theoretical similarities of Marxist and Gramscian traditions to the approaches mentioned above. I will get help from Robert W. Cox to better understand the two approaches and then analyze the methods of Johan Galtung, Immanuel Wallerstein, Angre Gunder Frank, Michael Kenny, Randall Germain and Stephen Jill.

In his article, Cox differentiates “critical theory” from “problem-solving” theory in two main aspects. Firstly, he criticizes problem solver theories’ unwillingness to look at the historical process of the events. According to him, the subject that is being discussed should be historically evaluated. Secondly, problem solver thinkers do not question the structures and they accept them as given. However, critical thinking leads thinker to challenge the existing conditions by rejecting permanency of existing order. Cox argues that theories and their subjects are time-specific and they are also related with places they are happened. The only advantage problem-solving theories have is their parsimonious attitude. Yet, their inability to question the given structures makes them vulnerable and ineffective to challenge things and provide change.

The historical materialism thought is very much adopted by most of the neo-Marxists and Johan Galtung is one of these thinkers. He underlines that structures are reproduced as time passes and this can explained by the historical materialism concept. What he is achieving here is the critical approach that Cox mentioned, questioning the structure while using the historical processes of beings. To better explain his arguments, Galtung first describes the conditions before presenting solutions. In order to make logical solutions about imperialism, he explains the concept of “structural violence” which means all kinds of systemic ways that prevent individuals achieve their potentials. Also, he divides peace into two which are negative and positive ones. He points out several conflicts of interests between the core and periphery concepts that produces imperialism which are, in general, harmony of interests between centers of cores and peripheries, conflicts between periphery actors and their peripheries’ centers. Also he claims that exploitation of peripheries, as a result of the historical process, is the reason of widening gap between the two parts. After he successfully explains and criticizes the structures, he proposes a prescription to change them which includes increasing interaction among peripheries, ensuring self-reliance against dependency and reducing harmony of interests between centers of core and peripheries. It is for sure that Galtung sits rightly in Cox’ frame of critical theory as he questions the structures and looks at the historical process before giving prescriptions.

Another thinker that can be assumed as a critical theorist is Gunder Frank who looks at the underdevelopment issue. He criticizes the modernization theory which claims that developing countries will catch up the developed ones if they adopt the various policies of them. What Frank criticize about this issue is placing two historically different processes in the same linear of development. Here, he uses an understanding of historical process and tries to describe the structures of the system in the aspect of dependency which is led by the capitalist mode of production and the division of the world according to their capabilities. Thus, he claims that abandoning the commodity and cultural relations of the developed and developing countries may be a solution. Similar to him, Immanuel Wallerstein analyzes the parts (core and periphery countries) in the system (world) which is formed upon social, economical and political changes in the historical process. What he seriously opposes is the ahistorical analyses of social change and studying it in phases. His understanding of structure includes the whole-being of the system, its capitalist character and the outcome of core-periphery relations. After he criticizes the structure in a historical sense, he gives a future scope when there is not enough demand to meet the supplies which leads to a non-profit result and the end of the system. It is obvious that both Frank and Wallerstein follows a path of critical theory as they first look at the structure critically and then propose possible solutions.

On the other hand, Gramscian understanding of IR focuses on the internal structures and social dynamics of the state formations. Gramsci explains the state as the combination of political and civil societies which leads us to think beyond states. As Germain and Kenny also underlines that there is a critical approach of Gramscian thinking where the formal and informal networks, institutions and practices become tools between the state and the individual to form an hegemony. Also Gramscian theory believes in the impact of human nature to change the structures which can be shown as an evidence of the importance of history in its approach. In addition, neo-Gramscian thinking should also be mentioned as it is a branch of Gramscian philosophy. Germain and Kenny criticizes neo-Gramscian approach due to its inability to be a critical method. According to them, while trying to bring a broader approach to Gramscian thinking in a global understanding, they fail and take the structures as given and do not estimate their effect on agency. Neo-Gramscians universalize Gramscian thinking while they see the history as a bloc of given structures.

Gill also adopts a critical approach as he first observes and defines the structures in the system. He takes world order as unstable and ready to change which fits in Cox’ understanding of historical process. Although, like Gramsci, he focuses on the factors of hegemony in the society, he contributes to the study with his analyses of neo-liberal critics. He shows institutions like IMF as tools to achieve the hegemony in the society where the capitalist system reproduces the realities in its own framework. He points out the new ways of discourses, institutions and several technological materials for this reproduce which is again an example for the historical understanding.

I firmly believe that both Marxists and Gramscians are well examples of critical approach in IR as they both, in several ways, show their emphasis on historical understanding and not taking structures as given facts. Before proposing solutions, they observe, define and criticize the structures and/or the system in a relational and/or historical way. As Cox underlines, rejecting the permanency of existing order is a necessary step to be able to challenge the existing conditions to provide change.

WHAT TO EXPECT FROM TURKISH FOREIGN POLICY IN 2011

2011

Although there is an optimistic way of thinking on the behalf of Turkey’s foreign policy steps due to its growing influence in her Eastern borders or Obama administration’s efforts for restoring trust through phone calls, nobody can assure that 2011 will be an easy and comfortable year for Turkish state officials. The reason Turkey is emerging as a significant regional player is not that simply she is between West and East but her significant economic and diplomatic influence especially in the Middle East. It seems that 2011 will bring many topics in Turkish foreign policy agenda such as stability of Iraqi government, Israeli tension, Iranian nuclear proliferation, Armenia relations and European Union membership.

Since Ahmet Davutoglu came into power as the Minister of Foreign Affairs in 2009, Turkey adopted a “zero problem” strategy with its neighbors. This proactive change is a step forward for Turkey to a more influential attitude in the region but the economic advancements and relations with Middle East members tell us that zero problem policy is a product of economic motivations. Nevertheless, the search for a more stable and peaceful environment in her East would mean a lot for Turkey in 2011 especially in reestablishment in Iraq. Compared to European investors, Turkish companies seem more comfortable in doing business in risky atmosphere of Iraq. The continuity of the newly formed Iraqi government will be a key issue for advancements of Turkish industry in the post-war region and the Turkish government will be having an important role for developing relations with her Iraqi colleagues in 2011.

Tension with Israel seem not to be decreasing as Turkey’s demands for an apology and compensation for “Mavi Marmara” deaths will probably not be answered by the Israeli government. Although the history and context of Turkey-Israel relations is big enough not to be replaced easily, Turkish Prime Minister’s aggressive statements to Israel make him a popular figure in the Middle East countries and this motivation seems enough to stand firm in the confrontation. In addition, Iran’s nuclear proliferation is another sensitive issue for Turkey to act wisely as a nuclear-muscled Iran is a sure threat to Turkey more than to US or Europe. At the end of January, Turkey will host a United Nations Security Council meeting that is about sanctions on Iran and despite the fact that Turkey will not a have a word in the meetings, still it will be a good event to further the bilateral and multilateral relations about the issue.

Efforts to normalize relations with Armenia is another topic in the agenda which will help the region stabilize especially for energy transportation. Protocols and agreements in 2009 was a good step for both countries as it was a good way to silence the Armenian lobbies across the ocean. Still, Turkey insists for a resolution of disputes between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to further the negotiations. The solution in this issue is important due to the fact that Azerbaijan is a significant neighbor for Turkey as she is an energy partner supported with ties of kinship. Besides, Armenia relations have a sensitive reflection in EU membership as Armenia is included in European Neighborhood policy. Furthermore the weakening relations of Turkey and EU which leads many people think that Turkey is shifting to the East. The fact is, Croatia, that is started membership negotiations with Turkey in 2005, is planning to successfully close all the chapters of negotiations in the first part of 2011. On the contrary, Turkey only managed to close one of the chapters and this insufficiency may lead Turkey to form her policy accordingly and maybe permanently in 2011.

I intentionally did not mention the role of United States above since the long-lasting relationship between US and Turkey seems to continue necessarily due to Turkey’s position to support policies of US in the region. The year 2011 have enough reasons for Turkish Foreign Policy not to decrease the tempo of 2010. The influential and proactive role that Turkey adopted will bring a need for stability and peace not just outside but also inside the boundaries and it is for certain that the increasing number of issues and problems that are mentioned above can have either a restraining or propelling role in Turkish Foreign Policy in 2011.

TURNING TO THE EAST: ILLUSION OR REALITY?

