Paradoxes in Turkey’s Syria policy: Analyzing the critical episode of agenda building

This article explores the discursive reasons behind the paradoxes in Turkey’s foreign policy since the onset of the Syria crisis. By looking at representation of Turkey’s Syria policy in two prominent pro-government newspapers, Star and Yeni Şafak, the authors highlight the significance of the Febru...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:New perspectives on Turkey 2016-11, Vol.55, p.107-132
Hauptverfasser: Tür, Özlem, Kumral, Mehmet Akif
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 132
container_issue
container_start_page 107
container_title New perspectives on Turkey
container_volume 55
creator Tür, Özlem
Kumral, Mehmet Akif
description This article explores the discursive reasons behind the paradoxes in Turkey’s foreign policy since the onset of the Syria crisis. By looking at representation of Turkey’s Syria policy in two prominent pro-government newspapers, Star and Yeni Şafak, the authors highlight the significance of the February 2012 episode, after which Ankara experienced deep discursive dilemmas for three reasons: the uncertain portrayal of the dyadic context, the ambiguous framing of third-party roles, and ambivalent agenda building. Despite the shadow of imminent civil war, Turkey’s foreign policy elite refrained from framing the real risks arising within Syria. Idealistic-normative calls appealed to massacre rhetoric in order to legitimize humanitarian intervention. However, the geopolitical framing of third-party roles did not assist in the building of diplomatic ground for international intervention. Quite the contrary, it led to the shaping of public opinion toward realistic-utilitarian interference. Swinging between intervention and interference, Ankara pushed itself toward a liminal position. Even though the Turkish government’s rhetorical ambivalence helped to sway anti-war domestic public opinion, it did not help to control the spiraling of Syria into civil war. That is to say, the ambivalent agenda building in the critical February 2012 episode perpetuated paradoxes in Turkey’s Syria policy and left lingering implications for the transformation of the Syrian crisis in the years to come.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/npt.2016.24
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1908403432</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_npt_2016_24</cupid><sourcerecordid>1908403432</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c327t-aae3b3bd1273886bded9475a5b07529360d22342a4801b44e918894c52f962e43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtKAzEYhYMoWGpXvkDApUzNbTKJu1K8QUHBisuQmWRq6nQyJjPguPI1fD2fxCntwoX4b_7NxzmHD4BTjKYY4eyibtopQZhPCTsAI0xRmlAi5SEYISF5winjx2AS4xoNJ1IsRDoCzw86aOPfbYSuhssuvNr--_Mrwsc-OA0bX7miv4SzWlf9h6tXsH2xsAiudYWuoG1c9MZCX0K9srXRMO9cZQbuBByVuop2sv9j8HR9tZzfJov7m7v5bJEUlGRtorWlOc0NJhkVgufGGsmyVKc5ylIiKUeGEMqIZgLhnDErh9mSFSkpJSeW0TE42-U2wb91NrZq7bswrI0KSyQYooySfynBCWKSMDxQ5zuqCD7GYEvVBLfRoVcYqa1iNShWW8WKbJuTPa03eXBmZX-F_sH_ALLSfJ0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1908403432</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Paradoxes in Turkey’s Syria policy: Analyzing the critical episode of agenda building</title><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Tür, Özlem ; Kumral, Mehmet Akif</creator><creatorcontrib>Tür, Özlem ; Kumral, Mehmet Akif</creatorcontrib><description>This article explores the discursive reasons behind the paradoxes in Turkey’s foreign policy since the onset of the Syria crisis. By looking at representation of Turkey’s Syria policy in two prominent pro-government newspapers, Star and Yeni Şafak, the authors highlight the significance of the February 2012 episode, after which Ankara experienced deep discursive dilemmas for three reasons: the uncertain portrayal of the dyadic context, the ambiguous framing of third-party roles, and ambivalent agenda building. Despite the shadow of imminent civil war, Turkey’s foreign policy elite refrained from framing the real risks arising within Syria. Idealistic-normative calls appealed to massacre rhetoric in order to legitimize humanitarian intervention. However, the geopolitical framing of third-party roles did not assist in the building of diplomatic ground for international intervention. Quite the contrary, it led to the shaping of public opinion toward realistic-utilitarian interference. Swinging between intervention and interference, Ankara pushed itself toward a liminal position. Even though the Turkish government’s rhetorical ambivalence helped to sway anti-war domestic public opinion, it did not help to control the spiraling of Syria into civil war. That is to say, the ambivalent agenda building in the critical February 2012 episode perpetuated paradoxes in Turkey’s Syria policy and left lingering implications for the transformation of the Syrian crisis in the years to come.