An Examination of Turkey’s Smart Diplomacy in Afghanistan with an Emphasis on Internal and International Factors (2001-2021)

Document Type : Original Article from Result of Thesis

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student of International Relations at Gilan University

2 Professor of Department of Political Science and International Relations at Gilan University.

3 Assistant Professor of International Relations, University of Guilan.

Abstract

Turkey’s presence in Afghanistan since 2001 suggests Ankara’s smart diplomacy toward Kabul. Turkey tried to spread its persuasive power, popularity, and appeal in Afghanistan in the framework of this diplomacy and thus pursue its national interests. The main question this paper addresses is: What were the components of Turkey’s smart diplomacy in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021, and what factors influenced their presence? The raw data used in this article was collected using desk research and processed through a descriptive-analytical method. According to the findings, Turkey’s strategy was influenced by diplomacy in a post-modern environment and acceptance of the change in its meaning, and was applied in the framework of of parameters such as  humanitarian aid, economic-commercial projects, exertion of influence on ethnic and political leaders, and mediation. Identity-oriented, internal values of Turkey and Afghanistan and their common benefit-oriented constructs, and the perceptions of the leaders of both countries  concerning the threats and opportunities, and hence of the dynamic environment of the international order, were among the factors that facilitated this diplomacy. The general conclusion of this article indicates  that the internal conditions in Turkey and Afghanistan and the international developments are among the factors driving Turkey to pursue this smart diplomacy in Afghanistan. This diplomacy in the mentioned period included applying all of its soft and hard elements such as using cultural, political, military, diplomatic, and trade capacities and providing economic assistance. 

Highlights

Introduction

Before 2001, Turkey’s strategy in Afghanistan was mostly based on classical realism. However, the international developments since then and the inefficiency of relying only on either soft diplomact or hard diplomacy guided the new generation of Turkish leaders toward utilization of many different sources of policy and their intelligent combination in relation to Afghanistan. In the light of these developments, the Turks realized that to maintain their standing on the international stage and achieve their national goals and interests, they had to go beyond using hard diplomacy as an important deterrent and upgrade  their tools and resources in the domains of soft and hard diplomacy. Consequently, after the Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi /AK Parti) came to power on November 3, 2002, Turkey’s regional and international strategies underwent a fundamental change. Since then, Turkey has defined  its foreign policy on the basis of moral realism, which emphasizes using diplomacy for benevolent and humanitarian purposes. An important issue in Turkey’s new strategy  under the rule of the Justice and Development Party is that the country slowly and gradually began spreading its influence in the region, mainly by using smart diplomacy. Smart diplomacy is considered a shift in diplomacy from its hard resources (coercion and threat, and use of military equipment)  to the use of persuasion, attraction, and tools such as  cultural and political values and the desirable elements of foreign policy. Given their “Look to the East” policy and their hopes to expand their political, cultural, economic, and military spheres of influence, Turkish Islamists saw Afghanistan as a chance to pursue their ambitious goals. As a result, since 2002, Ankara has increasingly sought to enhance its popularity, appeal, and spheres of influence in Afghanistan by taking a series of focused actions aimed at establishing political, security, economic, developmental, cultural, and military interactions with this country.

 

Reaserch Method

This study intends to explain and analyze the components of Turkey’s smart diplomacy in Afghanistan and the factors influencing it in the framework of the concept of smart diplomacy introduced by Joseph Nye. The descriptive-analytical approach was used to examine this subject, and the data were collected using the library-documentary method.

 

Finding

The importance of addressing this topic is that Turkey had no clear hope of being able to play a role in the developments in Afghanistan before 2001. However, since 2001, it  has had an extensive presence in Afghanistan. The main question addressed in this paper is: What were the components of Turkey’s smart diplomacy in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021, and what factors influenced the presence of these components? Here is the brief answer: the most important componenets of Turkey’s smart diplomacy in Afghanistan after 2001 included cultural and ideological indicators,  political and diplomatic activities, military presence and, at the same time, provision of humanitarian aid, implementation of economic projects and trade programs, impacts on ethnic and political leaders, and mediation and relative impartiality in political issues.