2011

Nowadays it is very popular to observe Turkey’s new role as a politically mediating and economically influential country in the Middle East. Since Ahmet Davutoglu came into power as the Minister of Foreign Affairs in 2009, Turkey adopted a foreign policy called “zero problem with neighbors” and this policy needed a proactive approach from the Foreign Policy officials in political and economical grounds. Despite their rise in the region, Turkey is heavily questioned for if they are shifting towards East and leaving their Western tendency that is embraced since the foundation of the Turkish Republic. The New York Times writer Thomas Friedman, a three times Pulitzer winner, is one of the doubters and he expressed his fears of Turkey’s leaning towards East in his article called “Letter from Istanbul” on June 15, 2010.

What Friedman heavily underlines is that once an antidote to “Bin Ladenism” due to her secular and democratic but also Muslim approach, Turkey is now turning from West to East for sure and there are mainly three reasons for this transformation which are the negative attitude of European Union, the possibility of being the leader of the Arab world and the need for being strong inside the borders. Although I am convinced that there are reasonable points to believe that Turkey seems to be shifting, structural changes since the end of the cold war and the emerging economic activities of Turkey with her neighbors made people question the issue. These two points were in fact the steps for increasing the number of alternatives and enlarging the capabilities for Turkey which was once only the ally of the United States. To better explain my argument, I will be partly referring to the neo-realist perspective and articles from Kenneth Waltz, Mustafa Aydın and Dietrich Jung.

The main argument in Friedman’s mentioned article is change of approach adopted by Turkey in which he claims that “Turkey’s Islamist government seemingly focused not on joining the European Union but the Arab League”. That’s a bit exaggerated but what he means briefly is that Turkey is shifting from West to East. According to him, first reason for this change is the negative attitude of the EU in the aspect of membership of Turkey despite her efforts to match the conditions. Secondly, the absence of a leader country in the Middle East is a motivation for the Turkish government to turn his back to the West. It is certain that being in a confrontation with Israel brings a reputation to Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan. Lastly, the motivation to stay strong in the domestic sphere leads the government’s aggressive actions against the press and the army and acts for domestic popularity by accusing Israel in public speeches. My opinion for Turkey’s appearance of shifting East is different than Friedman’s, which I will explain through the structural changes and the growing economic relations of Turkey in the neighborhood.

To understand the international picture for the moment and Turkey’s position in it, we should first look at the neo-realist writings of Kenneth Waltz. He explains the international system as a composition of structures and interacting units (states) where every unit looks to care of his own. Waltz underlines that international politics is the realm of power and struggle and continues that the relations of units and the changes in the structure are two factors that are affected by each other to finally form a new system. “The structure of a system changes with changes in the distribution of capabilities across the system’s units” he writes, which brings us to Turkey’s efforts to maximize her capabilities by improving her relations with her neighbors. The last turning point in the 20th century is certainly the end of the Cold War which led the system from a bipolar to unipolar and finally to a multipolar stage. The US, the leader in the unipolarity, could not prevent the rise of regional alliances and new regional actors which brought us to a new distribution of capabilities.

I firmly believe that Turkish Foreign Policy is newly defining her role in this changed structure which led her to reposition herself between the West and the East. It seems that US has to compromise more than before, compared to the Cold War period aggressiveness of hers. That reestablishment is both the reason and the product of the newly emerging regional powers such as China, Russia, Brazil or Turkey. Turkey, once a pro-Western oriented country, is now trying to strengthen her hand by forming relationships with Russia, Iraq, Syria and Iran. Here I join Friedman’s thoughts that European Union’s unwillingness made Turkey look elsewhere which led not a leaning towards East in Turkish Foreign Policy but to an increasing alternatives and maximizing of benefits.

A proactive role in both diplomatic and economic spheres especially in the Middle East region seems to be the new approach but growing relations with Russia, Africa and the other parts of the world also cannot be denied. Though it is said to be the extension of Western approach, it is a fact that Turkey used to be an active member in the Middle East during 1950s when she was leading the Baghdad Pact and Middle East Defense Organization. So what makes people think that Turkey is different than before and closer to the East? The difference is the growing trade numbers and the interactions between Turkey and the Middle East countries. Turkey has enlarged his market enormously compared to the past and for now European Union countries are not the only buyers of Turkish products and services. Thus, Turkey is looking for a “zero problem” policy of stability and peace to further her economic relations with the East in a consistent way.

However I understand the concerns of the West about Turkey’s inclination to the East as the current Turkish government using an appropriate language and set of discourses to be engaged with the Middle East. As Jung tells in his article that Turkey was being perceived as a traitor in the region due to her Ottoman past of domination over Arabs and republican approach of adopting a secular system and redefining the role of Islam in the country. Today, Turkish government is seen as an Islam-oriented and conservative government with its proper set of behaviors and discourses. In addition, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan is seen as a hero in the region after his speeches about the Turkey-Israel confrontation. Nevertheless, unlike Friedman, I would say that Turkey is not aiming to join the Arab league and leave the West but to increase the benefit, maximize the capability and create a suitable atmosphere for healthy economic relations. It is certain that abandoning relations with European countries would not maximize the capabilities of Turkey.

To summarize, I firmly believe that Turkey’s efforts of maximizing her capabilities and increasing the number of alternatives to interact cannot be seen as an inclination to the East as Thomas Friedman suggested in his article. In my opinion, structural changes since the end of the Cold War resulted in a new form of relations where the regional alliances and actors became influent. Furthermore, Turkey seems to be discovering her new role in the region newly and trying to be more proactive compared to past. This policy needs a more peaceful environment that will result in more stable economic relations between the countries in the region. It is for certain that Turkey cannot not leave Europe and the West in a heartbeat as some huge part of her roots lies in that hemisphere with a serious engagement of economic and diplomatic relations. I underline that Turkey’s turning back to East is just a illusion of her maximizing benefits and alternatives based on increasing diplomatic and economic relations with the Middle Eastern countries.

CONFRONTATION OF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES

2011

“What does this have to do with understanding and solving real-world problems like Iraq and Afghanistan wars, international terrorism or nuclear proliferation?” is a probable reaction from a scholar who is interested in international relations (IR) in its own conventional boundaries to another scholar who is interested in international relations in a feminist perspective. It is obvious that feminism and IR have different study areas as former is concerned briefly about inequality in social relations and latter is concerned about a different topic which can be briefly understood in state-centric or structural grounds.

However, there are some number of feminist international theorists who are encouraged to integrate feminist approach to IR. Although several and mostly understandable criticisms are directed to these scholars, they are insisting that conventional methods of IR, like dominant masculine perspective or consequences of gender inequalities in IR issues, should be revised in favor of a more insightful and micro perspective understanding related to gender inequality. In this paper, you will find a general observation and criticism of feminism approach to IR study through the article “You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists” written by J. Ann Tickner.

It would be not fair and scientifically correct to summarize studies of international relations in a couple of sentences but to understand the reasons of misunderstanding and miscommunication between the mentioned two approaches we need to draw at least a brief picture. IR studies have a never-ending evolution process in itself due to the nature of topics it focuses on. In general, IR is an area that is intended to understand power relations between political actors in global and regional scales mostly in state-centric and structural grounds. The topics that are covered by IR are not very related to social relations of societies which can be seen as a micro sphere compared to IR’s macro level of study.

On the other hand, feminist approach, although there are several different ways of feminist perspectives, generally concentrates upon the inequalities in gender relations which are believed to be socially constructed. What feminist approach tries to achieve is the recognition and elimination of unequal gender relations and its social consequences. This way of understanding forms a progressive attitude in feminist perspective and it is sometimes resulted in a tendency towards normative rather than empirical approach which seems to be a different way compared to IR theorists’ efforts. Here two questions rise: What exactly are the IR feminists aiming for and for what reasons are their efforts disapproved by conventional IR scholars?

It is not difficult to guess that feminist IR scholars are not very much engaged with the conventional subjects of most IR scholars and that leads to misunderstandings and blocks the way of a healthy argumentation between the two sides. One of the issues feminist IR scholars concentrate is the masculine language and ways of behaving that is used in IR studies. They argue that socially constructed gender differences are parts of not only private life but also public life which is also an aspect of IR. According to them, masculine dominance in politics became an unquestionable characteristic and it practically and necessarily shows itself in women politicians’ way of masculine acting such as Margaret Thatcher and her “iron lady” label.

