Case Selection

This thesis examines two different cases of Turkish mediation. In Chapter 4, it analyses Turkey’s mediation in the Syrian-Israeli negotiations between 2007-2008. It will draw on the mediation literature mentioned above, and, in order to sharpen the assessment of Turkey’s capacity to mediate differently, it will set Turkish mediation in the context of the much longer mediation by the United States between 1974-2000. It is impossible to understand why and how Turkey mediated without drawing out elements of this background. In Chapter 5, it will examine Turkey’s ongoing mediation in Somalia, starting in 2012. Here, the thesis considers how Turkish mediation differed from mediation conducted by two very different “Western” mediators in Somalia, Britain and Norway. This study aims first and foremost to understand how Turkey can mediate differently from the US, Britain and Norway in the Syrian-Israeli negotiations and in Somalia respectively. The thesis does discuss the mediation conducted by these other countries, but it does so in order to shed light on Turkish policy and consider how Turkey can mediate, and present itself, differently to these powers. In addition, the Syrian-Israeli talks, and Turkey’s initiatives in Somalia, were very different from each other, and hence, provided the opportunity to comment on different kinds of Turkish mediatory practices; as well as to consider how these mediation efforts might fit together as part of Turkey’s foreign policy. Since I focused on Turkey, I made some references to mediation by other powers in order to bring this into clearer emphasis. Since I did not aim to compare Turkey to the entire “West” I did not, in any way, attempt to systematically contrast “West” and “non-West.” However, throughout my research, I was struck by how much the idea of “non-Western”

32

featured in Turkey’s rhetoric of its foreign policy; and hence, it is present as an important part of its identity construction and therefore its mediation policies.

Despite using these inferences to shed light on Turkey’s difference by comparing it with Western mediators such as the US, Britain and Norway, this is not a comparative study. The study does not aim to make rigid comparisons among these actors. It rather aims to bring out Turkey’s difference more clearly and systematically. As such, the main focus of this thesis is Turkey and the amount of data introduced on Turkey is visibly larger than the other mediators. Therefore, the primary source material consulted refers almost exclusively to Turkey, although the thesis does examine considerable amount of data on the US, Britain and Norway.

The US and Britain set suitable examples of great power mediators. The US has extensive power capabilities as a mediator and is also a major ally of Turkey. It had also been the lead mediator in the Syrian-Israeli peace talks from 1974 until 2000. Comparing its mediation in the Syrian-Israeli talks with that of Turkey’s also offers a good opportunity to understand the limits of Turkey’s independence as a regional actor as well as the use of mediation in its quest for more influence. It also enabled me to seek how Turkey mediates vis-à-vis US interests in the region.

The Syrian-Israeli case is also representative in that it offers an opportunity to analyse Turkey’s role as a mediator in an interstate conflict. The longevity of the conflict and the difficulty to offer any kind of lasting resolution are reasons that makes this case interesting to study. It is also interesting regarding the broader debates it triggered with respect to Turkey’s policies in a region where it has deep historical-geopolitical roots. As a result of its proximity to Turkey, the Syrian-Israeli case also allowed me to understand how Turkey mediates in a conflict that directly affects it. When I selected the Syrian-Israeli case, the

33

Arab Spring had not yet erupted. However, it would not be an exaggeration to argue that, one way or another, the course of the events did have an impact on Turkish foreign policy and similarly on Turkey’s mediator role.

The Somali case offers an opportunity to analyse Turkey’s role in an intrastate conflict where its mediation should be understood in a broader sense. As will be discussed in detail further in the thesis, Turkish policy makers emphasize that Turkey’s mediation comes in “a package”163

which entails that when necessary, it is supported by means such as development aid, humanitarian assistance or medical relief. As such, the Somali case offers an opportunity to test this proposition and understand in what circumstances Turkey combines these measures with its mediation and to what extent these means can be supportive of peacemaking.

Comparing Turkey with Britain offered me an opportunity to investigate Turkey’s difference vis-à-vis an great power mediator that is also a former colonial power in Somalia. Norway, on the other hand, poses a sound example for a small-state mediator whose role was particularly interesting regarding its extensive work on the grassroots. The Somali case also offers a ground to examine the role of non-state actors such as HNGOs or businesses in peacemaking. It also helped me understand Turkey’s engagement with regions beyond its immediate neighbourhood. It is a sound case to analyze why and how Turkey uses mediation as a tool of opening up to regions such as Africa where it has limited or no previous engagements with. Choosing a case from two different regions also enabled me to wipe out the possibility of limiting my analysis to a single geopolitical context. It also gave me the opportunity to investigate different aspects of Turkey’s

163

Interview with Bülent Aras, former Academic Adviser to Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, Istanbul, October 16, 2014.

34

mediation policies and offered a variety of themes and indicators to bring to light its difference as a mediator.