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0896-6346</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1305-3299</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/npt.2016.24</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Ambiguity ; Ambivalence ; Civil war ; Communication ; Crises ; Discourse analysis ; Foreign policy ; Geopolitics ; Humanitarian aid ; Humanitarian intervention ; Humanitarianism ; Idealistic ; International relations ; Left wing politics ; Massacre ; Politics ; Public opinion ; Representation ; Rhetoric ; Transformation</subject><ispartof>New perspectives on Turkey, 2016-11, Vol.55, p.107-132</ispartof><rights>New Perspectives on Turkey and Cambridge University Press 2017</rights><rights>Copyright Cambridge University Press Nov 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c327t-aae3b3bd1273886bded9475a5b07529360d22342a4801b44e918894c52f962e43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c327t-aae3b3bd1273886bded9475a5b07529360d22342a4801b44e918894c52f962e43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0896634616000248/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,777,781,12826,27905,27906,55609</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tür, Özlem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumral, Mehmet Akif</creatorcontrib><title>Paradoxes in Turkey’s Syria policy: Analyzing the critical episode of agenda building</title><title>New perspectives on Turkey</title><addtitle>New Perspect. Turk</addtitle><description>This article explores the discursive reasons behind the paradoxes in Turkey’s foreign policy since the onset of the Syria crisis. By looking at representation of Turkey’s Syria policy in two prominent pro-government newspapers, Star and Yeni Şafak, the authors highlight the significance of the February 2012 episode, after which Ankara experienced deep discursive dilemmas for three reasons: the uncertain portrayal of the dyadic context, the ambiguous framing of third-party roles, and ambivalent agenda building. Despite the shadow of imminent civil war, Turkey’s foreign policy elite refrained from framing the real risks arising within Syria. Idealistic-normative calls appealed to massacre rhetoric in order to legitimize humanitarian intervention. However, the geopolitical framing of third-party roles did not assist in the building of diplomatic ground for international intervention. Quite the contrary, it led to the shaping of public opinion toward realistic-utilitarian interference. Swinging between intervention and interference, Ankara pushed itself toward a liminal position. Even though the Turkish government’s rhetorical ambivalence helped to sway anti-war domestic public opinion, it did not help to control the spiraling of Syria into civil war. That is to say, the ambivalent agenda building in the critical February 2012 episode perpetuated paradoxes in Turkey’s Syria policy and left lingering implications for the transformation of the Syrian crisis in the years to come.</description><subject>Ambiguity</subject><subject>Ambivalence</subject><subject>Civil war</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Crises</subject><subject>Discourse analysis</subject><subject>Foreign policy</subject><subject>Geopolitics</subject><subject>Humanitarian aid</subject><subject>Humanitarian intervention</subject><subject>Humanitarianism</subject><subject>Idealistic</subject><subject>International relations</subject><subject>Left wing politics</subject><subject>Massacre</subject><subject>Politics</subject><subject>Public opinion</subject><subject>Representation</subject><subject>Rhetoric</subject><subject>Transformation</subject><issn>0896-6346</issn><issn>1305-3299</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMtKAzEYhYMoWGpXvkDApUzNbTKJu1K8QUHBisuQmWRq6nQyJjPguPI1fD2fxCntwoX4b_7NxzmHD4BTjKYY4eyibtopQZhPCTsAI0xRmlAi5SEYISF5winjx2AS4xoNJ1IsRDoCzw86aOPfbYSuhssuvNr--_Mrwsc-OA0bX7miv4SzWlf9h6tXsH2xsAiudYWuoG1c9MZCX0K9srXRMO9cZQbuBByVuop2sv9j8HR9tZzfJov7m7v5bJEUlGRtorWlOc0NJhkVgufGGsmyVKc5ylIiKUeGEMqIZgLhnDErh9mSFSkpJSeW0TE42-U2wb91NrZq7bswrI0KSyQYooySfynBCWKSMDxQ5zuqCD7GYEvVBLfRoVcYqa1iNShWW8WKbJuTPa03eXBmZX-F_sH_ALLSfJ0</recordid><startdate>20161101</startdate><enddate>20161101</enddate><creator>Tür, Özlem</creator><creator>Kumral, Mehmet