Feminist IR approaches seem to be useful in questioning fundamental masculine approaches in IR which can be seen in their criticism against Kant’s ethical understandings. Kant is dreaming of a rational and peaceful international community whereas there are no room for women to act as active participants. Despite the fact that today’s world is much more sensitive to gender issues compared to previous centuries, in my opinion it should be admitted that observing IR without being interested in gender related concerns is very much established until now. Even though questioning underlying facts of masculine thinking seems to be a sensible effort, it leads to a misunderstanding as if this sensitivity can ever be useful to expand the IR study.

In addition to questions above, there is also a difference in research methods between the two approaches. Due to the nature of power relations and ongoing soft or hard relations between states, conventional IR theorists use empirical methods such as causality, rationality and structural reasoning in universal and natural grounds. To show the difference Tickner writes: “While many feminists do see structural regularities, such as gender and patriarchy, they define them as socially constructed and variable across time, place and cultures rather than as universal and natural.” This way of thinking make conventional IR scholars argue that feminist IR theorists would not be suitable to engage with methods of observation that are used in IR study.

To show the differences between the two approaches, Tickner deepens her study in the subject of “security”. In contrast to conventional IR theorists’ perspectives on security in the basis of survival of states and international system, feminist approaches are focused on the individual and community level. They argue that the survival and rights of women in wars and security related issues are often overlooked and this issue should be questioned. As feminist IR theorists argue that militaries are seen as a guard against threats to the state and although it is an established thought that women and children should be protected by men of military, they make women dependent on men for the sake of security. “When analyzing political/military dimensions of security, feminists tend to focus on the consequences of what happens during wars rather than on their causes” Tickner underlines. It is obvious that there is a big fundamental difference in the way these two sides study.

Feminist IR theorists insist that gender analyses should be studied to better understand the IR as you can understand the system in a different way than before which is to observe lives of individuals that are effected by the global level interactions. Here my standing point is similar to conventional IR theorists’ way of thinking in the basis of irrelevance of these perspectives. I firmly believe that there are two points of evidence to show the ineffective confrontation of two sides. First one is that changing the conventional way of IR study in favor of a more sensitive gender related understanding cannot have a direct contribution to better observe power relations of international actors. Apart from the difficulties of changing the regular epistemology and ontology of conventional IR studies, a social relations sensitivity would not make an impact in today’s IR issues compared to the efforts to understand the behaviors of actors like states and organizations against each other in the large scale. Second, IR is generally a pragmatic and practical study which directly goes for defining, observing and questioning the practical issues which are the subjects of large scale events. I argue that feminist approach can better fit in an other social science as it cannot directly influence the large scale theories of international power relations.

To summarize, it is a fact that, as Tickner emphasizes through her article, feminist IR theorists and conventional IR scholars do no seem to be on the same pages concerning their works on the IR issues. While conventional IR scholars concentrate on the power relations on a large scale of states, systems and structures, feminist IR scholars study on a micro level of understanding which are mainly about masculine dominance in IR issues as a result of unequal gender relations that are socially constructed. This division leads to an unhealthy argumentation and misunderstandings between the two sides. In addition, a feminist scholar’s normative type of research and an IR scholar’s empirical type of research enlarges the gap. For the above mentioned reasons, I believe that feminist approach has a very difficult task to be integrated into conventional and very well established IR understanding which is aimed to discover not the social relations between individuals but a more pragmatic and practical way of thinking.

DIVISION OF IMPERIALISM

2010

It is believed that the word “imperialism” is derived from “imperium” which is a Roman concept of “power and control” in brief. It became a widespread word starting in the late 19th century with European Monarchs and their colonial actions until their collapses at the end of the World War I. What defines a state as imperial is her ability and capability to dominate other territories and lands. The term is used not only for the colonial or territorial policies but also military and economic influence and not necessarily a legal one. In this paper, you will find two similar but also different explanations of imperialism by two prominent thinkers of early 19th century: J. A. Hobson and V. I. Lenin. It is usually said that Lenin was influenced by Hobson but the motives they underline for imperialism are significantly different.

In his article, “The Economic Taproot of Imperialism”, J. A. Hobson discusses the driving force of imperialism which is, in brief, the seek for new markets as a result of unequal distribution of wealth and underconsumption. To explain the link between capitalism and imperialism, he shows the historical process of United Kingdom and other colonialists in 19th century. Until 1870, UK had great impact over a large part of the world, which are generally the Commonwealth countries, and she found it unnecessary to be “more imperial” before the entrance of United States, Belgium and Germany to the competition of external trade. These three countries made economic relations even with Commonwealth countries and as a result of decreasing number of trade numbers, there appeared a need for new markets for UK.

But the question is why these economically (and also militarily) powerful nations needed to trade abroad and sell their goods to foreign people instead of the using them in the domestic market? The answer lies in the accumulation of wealth among a few people and poverty among the rest as a result of the fundamentals of capitalism. As the surplus value made bourgeoisie wealthier, the concept of underconsumption occurred due to the fact that goods were not as purchasable as before for the masses. He writes: “The power of production far outstripped the actual rate of consumption, and, contrary to the older economic theory, was unable to force a corresponding increase of consumption by lowering prices”. So the motivation to sell their goods abroad makes capitalist countries act imperially to further their cycle of production.

Comparatively low wages of workers, accumulation of surplus capital and underconsumption as a result seem to be reasons for imperial powers but was not there any options other than influencing other territories with diplomacy or annexation? According to Hobson, in the imperialist view, the necessity of capturing foreign markets is a fatal one as if they do not, some other will do to export its goods. “Imperialism is thus seen to be, not a choice, but a necessity” he claims. It is a very simple definition: If your domestic market is not wealthy enough to purchase your goods, you are obliged to sell them abroad by annexing territories that are undeveloped and in need of your goods.

V. I. Lenin, who is said to be influenced by Hobson, explains the motives of imperialism with moving finance capital to other countries that are not among the richest. According to him, imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism and world’s leading countries are dominating others with the help of trusts and loans. Thanks to the support of the governments, capitalists invest abroad to escape the declining rates of profit in national territories. To conceptualize his arguments, he divides the history of capitalism into two: First one is exporting goods which characterizes the old type of capitalism and the second one is exporting capital which signifies the modern capitalism or imperialism in other words.

He argues that the roots for the movement of finance capital lies in the monopolies of the capitalist system. Free competition is the first rule of capitalism where individuals can compete with one another. But the result of free competition is an environment that makes rich people richer and poor people poorer due to mostly the surplus value of workers. Therefore, according to Lenin, free competition transforms into a monopoly of few which are looking for new markets instead of a drained domestic market. But instead of direct military or political control to sell goods or to create new markets, Lenin claims that new capitalism brings the movement of finance capital. Thus one monopoly gives loans to a poor country and make it granted that loaned money will be used for railways, coaling stations etc to be constructed by the monopoly. Lenin underlines that this is imperialism, the last and highest stage of capitalism where banking system and industrial capital merge together for more and more domination.

Both thinkers argue that the accumulation of wealth and power is the reason for imperialism but they differ in the way it is done. Hobson claims that great powers dominate the others to export their goods in new and untouched markets. The motive of selling goods, which are not purchased due to the low level of wealth, shapes a suitable ground for imperialism. On the other hand, Lenin’s arguments on imperialism is based on the flow of the finance capital. According to him, when the monopolies cannot find any space to invest in domestic realm, they look for other territories to loan money in exchange for granting the money to be spent in their favor such as a construction work of a railway. In addition to Hobson’s colonial assumption, Lenin underlines that these monopolies of great powers compete and divide the world into territories in the sake of their own imperial aims. “Monopoly has grown out of colonial policy. To the numerous “old” motives of colonial policy, finance capital has added the struggle for the sources of raw materials, for the export of capital, for spheres of influence” he summarizes.

There are two critical points, one for each, that I can present. First one is for Hobson, who thinks that the growing surplus value and accumulation of wealth is the reason for colonial intentions. Unlike countries like United Kingdom, United States or Germany, countries that are not industrially developed such as Italy can also have colonial purposes. It is clear that Italy did not have the same amount of surplus value like US or UK had and still they did colonization with other motives. My second point will not be like a critic but more an observation of process which Lenin discussed. As Lenin explains the mentioned process is a race between monopolies to financially dominate poor countries but in the recent decades his ideas are replaced by the relation between developed and underdeveloped countries or core and periphery which is a argument that conflict between developed countries are disappearing.

To sum up, both Hobson and Lenin draw a conception of imperialism with similar bases but different tools. They both claim that accumulation of power and wealth is the base. However, Hobson insists that imperialism is the way for great powers to sell their products which are not purchased in national territories. On the other hand, Lenin also sees imperialism as the next chapter of capitalism but in a different perspective. According to him, imperialism comes into life with the flow of finance capital into other countries that are not in monopoly class. Lenin emphasizes that merge of banking and industrial sectors helps monopolistic powers to invest in places other than impoverished national ones.