The findings of the research indicate that the internal factors in Turkey  and Afghanistan as well as the international developments following the 9/11 attacks were among the elements that paved the way for Turkey’s smart diplomacy in Afghanistan. The internal factors in Afghanistan were as follows: utilization of Turkey's membership in NATO and other international organizations, use of  Turkey’s political, military, economic, scientific, and cultural potentials, fear of the various networks and prevention of a repeat of their dominance of Afghanistan, Afghan leaders’ passive, inconsistent, and non-strategic approach to foreign policy, Turkey’s relative impartiality in Afghanistan’s outbreaks of violence during the past half-century, and Kabul’s need for Turkish cooperation in political affairs, mediation efforts, reconstruction and in provision of stability and  security.

Therefore, the  factors prompting Turkey to adopt smart diplomacy in its relations with Afghanistan include the following: Turkey  portrayed  itself as a valuable NATO member, managed the tensions between it and the West, spread Neo-Ottoman policies and  attained  historical, cultural, and religious regions, competed with Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, improved  its position in regional and global equations, drew closer to  China as a worldwide economic pole, pursued Pan-Turkism and achieved  the so-called “Turkic World" geography, played a key role in the Islamic World, and expanded its political influence.

The main common indicators between Afghanistan and Turkey include geopolitical issues, mutual economic, commercial, and investment interests, lack of common borders or a history of conflicts, existence of a relatively positive spirit between the two countries, cultual, ethnic, and religious commonalities between them, and the allignment of the interests of Turkey, Afghanistan, and the U.S.

Therefore, the 9/11 terrorist attacks (2011), the formation of a global coalition against international terrorism, NATO’s presence in Afghanistan, and Turkey’s participation in this alliance were among the international factors that caused Turkey to adopt smart diplomacy in Afghanistan.

The results reveal that smart diplomacy is a tool that governments use today to achieve their goals and satisfy their strategic needs, and that Turkey used the same tool in Afghanistan during 2001-2021.The components of this diplomacy, which were examined in the framework of  Joseph Nye’s concept of smart diplomacy, are a wise combination and optimal use of  the  sources of both soft diplomacy and hard diplomacy. Turkish officials had military and security presence in Afghanistan, pursued ideological issues, and implemented economic projects and cultural programs. Using  smart diplomacy, they were able to actualize their smart presence in Afghanistan.

 