Akif</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20161101</creationdate><title>Paradoxes in Turkey’s Syria policy: Analyzing the critical episode of agenda building</title><author>Tür, Özlem ; Kumral, Mehmet Akif</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c327t-aae3b3bd1273886bded9475a5b07529360d22342a4801b44e918894c52f962e43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Ambiguity</topic><topic>Ambivalence</topic><topic>Civil war</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Crises</topic><topic>Discourse analysis</topic><topic>Foreign policy</topic><topic>Geopolitics</topic><topic>Humanitarian aid</topic><topic>Humanitarian intervention</topic><topic>Humanitarianism</topic><topic>Idealistic</topic><topic>International relations</topic><topic>Left wing politics</topic><topic>Massacre</topic><topic>Politics</topic><topic>Public opinion</topic><topic>Representation</topic><topic>Rhetoric</topic><topic>Transformation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tür, Özlem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumral, Mehmet Akif</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>New perspectives on Turkey</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tür, Özlem</au><au>Kumral, Mehmet Akif</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Paradoxes in Turkey’s Syria policy: Analyzing the critical episode of agenda building</atitle><jtitle>New perspectives on Turkey</jtitle><addtitle>New Perspect. Turk</addtitle><date>2016-11-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>55</volume><spage>107</spage><epage>132</epage><pages>107-132</pages><issn>0896-6346</issn><eissn>1305-3299</eissn><abstract>This article explores the discursive reasons behind the paradoxes in Turkey’s foreign policy since the onset of the Syria crisis. By looking at representation of Turkey’s Syria policy in two prominent pro-government newspapers, Star and Yeni Şafak, the authors highlight the significance of the February 2012 episode, after which Ankara experienced deep discursive dilemmas for three reasons: the uncertain portrayal of the dyadic context, the ambiguous framing of third-party roles, and ambivalent agenda building. Despite the shadow of imminent civil war, Turkey’s foreign policy elite refrained from framing the real risks arising within Syria. Idealistic-normative calls appealed to massacre rhetoric in order to legitimize humanitarian intervention. However, the geopolitical framing of third-party roles did not assist in the building of diplomatic ground for international intervention. Quite the contrary, it led to the shaping of public opinion toward realistic-utilitarian interference. Swinging between intervention and interference, Ankara pushed itself toward a liminal position. Even though the Turkish government’s rhetorical ambivalence helped to sway anti-war domestic public opinion, it did not help to control the spiraling of Syria into civil war. That is to say, the ambivalent agenda building in the critical February 2012 episode perpetuated paradoxes in Turkey’s Syria policy and left lingering implications for the transformation of the Syrian crisis in the years to come.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/npt.2016.24</doi><tpages>26</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0896-6346
ispartof New perspectives on Turkey, 2016-11, Vol.55, p.107-132
issn 0896-6346
1305-3299
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1908403432
source Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete
subjects Ambiguity
Ambivalence
Civil war
Communication
Crises
Discourse analysis
Foreign policy
Geopolitics
Humanitarian aid
Humanitarian intervention
Humanitarianism
Idealistic
International relations
Left wing politics
Massacre
Politics
Public opinion
Representation
Rhetoric
Transformation
title Paradoxes in Turkey’s Syria policy: Analyzing the critical episode of agenda building
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T00%3A45%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Paradoxes%20in%20Turkey%E2%80%99s%20Syria%20policy:%20Analyzing%20the%20critical%20episode%20of%20agenda%20building&rft.jtitle=New%20perspectives%20on%20Turkey&rft.au=T%C3%BCr,%20%C3%96zlem&rft.date=2016-11-01&rft.volume=55&rft.spage=107&rft.epage=132&rft.pages=107-132&rft.issn=0896-6346&rft.eissn=1305-3299&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/npt.2016.24&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1908403432%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1908403432&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_npt_2016_24&rfr_iscdi=true