TURKISH FOREIGN POLICY IN THE EYES OF THE UNITED STATES

2010

On 28th of November 2010, Wikileaks, a voluntary organization that is aimed to reveal the secrets of governments to the public, started publishing documents of reports between US state officials, US bureaucrats and US embassies. Although it is active since 2007 and despite its successful revealing leaks on subjects like abuse and violation in Iraq and Afghanistan since then, no one (publicly and governmentally) discussed the organization’s efforts like that before. There are more than 250.000 documents to be published by Wikileaks and only a small portion of it was published since now which was enough to make a world-wide controversy. There are leaks from several US embassies in the world such as Madrid, Tel-Aviv or Buenos Aires but the Turkish Embassy of US in Ankara seems to be the Achilles’ heel as there are like 8.000 documents revealed from Ankara which is the biggest number among other embassies.

Throughout the published ones of 8.000 documents from Embassy Ankara, it can be seen that the aim of US officials in Ankara was to give an insight information of AKP government, bureaucrats and Turkey’s Foreign Policy approach to the US Secretary of State. There are some important comments about Turkish Foreign Policy in the documents, which are mainly focused on the arguable Neo-Ottoman posturing of Turkey based on her active diplomatic and economic efforts in the complex regions of Asia and Europe but especially in the Middle East. In this paper, I will evaluate a document written by Embassy Ankara on 20th January 2010 which is about Turkey’s recent foreign policy direction and its motivations.

To mention first, Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish Foreign Minister since May of 2009, is the leading figure in Turkey’s active foreign policy efforts. With his “zero-problem” policy, Turkey is looking for creating balance in the complicated atmosphere of Middle East. Turkish officials are aiming for a pivotal role in the region and for that reason they increased the frequencies of visits to Iraq, Iran, Syria and several Arab countries. Nevertheless the bounds with European Union and United States are not broken and as a result, one may say that Turkey is far from having a pure identity as she is stuck between West and East. However this complexity helps Turkey build a calculated value-maximizing effort in international relations. Simply, Middle East countries respect Turkey because of her link with the West and Western countries respect Turkey because of her link with the East.

In the article called 10ANKARA87, published by Wikileaks, the former US ambassador James Jeffrey draws not only a comprehensive but also a simple framework of the recent Turkish Foreign Policy in addition to possible complications for the US side. In the introduction part of his report, he emphasizes the emerging desire of Turkey to be independently proactive, supported with an Islamic orientation. He summarizes the recent appearance of Turkey which was mostly Western oriented in the past: “Does all this mean that the country is becoming more focused on the Islamist world and its Muslim tradition in its foreign policy? Absolutely. Does it mean that it is "abandoning" or wants to abandon its traditional Western orientation and willingness to cooperate with us? Absolutely not.”

In his report, Jeffrey writes about the recent disturbances of Turkish elites and European Union members about Turkey’s orientation toward the East and Islamization. According to Jeffrey’s hearings, Turkish elites seem to be disturbed of the possible drift from Western world and EU seems to be disturbed of being a part of AKP’s Christian vs Muslim or Europe vs Middle East separation campaign. However, Jeffrey never mentions about a disadvantage for US in this separation. Despite the fact that US never desires an Islam Republic in Turkey as their companionship is built upon the Western-oriented perspectives and institutions, Jeffrey welcomes the option of sharing responsibility of the region with Turkey. As a result, US does not react Turkey in a negative manner for using Islam as a tool or ideology as long as they stay strong enough to help Americans in the Middle East. However a loss of control, such as losing the air space or Incirlik base, would be unacceptable for US.

Furthermore, another aspect of the recent Turkey Foreign Policy that makes US uncomfortable is Turkey’s Neo-Ottoman posturing around the Middle East and the Balkans. There is a quote from Davutoglu’s thesis in the report: “the Balkans, Caucasus, and Middle East were all better off when under Ottoman control or influence; peace and progress prevailed. Alas the region has been ravaged by division and war ever since.” On the other hand, Jeffrey claims that despite her active foreign policy and economic growth, Turkey still does not have enough power to compete with the region’s leading states like US, Russia or Iran. According to him Turkey is in need of an underdog to call for a help from her and show her capabilities as a result. This is a very good observation and it should be added that until that time Turkey will still be in need of the protection and support of Western countries. Actually Jeffrey simply summarizes Turkey’s condition with a metaphor and describe Turkey as a Rover with Rolls Royce dreams.

What US really wants from Turkey, apart from calming down the tension with Israel, is to draw Syria from Iran and begin achieving practical results, not just phone calls and conversations. Turkey is in calm relations with Iran and not opposing her strictly due to the nuclear power issue makes Turkey the only major country that is in friendly discussion with Iran. In return, US expects from Turkey to benefit from this positive relationship and be more demanding from Iran in Security Council meetings, to stop her nuclear progress.

To sum up, it is obvious that the changing direction of the Turkish Foreign Policy is being carefully observed by the US officials. Their arguments are mostly reasonable and it seems that US will not be interfering in Turkey’s turning back to East, whether in a Neo-Ottoman posturing or not, as long as they do not let go of the Western traditions and companionship of US, which is not a rational choice by the way. Actually, James Jeffrey summarizes Turkey’s situation very well: “Turkey will remain a complicated blend of world class "Western" institutions, competencies, and orientation, and Middle Eastern culture and religion.”

CLOSER LOOK AT THE MISSILE SHIELD

2010

During his way to the Lisbon, where the NATO summit was going to take place, Turkish President Abdullah Gül shared his opinion with the reporters: “Outcomes of the Lisbon (summit) will determine the 10-15 years of NATO agenda.” During the meeting on 19th and 20th November, the most important decision, along with the efforts of expanding NATO-EU security collaboration in the sense of involving non-EU European countries, was the plantation of a missile shield in Europe and radar probably in Turkish territory. After this historic decision, there are now some questions on the table: Who is this shield for? Who will control it? Will it protect enough in exchange for that much investment? What are the benefits for Turkey?

Obviously, preventing Iran’s possible aggressive behaviors in the region is the primary aim to build the shield. Russia is another country that has the missile technology but as she is declared a companion of NATO, nobody puts her name next to Iran. Before and during the summit, due to her zero problem policy with neighbours, Turkey underlined the sensitivity of not to speak out any name of any country that can be the objective for the shield. Except an individual effort by the French president Sarkozy, every member country shared Turkey’s perception and as a result Turkey escaped a possible outpost role in the favor of US against Iran or Russia.

After the end of the Cold War, it was a popular thought that NATO was over as it had lost its objective following the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, it maintained its existence, this time against new threats like terrorist organizations, cyber attacks and aggressive states. The theories that NATO is an organization that executes the interests of US still have an heavy impact on the public opinion and this situation makes people wonder if the shield technology in Turkish territory would be controlled by US officials. According to the decisions taken in the summit, the responsibility will be shared by the NATO members equally.

In May 2010, two important physicians from MIT claimed that missile shield is a military myth as it cannot catch a nuclear missile with high success rate. They supported their arguments with the official reports published by the Pentagon which were about testing the related shield. During the tests, only 1 or 2 out of 10 missiles were hit by the shield and there had never been a real nuclear missile used in these practices. On the contrary, it is obvious that expectancy for the shield to be fully successful will be high since there will a large sum of money to be invested in the project. According to the plans, each NATO member, including the post-economic crisis states of EU, is going to give 200 million dollars each for the next ten years. However, there are rumours that the price will be higher, given that a similar US project cost for 45 billion dollars.

Everything about the missile shield issue resulted fine for Turkish officials’ side during the summit. Firstly, Turkey’s sensitivity about not to mention Iran as the shield’s objective was shared by all the members. Also, the change of missile shield coverage from East Europe to Turkey and whole Europe was a lucky and maybe a deserved move due to her positive foreign policy steps during the last couple of years. Furthermore, since there was a preparation of a Turkish missile shield for the upcoming years, the NATO project can be a chance to reduce the costs of this national one. Finally, possessing a shield project, although under the common control of members, would be a prestigious role for Turkey if correctly exercised.

To sum up, it is obvious that the decision to plant a missile shield in Europe is a chance for NATO to regenerate its influence following end of the Cold War. Although there are question marks against its high costs and ability to hit the target, still it is an important effort to form a security area over Turkey and European region. Additionally, the summit can be written as a success for Turkey as they persuaded all the members about the sensitivity not to mention Iran as an objective for the shield and they gained a chance to achieve an influential role due to their active involvement in the process.

HISTORICAL MATERIALISM AND CLASS DIVISION

2010

Although he lived throughout the 18th century (1818 - 1883), Karl Marx is such a central figure of philosophical discussions even today due to his works’ specifications in different areas such as economy, politics and sociology and also his ability to embrace even today’s economical and social conditions. It would be unfair to Marx just to focus on his practical roadmaps and revolution convictions for proletariat class and also some may argue that rise and shine of capitalism in 20th and 21st centuries is crucial to make it possible for us to still discuss him today as deep as it can be. Obviously Marx’ writings are more than the practical roadmaps or analyses of capitalist regimes. He shows us the nature of class division throughout the history of mankind and explains the reasons of its economical, political and social consequences.

To explain the stratification of structures in society, Marx focuses on the mode of production understanding in the capitalist political economy. He gets help from the historical process to show the materialistic relations between the agents of the society and justifies the inevitability of different forms of class struggle throughout the history. According to him the reason for this structural division is the property owning where the productive power of human which separates him from an animal becomes a burden for mankind through alienation to his own labor. In this paper I will try to emphasize his understandings of mode of production and material relations through highlighting historical materialism, the causality of the structural relations, importance of production as a tool for human to identify himself and his nature’s decay of means as a livelihood. Moreover, definitions and revelations of concepts like division of labor, extraction of surplus value and alienation should be fully understood to master his works on mode of production and material relations.

The term “relations of production” refers to the relationship between two classes: those who possess the means of production that are capitalists or bourgeoisie and those who do not that are workers or the proletariat. Capitalism, which constantly urges these two classes to realize the existing conditions, is constructed on the scale of ownership of the means of production. In brief, owner of the capital (like factories and machines) tries to keep his conditions as well as possible to stand straight in the competitive market and extract as much labor as possible from the workers to do so. In return workers continue to produce labor in conditions offered by the capital owners which are serving the employers’ interests in the market. Yet, workers feel obliged to be integrated to this cycle to maintain their status-quo and be able to stay alive. As a result of the never-ending competition in the market, this structural division continues and the gap between these two classes gets bigger and bigger which eventually, in Marx’ assumptions, will bring the revolution of proletariat.

To understand the material relations between these two classes, we should first be familiar with Marx’ historical materialism conception and his links with German philosopher Hegel. Like Hegel, Marx also supports the reality of clashes between opposing forces through a dialectic relation. However Marx differs from Hegel in the shape of dialectic relations. Hegel believes in the idealism of a true reality that the world we live in is a world of appearances where the material world of the ideals prevents us from the “real” world. He points out the spirit of time; “zeitgeist” as he defines that shapes the structures, economical and material relations. On the contrary, Marx turns Hegel upside down and underlines that it is the economical and material relations that shape the history. According to Marx specific ideologies and conditions prevents people from seeing the material beings of their lives clearly.

This causal relationship can also be figured out with the help of base and superstructure concept of Marx. According to him, social positioning of agents and structures is a result of the characteristics of the “base”. Here, base is the determinant concept that is related to material relations and ownership habits of society. Thus, the superstructure is the total of political, ideological and legal forms that are created autonomously by the base to complete the cycle of relations. That can again bring us to his understanding of causality which separates him from Hegel that it is not the superstructure that creates the base and it is not the spirit of time or existing structures that shape the material relations. Therefore, it is the presence of property ownership, profit-maximizing and their consequence of material conditions that create structures of political and legal forms. In addition this formulation of elements comes from an habitual characteristic of history which repeats itself again and again in different forms but in similar ends.

Marx’ concept of materialism is much related to the history of human being as one can see that the relations, especially the economic relations, among the human beings have always been a determinant force in the development of history. In the early forms of co-operation between men the creation of basic materials to satisfy the needs and the co-operation between the individuals are minimal, but important points to explain are the birth of material relations and division of labor. What one should realize is that division of labor starts from the early forms of family life as husband dominates wife where woman is supposed to feed children and man is supposed to bring food to the table. Along with this, the condition to satisfy material needs creates a consciousness of material connectedness. So the material activity and becomes the dominant determinant in individual’s life where the society and its structures are also affected fundamentally.

Evidently this history of materialism is not bounded with the contemporary ideology of capitalism. Throughout the history, society is shaped by the forces and relations of individuals in the aspects of owning materials and means of production. Again Marx’ assumption of “base”, the economic structures and relations, is the core of the foundations of every society existed in the history. Naturally every type of society has its own particular set of rules, material relations and structures and as a result own set of classes. He underlines “… a certain mode of production, or industrial stage, is always combined with a certain mode of co-operation, or social stage, and this mode of co-operation is itself a ‘productive force”. Long before capitalism, tribal society offered its members a natural division of labor where primitive economic actions were hunting and gathering. Then the communal ownership came in which master and slave relationship occurred in the basis of owning property and not owning it. Next one, the prominent type of system before capitalism, was feudalism in which the material difference between the agents was whether they owned a land or dug a land. Apart from powerful man of faith whose strength came from the religion, two main actors were landowners and their peasants that were determined by their possession of goods. In each form, social structures and division of society were formed by the material relations.

Marx continues to explain the ongoing historical process of materialistic relations and its consequence of segregated society with the example of capitalism. In his projection, capitalism is the last class-based system before the classless systems of socialism and communism. To further his explanations on capitalism and reasons of class division, we should look at the mode of production which brings us to division of labor, extraction of surplus value and alienation of labor. The most significant correlation he draws here is the inversely correlated relation between the worker’s misery and his size of production. According to Marx, human-being is capable of making or shaping his own nature to some extent which separates him from animal-being. That capability is the power to produce things for himself or for others in need and as a result to realize himself. In German Ideology, he says 'Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organization.' However, capitalist system of economy diverts mankind’s ability to produce and its entity through a process of its own. Marx calls the result of this process as alienation and argues that the labor which human-being identifies himself with becomes a miserable commodity of others than himself.

Here we can further the correlation mentioned above and say that the devaluation of human value increases in direct relation with the increase in the value of the world of things/materials. In this system, workers are forced to make more labor as their employers push them to race in the competitive market. As much as workers produce, the world of materials becomes more dominant and as long as they work and spend their time producing they have less time to consume things they had produced. The result is they become unfamiliar and distant to what they produce. The labor of men develops into an object, an external thing which outside of them and alien to them. As a consequence of the capitalist system, the labor of product man produces belongs to other people, not to himself. Eventually the term “private property” turns into a thing that is different from the ancient times in which you own where you dig. According to Marx, property becomes a burden for workers that they produce but do not possess and this process would lead to revolution of proletariat. But before that, we should also know the other class that is supposed experience revolution: Bourgeoisie.

Again, it should be remembered that the division between bourgeoisie and proletariat is a result of the rule of mode of production. If you own the capitals like factories, machines and other stuff to keep workers produce, you become the class which dominates the proletariat. If you produce goods and in turn face a bunch of conditions that develop your labor, which identifies you, into an alienated thing outside of yourself, then you are a part of the proletariat class. But how does this distinction happen and grow between these two classes? The commodity, which is the result of labor, takes place in the market and meets the demands of consumers. People sell a commodity or labor and buy another commodity to satisfy their needs. On the other hand, capitalist class has a different agenda which is not only to satisfy needs with purchasing commodities but to accumulate money to acquire more of it. For this purpose, they use their power to set wages and working hours to extract the greatest amount of labor from workers at the lowest possible cost and to sell the products of workers at a higher price than they are paid for to produce. Rather than buying or selling the product in its real value, they extract a surplus value from laborers. This is because neither of the workers produces a whole part of product on himself but produce some of it and never have a right to buy it for the same price they create.

The roadmap for proletariat that Marx presents, which is also inevitable according to him, is simple: Revolution. However he explains the reasons for the revolution and the circumstances that proletariat will experience until the end, not the instructions for “how to accomplish a revolution”. As he argues that division of society into classes is a result of material relations in historical process, the change in economic structures, again, will lead a revolution, this time by the proletariat. In long term, richness of bourgeoisie and poverty of proletariat will reach maximum levels and because of extreme level of production, investment and trade, capitalism will go into a big crisis. The critical point here is for proletariat to gain a class consciousness that they were oppressed by the bourgeoisie and their realization was diminished in the hands of this dominant class. Other step will be to unify and make a violent proletariat revolution. Eventually, private property will be abolished and economic structures like means and modes of production will be reshaped which will lead to a new social structure and system called socialism. Along with the reshaped economic and social structures, there will also be a change in the political structures and socialism will evolve to communism. When we look at the big picture, we can see that the transformation in the society will be a result of change in the economic structures.

There are many counter-arguments against Marx, and some of them concentrate on his predictions on the revolution from capitalism to communism. It is logical enough to question his argument on the transformation as there has been more than a century and capitalism still stands as strong as before. His urge on the awareness of proletariat class consciousness seem like a far possibility since the division between bourgeoisie and proletariat does not seem as extreme as he foresees. Or let’s say that the propaganda made by capitalist class, with the help of the legal grounds they support as a result of the base-superstructure relation, prevent proletariat to feel that much oppressed. But the reality is that there is also a class of petit-bourgeoisie who is close to the dominant capitalist class but distant from the proletariat. Also no need to mention about the middle class people, which constitutes a large group of people today, that are to be again stuck between the two. It can be propaganda of capitalist class to give hope to every man that one day they also can be a bourgeoisie class member but the reality stands out there that there are some other classes between bourgeoisie and proletariat.

To sum up, it is crucial to understand historical relations between the agents of the society. According to Marx, those relations were always built upon the material correlations and clashes between opposing forces. As I mentioned above, Hegel’s concept of dialectic idealism is turned upside down by Marx as dialectic materialism that conditions we experience and structures we live in are products of material and economic relations. All this has happened before but in different shapes and understandings like tribal, communal and feudal systems. For Marx, labor is a value for man-beings with which they can define and realize themselves. However, with the help of capitalism and its propagandist habits, capital owners oppress workers and extract the surplus value of their work which results as an alienation of workers to their labor. This loss of consciousness by workers forces the proletariat to stay poor and the bourgeoisie to become rich. Yet, some day this ongoing division of wealth will become a burden for the capitalists and system will collapse in the end with the violent revolution of enlightened proletariat class. Eventually, base and superstructure relation will change also as the base, which is determined by the economic relations, will affect the superstructure, which is the political and ideological form in the society, in a way different than the previous systems. All this, according to Marx, can be real with a better understanding of historical materialism concept and the mode of production habits in the society.


Bibliography

Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Middlesex, The Echo Library, 2009.

Henry Ward. Introduction to Dialectical Logic. Bucharest, Editura Academiei, 1975.

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. The German Ideology. New York, International Publishers, 2004

Louis Althusser. For Marx. London, Verso, 2005

Karl Marx. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1977

Harold Joseph Berman. Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1983

David W. Lovell. From Marx to Lenin. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009

Ken Morrison. Marx, Durkheim, Weber. London, Sage Publications, 2006

Michael Löwy. The Theory of Revolution in the Young Marx. Chicago, Haymarket Books, 2005

REALITIES BEYOND OPTIMISM

2010

On 9th of November 2010, The European Commission published the progress report of Turkey and it seems that despite the optimistic atmosphere that is created by Turkey’s Chief Negotiator Egemen Bagis afterwards the publish, Turkey still needs a lot of time and effort to be accepted by European Union as a full member. Although nobody can ignore the fair progress that was succeeded by Turkish officials in certain areas (which is also underlined in the progress report of 2010), the two certain issues are on the table to be resolved: Full implantation of the Customs Union obligations with the EU and the progress towards the normalization of relations with Cyprus.

The first statement after the publish of progress report came from the Chief Negotiator Egemen Bagis: “This progress report is far more better than the one in 2009 which was the most positive report until that time. Now we can get the smell of EU membership.” It is pretty normal to hear such a statement from Egemen Bagis who is a dynamic and optimistic negotiator. But what needs to be done is to carefully examine the picture taken by the European Commission on behalf of the further progress that should be realized by Turkey. Yet, the tricky part is when you attempt to write down the pros and cons highlighted in the 2010 report, you see that, in nearly all lines, there has been a progress which is not sufficient enough.

According to the report, the political criteria is being sufficiently fulfilled by Turkey; thanks to the progress in public administration alongside with judiciary and fundamental rights with the approval of constitutional amendments in a referendum in 12th of September. Still, more efforts are needed on areas such as freedom of media and minority rights (fail of democratic opening for Kurdish people are emphasized). Moreover, in the economical aspects, growing market economy is praised in the report in spite of the continuing unemployment problem and external imbalances. Also the report shows that some laws and regulations that are to be aligned with EU’s are accomplished such as the State Aid Law which is a step towards the negotiations in the area of competition. Nevertheless, several number of developments are required in areas such as fisheries, social policies, justice and home affairs.

Beyond all these pros, cons and statements of “almost successful but not sufficient”, two crucial issues still stand in front of the EU membership of Turkey: First is the need for fully implementing the Customs Union obligations which in brief a large number of obstacles to be removed affecting EU products that are in free circulation. Second is the relations with Cyprus which in brief enabling direct transport links and allowing the free movement of goods with the island. Furthermore, the normalization of relations with Cyprus is vital as, in practical sense, the EU membership of Cyprus enables it to possibly object to the membership of Turkey.

Eventually, it should be remembered that only 13 of possible 33 acquis chapters of negotiations are opened and only one of them is closed. Nobody expects from Turkey to close all the chapters in the blink of an eye but if somebody is to get a smell of hope, he should be close to the table. No offense to the optimistic stance of Egemen Bagis but Commissioner Füle’s statements are also important as the demanding side is Turkey in this game: “Despite the progress in 2009, we are concerned that Turkey’s accession process is losing its momentum. The key to changing this is primarily with Turkey, which is expected to fully implement its current contractual relations with the EU –Customs Union- before it can gear up to full membership of the Union.”

LESS THAN A WIN-WIN IN AKKUYU

2010

Turkey’s foreign affair officials certainly have an agenda of short and long term plans. For now the foremost countries to be in concern and correlation are most probably United States, Iraq and Israel. Then comes European Union countries and Iran but certainly Russia is not among those first five. However, things may change in the future when the Russia-owned nuclear reactor in Turkey becomes real.

It was published in the Turkish Official Journal on 6th of October 2010 that Turkish and Russian officials sealed the deal for a nuclear reactor to be constructed in Akkuyu/Turkey by a joint stock of Russian companies that are to be agreed on in the near future. It is known that nuclear energy comes with its advantages and disadvantages but the details of the agreement bring more things to be concerned about.

According to the agreement, the Russian corporation is going to finish building the reactor and start the commercial activities in 10 years. What is catchy here is that Russians will hold all the rights and commercial shares of the reactor as long as it stands. It is reported that Russians are planning to sell the 49% of the shares to anyone interested but not one bit more. Also Turkey committed itself to purchase some large part of the electricity made by the Russian reactor for 15 years. According to the Union of Turkish Electrical Engineers, the construction of the reactor will not cost as cheap as it is predicted. Besides it will be more expensive to purchase electricity in a package for 15 years alongside its possible dependency effect.

Obviously nuclear power comes with a need of technical know-how and Turkey doesn’t have that. This inability would cost one way or another and Turkish officials chose a way in which Russia will play a major part. Although possessing a nuclear reactor is a nearly “must” for the regional power candidates in Middle East, it may be less than a win-win situation for Turkey. Before the commercial-related articles and their numerical details in the agreement, one can think the possibility of Turkey’s increasing dependency on Russia which also provides most of the natural gas need of Turkey. It is quite satirical when one can see that nuclear power is a way for its owners to be less dependent on other energy providers.

It is interesting that Russia also have plans to build a nuclear reactor in Venezuela which seems very similar to the Turkish plan. This may bring us to the point that Russians may not be planning only commercial activity with the nuclear know-how they own. When we think of the geopolitical standings of Turkey and Venezuela, it would be naïve to see the ongoing process only in commercial framework. As a result, it can be concluded that it may be prestigious and intimidating for Turkey in the future to have a nuclear reactor in their own land for the existing regional power conflict and but it is a more “win” in the Russian side if that is a win-win situation.

ACTING ACCORDINGLY AND THROUGH IMPROVISATION

2010

In the spring of 2010, Ibrahim Tatlises, a famous Turkish singer and showman, signed an agreement of a construction project in Erbil, Iraq. Tatlises will be investing in this project with a share of 50% and 70.000 houses will be built at the end of it. Tatlises is not only a singer in his hometown but also a businessman with his investments in sectors like food, clothing and broadcasting. But that’s not the case. The case is not the investment of a Turkish singer in Iraq. This micro example is only a shiny part of the increasing Turkish investment in Iraq and mostly in Kurdish Regional Government in Northern Iraq.

According to the regional administration in Northern Iraq, 730 out of 1,217 foreign companies in Iraq (mostly in Arbil, Sulaymaniyah and Duhok) are Turkish investments. A large portion of these companies are from construction and trade sectors which briefly signals the needs of the post-war Iraqi society. Also the trade numbers show the importance of Turkish goods in the region. There is a 6 billion dollars of trade between two countries and 5,2 billion of it is Turkey’s exports which are generally textile and ready-wear goods.

It is obvious that both these countries make profits from this cooperation. Turkey is now the most important importer for Iraq with a rate of 25% and this cooperation helps Turkey to continue its ongoing positive domestic economic atmosphere. On the other hand, Iraq severely needs huge and various investments due to its devastated post-war conditions and Turkey is one of the biggest contributors. Moreover, this transaction also helps Iraq build a more stable state. Turkey has a policy of “zero problem with neighbors” and Turkish state officials are very keen to give hand to Iraqi people for a stable, reliable and peaceful environment in their South Eastern region. But the most crucial point here is that Turkey is becoming a prominent actor in the Middle East region as a result of this cooperation.

According to the theories, after the withdrawal of US troops through the end of the 2011 there will be a power gap in Iraq. Shias, Sunnis and Kurds are the most influential groups in the country. After the withdrawal, Shias might be looking for support from Iran and Sunnis from the Arab world. It seems that Turkey is the most suitable candidate for the “brother” role for Kurds and the ongoing economic cooperation is also a way for building an increasing level of understanding for further cooperation between these two neighbors. Turkish state officials shows their good intentions by opening up new consulships in Iraq and this means another step for the development of good relations between the two sides.

The Turkish Businessman’s Association (TBA) seems to be sharing and maintaining this ambition. In April 2010, the members of the association met with Mesud Barzani, the president of the Kurdish Regional Government. After the meeting, Umit Boyner, president of TBA, pointed out the importance of the relationship between the two countries: “Legal and political environment along with the investment conditions of the region are noteworthy for us. The integrity of this country is precious to Turkey." It seems that all the actors in the stage are performing their actings according to the script and good news is that they also know how to improvise. Even a Turkish singer knows where to invest and this means more than it seems for the future actings in the region.

REVIEW OF BENEDICT ANDERSON’S “UNDER THREE FLAGS”

2010

Introduction

Benedict Anderson’s “Under Three Flags” provides an extensive historical research on world politics in the aspects of anti-colonialism and international anarchism. Although there is a flag of Philippines’ on the cover page of the book and the content of it can be thought as it is about anti-colonialism in Philippines mainly, in my opinion it is clear that the writer’s intention is to show the links between several anti-colonist and patriotic leaders or thinkers from all around the world. Anderson’s choice of showing links between these people actually creates a complex perspective which sometimes makes reader impatient about the main theme for anarchism and anti-colonial arguments. But in my opinion, his main argument is not to give a lecture about the independence history of the Philippines but to show the complicated intercontinental networks that identify the age of early globalization (Anderson 2005, p. 233).

Throughout this paper, you will first find a brief summary of the mentioned book as it is predictably significant to understand the main points of the writer’s arguments after being aware of what is going on between the lines. After the summary I will set a critical discussion about the related intercontinental links between several important political thinkers from all around the globe and their simultaneous actions for revolution. “Under Three Flags” tells the story of complex intellectual interactions of young Filipinos with the European experimentalists of Paris, militant anarchists of Spain, France, Italy and the Americas, armed protestants of Cuba and anti-imperialist volunteers of China and Japan. Anderson presents a book to be carefully read as it gives reader a much broader and complex written history of the 19th century Philippines than a conventional historical knowledge of ours.

Summary of the Book and the Related Period

The visible theme of the “Under Three Flags” is the study of Filipino national hero Jose Rizal in the sense of his popular novel named “El Filibusterismo” and his international connections. More than that, there is a surrounding theme of linkages between Filipino, Cuban and European anarchists and anti-colonialists and the remarkable intertwining of art, literature and politics which I will be exploring in the upcoming paragraphs. But before that, it would be better to mention about the main Filipino characters in the book that are Jose Rizal, Isabelo de los Reyes and Mariano Ponce. Following, there will be a brief summary of Rizal’s life and his influence on the anti-colonial atmosphere of Philippines. Lastly in this section you can find a summary of the ongoing events through the chapters of the book.

Isabelo de los Reyes, lived between 1864 and 1938, a polemical journalist and pioneering folklorist of Filipino identity, shows a different character compared to Rizal with 27 children whereas Rizal had none. Of course the number of children one has does not show anything scientific, but the way he looks at life reflects his energetic and anarchist-inflected character where he shows a greater desire for action than Jose Rizal who displays a comparatively modest nature. Before going to Europe in 1897 and experiencing the chains and tortures in Montjuich prison in Barcelona due to his involvement in anti-colonial action against Spain, Reyes was an active journalist in his mainland and he was receiving letters, magazines and texts from European academics and folklorists where he was developing his nationalistic perception (Anderson 2005, p. 27). Another substantial points in his life are his foundation of “El Ilocano” in 1889, the first vernacular newspaper in Philippines and his broad researches on Philippines history and culture.

Mariano Ponce, lived between 1863 and 1918, is a coordinating organizer of the anti-colonial movement in Philippines. He was among the founders and contributors of La Solidaridad, an organization to advocate the Filipino cause in the Spain and a newspaper to influence the Filipinos at the same time. He was one of the prominent emissaries during and after the Philippines revolution (Anderson 2005, p. 207) as he was appointed as a diplomatic representative of the revolutionary government to Japan to earn their support. Ponce had a great calmness and modesty which are significant abilities to stand for his nation against other countries.

Jose Rizal, lived between 1861 and 1896, is one of the greatest novelists of the Philippines literature and also a central figure for the Filipino revolution of his country against the colonial power of Spain. In my opinion, his perception on the politics cannot be described fairly without giving credit to his two popular books, “Noli me Tangere” and “El Filibusterismo”. Still, before discussing his books, it is worth having a look at his life, particularly the time he lived in Europe.

European way of life and European novelists, thinkers and activists play a huge role in Rizal’s perspective. He left his country for Europe in 1882 and stayed in Spain, France, Germany, England and Belgium for nearly ten years. He made European friends among political thinkers and journalists and thus witnessed the emerging new ideas of the continent which led him to write his controversial novels to become a famous Filipino (Anderson 2005, p. 28). In his stay in Europe, there were three angles to influence his way of thinking which were firstly the political system of Europe dominated by German Chancellor Bismarck, secondly the ongoing assassinations and anarchism in the continent and thirdly the colonial power of the time, Spain. What is important here is the change of Rizal into a patriot, a “filibustero”, after reading Antonio de Morga and his historical research on Spain and its colonial past. Rizal’s second book, El filibusterismo, clearly shows the rise in his determination to help his country earn his independence (Anderson 2005, p. 96).

To start with, it should be remembered that Rizal’s two novels are both serious critiques of colonialism although there is a more than tiny difference between the two. While almost all events in “Noli me Tangere” occur within Philippines, “El filibusterismo” takes place in many countries like Cuba, Germany, Egypt, Russia, France, China and Japan. As Anderson describes the latter one as “probably the first incendiary anti-colonial novel written by a colonial subject outside Europe” (Anderson 2005, p. 6), he also adds that “if Noli me Tangere was targeted at multiple audiences in Europe and the Philippines, El filibusterismo was meant only for the latter” (Anderson 2005, p. 103). This coincides with the condition that Rizal was feeling more patriotic for Philippines while writing El filibusterismo due to his accumulated knowledge about anti-colonialism and nationalism in his long stay in Europe. Though, his grievance was not only for the colonist Spain but also for the corrupted clergy in his homeland.

Along with Reyes, Ponce and Rizal; Anderson touches many thinkers, activists, journalists in “Under Three Flags” and shows a good example of the early globalization effect of this particular time in the anti-colonization and anarchism aspects. After a brief prologue, the second chapter is mainly about a contrast of Isabelo Reyes to Jose Rizal and Rizal’s library which is to be traced for El filibusterismo. In the third chapter Anderson puts a framework of the spaces Rizal had been in Europe like the powerful Germany, the atmosphere of anarchism and the colonial Spain. He again shows evidences of influence like his collaboration with journalist Marcelo de Pilar and “La Solidaridad” that is highly effective in Rizal’s writings.