Conclusion

Therefore, the factors that contributed to the emergence of the effects of Turkey's smart diplomacy in Afghanistan included the variables mixed with identity and interests, and indicators such as Kabul’s need for collaboration with Ankara, Turkey’s relative impartiality in Afghan domestic issues, its position in international organizations, and its  Eurasianism, utilitarianism, and regional rivalries and ambitions. Hence, the international developments following September 11 attacks and Turkey's strong need for the simultaneity of its hegemonic power and Nato membershipb are among the components influencing its smart diplomacy in relation to Afghanistan.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Adamak, L. (1971). History of Political Relations of Afghanistan from the time of Amir Abdul Rahman to Independence, Taranslation by Ali Mohammad zahma, Publisher: Afghan Book Publishing Company, Kabul. (In Persian)
  2. Arezo, A. (2019). in the sphere of foreign policy: diplomatic relations between Afghanistan and Turkey. Publisher: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan. First edition: Publishers Amiri. (In Persian)
  3. Aslan, Ö. (2022). A Déjà Vu All Over Again? Identifying and Explaining ‘Change’ in Turkey’s Asia Policy. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, DOI:10.1080/19448953.2022.2037980
  4. Bacik, G. (2006). Turkey and Pipeline Politics. Turkish Studies, 7(2), 293-306.
  5. Bagheri Choukami, S. (2009). Smart war, Obama's approach in dealing with Iran's nuclear program, Political Studies Quarterly, 9, (35),34-47. (In Persian)
  6. Bariz, S. (2016). Afghanistan's regionalism in the framework of the Istanbul process. Publication date: Wednesday, IISS May 22, at: https://8am.af. (In Persian)
  7. Behrouzlek, G. (2006). Political Islam and Contemporary Islamists, Howzah Database, 1, (209), 34-56. (In Persian)
  8. Davutoglu, A. (2015). Strategic depth: Turkey's position in the international scene. Translation: Mohammad Hossein Nouhinejad Mamqani. (In Persian)
  9. Dehshiri, M. (2013). Cultural Diplomacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Tehran: Scientific and Cultural Publishing Company. (In Persian)
  10. Fazil, F. (2019). Abdul Rahman Peshawari, Turkey's political representative in Afghanistan, Journal of Strategic Studies, Center for Strategic Studies of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.1 (1). 134-146. (In Persian)
  11. Golmohammadi, V. (2018). Clash of Roles in the Middle East and Tension in US-Turkey Relations, Strategic Studies Quarterly, 2 (3),107-134. (In Persian)
  12. GÜzeldere,E. (2022). Turkey in Afghanistan: More than one Reason to Stay. Publisher: Hellenic Foundation for European & Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP), Vasilis’s Sofia’s Ave., 10676. Athens. Greece. July 15 at: https://www.eliamep.gr/wp content/uploads/2022/07/  Policy-paper-104-Güzeldere-Final.pdf
  13. Hajimineh, R., Dehghani, R., Mohammadkhani, F. (2021). Explaining Turkey's Cultural Diplomacy in Afghanistan during the AKP Era. Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs,1(11), 143-172.
  14. IISS, April 11, at: https://afghanistan.fes.de.library.fes.de/pdffiles/bueros/kabul/17640. pdf. (In Persian)
  15. Iqbal, I. (2013). Analyzing Turkey's Soft Power Components from2002 to 2012. Soft Power Studies Quarterly,4. (11), 29-48. (In Persian)
  16. Jafari, A., Jafari, M., & Khavari Hekmat, M. (2016). The position of public diplomacy in Turkey's foreign policy with an emphasis on Afghanistan during Erdoğan, Katib scientific and research magazine.4, (6),99-130. (In Persian)
  17. Kalem, M. (2023). Türkiye Diplomatic Role in Resolving the Power Conflict in Afghanistan (Afganistan'da Güç Çatışmasının Çözümünde Türkiye'nin Diplomatik Rolü) – Navember 3. At:https://gasam.org.tr/turkiye-diplomatic-role-in-resolving-the-power-conflict-in-afghanistan/
  18. aş, Ş. (2013). Turkey’s Regional Approach in Afghanistan: A Civilian Power in Action. Center for Strategic Research. April 1, at: https://www.sam.gov.tr/en/papers/turkey-s-regional-approach-in-afghanistan-a-civilian-power-in-action
  19. Kardaş, Ş. (2012). Understanding the Debate on Turkey’s Involvement in Afghanistan, Turkey: German Marshall Fund of the United States.