In the fourth chapter, Anderson takes readers to the last four years of Rizal in his homeland and his execution, which is basically after the publication of El filibusterismo in 1891. His transitions from Hong Kong to Borneo, from Manila to Dapitan, from Manila again to Barcelona and lastly to Manila where he is imprisoned and executed by the colonial Spanish officers which actually, as a whole, displays a depiction of struggle for the purpose of Filipino independence. One way or another Rizal served his country even after his death when his execution made a national martyr in Philippines which made it convenient for revolutionary movement to be broader and more effective (Anderson 2005, p. 164).

In the last chapter, main discussion is about several events sometime after Rizal’s death, such as the radicalization of Europe, assassination of Spanish Prime Minister Canovas and the end of colonial power of Spain, anti-colonial efforts in Philippines and rise of revolutionary ideas in Japan and China. Other than those, Anderson highlights particularly three people in this part which are firstly Mariano Ponce as he is the leading actor of revolutionary Filipinos in creating a network of public opinion internationally. Second one is Isabelo del Reyes whose prison experience and return back to Spain as a politician takes some part in the last chapter. The last one is Rizal's Japanese friend Suehiro Tettyo, who has a novel about Rizal's experiences.

Critical Discussion

The main argument of Benedict Anderson, in my opinion, is to show readers that ideas and events happening around the same time can have an impact on other people and countries due to the international travel and communication opportunities. Anderson himself accepts his work as a political astronomy where he describes it as “an attempt to map the gravitational force of anarchism between militant nationalisms on opposite sides of the planet.” (Anderson 2005, p. 2) While he is studying the second novel of Rizal, “El filibusterismo”, he expects the patience of the readers as understanding the infrastructure of the novel brings a complicated interconnection between Spain, France, Italy, Russia, the Caribbean, the United States and the Philippines (Anderson 2005, p. 56).

The complicated interconnection of different thinkers, journalists and activists from different nationalities around the world already makes a dazzling story. This brings us to accumulation and transition of anarchist and nationalistic approach between different colonized and oppressed countries which is the main subject for the book. But also there is a thing that I doubt about as if it is a coincidence of the universe or a result of the interconnections in the long period: “El filibusterismo was printed in 1891 in Ghent, only forty miles from Ostend where, in 1888, James Ensor had finished his anarchist-revolutionary painting ‘Christ’s Entry into Brussels’.” (Anderson 2005, p. 45) In a time when anarchism was getting popular newly, it may be both a nice coincidence and a solid proof for the transition of knowledge among people.

One way or another, new technologies such as the invention of the telegram, developing postal systems and railway networks made this “early globalization” possible. The simultaneous revolutionary actions in Philippines and Cuba proves this as Cuba, the last nationalist movement in the New World, and the Philippines, the first in Asia, had connections in individual level and to some extent had coordinated interactions and so they experienced the taste of independence in a very similar time (Anderson 2005, p. 2). They, the Filipinos, also found allies in European countries to exchange the ideas and gain public support. This, in some way, was a way to learn how to revolt and stand against colonial powers. What is not surprising is Rizal’s or Reyes’ choice of using a foreign language in their books or journals other than their native one to create a public opinion and recognition outside their country.

In “Under Three Flags”, it is not discussed in details very much but Anderson makes a comparison between Philippines’ national hero Jose Rizal and Cuba’s national hero Jose Marti. He states the comparison as “illuminating” (Anderson 2005, p. 131) and sets their similarities and differences in a couple of paragraphs. What is most visible is the common language they use, Spanish. Perhaps it is a success for Rizal to write in Spanish, not in his native language as he thus had the chance to create a common sphere for both countries that were colonized by Spain.

Actually, the final chapter of the book can be the most extensive among others in the aspect of showing intercontinental links before and after the uprisings. Anderson touches a lot of thinker, journalist or politician to emphasize the role of connections among individuals and its consequences. Fernando Tarrida, Georges Clemenceau, Louise Michel, Ramon Betances, Emile Zola, Michelle Angiolillo and Suehiro Tettyo are some of the names that are mentioned while highlighting presence of knowledge transition globally.

Conclusion

“Under Three Flags” can be seen as a research book about the independence history of 19th century Philippines or as a book of anarchism and its brief history in the aspect of Filipinos. These are not wrong assumptions but they are lacking in depth. Anderson gives readers a more than just the history of Philippines and their national heroes. Reading about the the national Filipino hero, Jose Rizal, is very exciting but it is not exciting because of the number of days he stayed in prison or his escape from one city to another. It is exciting because the writer shows the readers that Jose Rizal would not be “Jose Rizal” unless he lived in the challenging atmosphere of Europe in the right time and unless he met with right persons that made him think and write about the anti-colonial, anti-imperialist and nationalistic thoughts.

It is the power of intercontinental links between individuals of journalists, activists, thinkers, leaders etc. With the help of developing technologies of transportation and communication, many thinkers of that time experienced the early globalization of the world with the purpose of independence and anti-colonialism. In my opinion, the mentioned world of multiple and overlapping events and transitions creates a complex philosophy that makes it difficult for the reader to categorize the figures as a nationalist or a anarchist or a anti-colonist. What is important in this book is the impressing linkages and coincidences between thinkers from different parts of the world that help revolutionary movements come to life.

Bibliography

Anderson, Benedict. Under Three Flags: Anarchism and the Anti-Colonial Imagination. 2005. Pasig City: Anvil, 2006.

HAND-MADE SUPERIORITY

2010

“Bismillahirrahmanirrahim (Beginning with the name of God)”. That, starting the essay with calling the name of God, may sound a bit unusual for those who expect a more or less academic paper. But in my humble opinion, it will most probably attract attention while criticizing New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and his essay named “One Country, Two Worlds”. Friedman, as a very good writer in the meaning of drawing readers’ attention with a smooth and remarkable bunch of words, is likely to be mistaken to state his arguments on globalization by using a politically incorrect and practically unacceptable language and perspective in the mentioned article. In this paper, I will discuss how he is incorrect in his perceptions that he oversimplified and generalized Egyptian people and their traditions while making a comparison of them with Western traditions and as a result forming an imaginary Western superiority.

He starts the column with two images that grabbed his attention during his visit in Egypt. One is “the cell-phone symphony” as he calls, which happens in a train riding from Cairo to Alexandria. He underlines his discomfort with ringing phones and people talking with them. For me it is a bit ridiculous as cell-phones may be ringing publicly in every country and Europe as well and additionally people carry cell-phones in order to use them outside of their home. I seriously think that this perception is a way of lowering Egyptian and so-called Eastern portrait. Then he sees some Egyptian villagers from the train using old-style tools to work on their fields and makes a comparison between this and the technological cell-phone symphony. The fact is that it is probably more practical and cheaper to use tools that are not machinery in a small field. But he is most likely in a self-deception that every moment he experiences in this “Eastern” country seems annoying to him and they are like opportunities for him to create an inferior picture while comparing them with globalized and technological Western culture.

Second one is his encountering with the elevator operator, who is also described by him as a peasant earning money in a state building, and his praying before pushing the elevator button. He creates a link between Islamist practices and daily life traditions of one region and as a result he draws a conclusion that it is a dichotomy where technology and inferiority come together to form a “One Country, Two Worlds”. He creates a vision that dichotomy happens only in Eastern countries not in Western ones and only inferior people use a language of religion or God. On the contrary, people say “God bless you” to each other when they sneeze in both Christian and Islamist traditions. Besides it is written “In God we trust” in the American dollar and many state buildings in which there should be no linkage of God as those are irrelevant, the state institutions and the belief systems.

From those examples he comes to the point that globalization is a need for Eastern people but it is a difficult project to make real as, in his perception, Eastern people are communal and on the other hand globalization needs an individualistic sphere. He blames Islamist traditions and Eastern practices while explaining his argument that it is difficult for people who live in “two worlds”. In reality what he is doing is making a picture of inferior East and superior West by using an oversimplifying and generalizing language. In his opinion, although it is not very easy to adopt, he sees Eastern people’s emancipation with implementing globalization and its principles which are concepts of Western traditions. That is clearly a way of creating the thought of “superior West” by using religion, traditions and practices.

In conclusion, what he fundamentally lacks is his objectivity and his emotional arguments while creating a link between globalization, religion and culture and to leave rest of the possible variables aside. What he accomplishes with this essay is not only an inferior portrait of Eastern culture in the eyes of readers, but more than that, a superior Western culture which rhetorically has a ego to be fulfilled repeatedly.