  20. Kaya, G. (2019). Turkey-Afghanistan relations, (Unpublished Master Thesis), Yalova: Yalova University. (In Persian)
  21. Kaya, G. (2019). Türkiye Afganistan ilişkileri, (Basılmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Yalova: Yalova Üniversitesi. (In Turkish)
  22. Khumchany, S. (2019). Turkey Afghanistan relations (1991-2014) (Unpublished Master Thesis), Edirne: Trakya University. (In Persian)
  23. Khumchany, S. (2019). Türkiye Afganistan ilişkileri, (1991-2014), (Basılmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Edirne: Trakya Üniversitesi. (In Turkish)
  24. Kozegar K., W., & Suri, A. (2012). Turkey's role and goals in the process of Afghanistan's transformations: reasons and consequences. IISS, March 4 at: http://www.csr.ir/ aspx=2301. (In Persian)
  25. Marjanejad, A. (2016). Turkey's political, economic and cultural goals in Afghanistan. IISS, July 7 at: https://jaraian.com/998121302-2. (In Persian)
  26. Marjaninejad, A. (2014). Turkey's political, economic and cultural goals in Afghanistan. IISS, Janury 4, at: https://iiwfs. com. (In Persian)
  27. Marjaninejad, A. (2019). Turkey's soft power in Central Asia. Siptamber 4, at: https:// peace-ipsc.org/fa. (In Persian)
  28. Mohseni, A., Javadani Moghadam, M., & Haji, M. (2017). Paradigmatic evolution of the concept of power and security in the era of globalization and its effect on the national security of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic World Political Research Quarterly,3 (8),99126. (In Persian)
  29. Motahari, M. (2019). Smart and practical policies of Turkey and the sphere of Arab influence. IISS, June 22, at: https://irdiplomacy.ir/fa/ news/1999644/
  30. Mothaghi Gilani, A., & Niri, M. (2009). Quarterly, "Moderate Islam and Democracy in Turkey. Political and International Research.2 (5).33-63 (In Persian)
  31. Nossel, S. (2004). Smart Power. Foreign Affair, 83(2), 131-142.
  32. Nye Jr., J. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, New York: Public Affairs.
  33. Nye Jr., J. (2008). The Annals of the American academy of political and social science. Public Diplomacy and Soft Power, 616, 94-109.
  34. Nye Jr., J., Landman Goldsmith, J. (2011). The Future of Power. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 64(3), 45-52.
  35. Özcan, S. (2010). Turkish Foreign Policy Towards Afghanistan: 2009-2010. Perceptions, 15(3-4), 133-146. at: gov.tr/pdf/perceptions/Volume-XV/autumn-winter2010/sevinc _alkan_ozcan. pdf.
  36. Özel, C. (2018). Afganistan’ın yeniden inşasında Türkiye’Nin yumuşak güç stratejisi. Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, Malatya: İnönü Üniversitesi. (In Turkish)
  37. Parsa, M. (2016). Turkey's influence in Iran's security-environment field (2); Afghanistan case study. IISS, April 10, at: https://www.ana.press/news/249006. (In Persian)
  38. Selahshur, K. (2013). Turkey's investment in Afghanistan, publisher: Anatolia news agency. IISS, May 4, at: https://avapress.com/fa/184193/.(In Persian)
  39. Seren, M. (2022). Appreciating Turkey’s Afghanistan Policy. CIRSD. at: https://www.cirsd.org/en/horizons/horizons-winter-issue-Pdf.
  40. Shaheer, A. (2018). Kabul-Ankara relations; Türkiye's soft influence and efforts to increase role-playing in Afghanistan. IISS, September 6 at: https://www. net/blog. (In Persian)
  41. Shahir, A. (2015). Kajaki District; The second-long step of energy production in Afghanistan. IISS, August 4, at: https://khabarnama. net/blog/2016/06/08/ kajaki-dam. (In Persian)
  42. Shen, S. (2011). US Smart Power Falters in Information Age: The Future of Power by Joseph S. Nye, at: https://www.oliverstuenkel.com/2011/07/26/book-review-the-future-of-power-by-joseph-nye-jr/
  43. Tamna, F. (2014). Afghanistan's foreign policy in the field of regional cooperation. Ahrari Publishing House of Afghanistan-Kabul. (In Persian)
  44. Wakili Popelzaei, A. (1999). The Travels of Ghazi Amanullah Shah, Publisher: Mayvand Publishing Center, second edition, Kabul. (In Persian)
  45. Wilson, E. J. (2008). Hard Power, Soft Power, Smart Power. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 110-124.
  46. Yesiltas, M. (2013). The Transformation of the Geopolitical Vision in Turkish Foreign Policy. Turkish Studies 14(4), 661–

 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics