Anxieties of a Self-Claimed Middle Power: Ruptures and Continuities in Turkish Foreign Policy in the New Millennium and the Puzzle of Ontological (in) Security
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2025
Anxieties of a Self-Claimed Middle Power: Ruptures and Continuities in Turkish Foreign Policy in the New Millennium and the Puzzle of Ontological (in) Security
This article examines the transformation of Turkey’s foreign policy under the Justice and Development Party (AKP) through the lens of ontological security. While Turkey has historically been engaged with the European ideal as the manifestation of the ontological security, the AKP era has witnessed significant shifts driven by a multi-layered activism stemming from the self-claimed middle powerhood. The study argues that ontological security provides a crucial framework for understanding these changes, particularly Turkey’s pursuit of a stable state identity amid shifting foreign policy priorities. This study explores the ruptures and continuities in Turkey’s foreign policy and assesses how identity-based concerns shape its strategic actions. In doing so, it contributes to the broader discourse on ontological security and middle power dynamics, offering a nuanced perspective on Turkey’s evolving foreign policy and self-positioning in the international arena.
AdisonmezU. C.OnursalR. (2020). Governing anxiety, trauma and crisis: The political discourse on ontological (in) security after the july 15 coup attempt in Turkey. Middle East Critique, 29(3), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/19436149.2020.1770445
2.
AdisonmezU. C.ÖztığL. I. (2024). A psychoanalytic approach to Turkish foreign policy: Crisis, disorder, and disorientation (pp. 1–22). Critical Studies on Security.
3.
AhıskaM. (2010). Occidentalism in Turkey: Questions of modernity and national identity in Turkish radio broadcasting: I.B. Tauris.
4.
AlpanB. (2014). Europe-as-Hegemony’ and discourses in Turkey after 1999: What has ‘Europeanization’ got to do with it?Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 16(1), 68–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2013.864184
5.
AlpanB. (2016). From AKP’s ‘conservative democracy’ to ‘advanced democracy’: Shifts and challenges in the debate on ‘Europe. South European Society & Politics, 21(1), 15–28.
6.
AlpanB.ÖzçelikA. O. (2023). Perceiving ‘Europe’ in dire times: Elite perceptions of European integration in Turkish politics after the 2010s. In Butnaru-TroncotaM.ÖzçelikA. O.CucutaR. A. (Eds.), Reconfiguring EU peripheries: Political elites, contestation and geopolitical shifts (pp. 209–234). Helsinki University Press.
7.
AlpanB.ÖztürkA. E. (2022). Turkish foreign policy in the Balkans amidst ‘soft power’ and ‘de-Europeanisation. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 22(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2022.2034370
8.
Aydın-DüzgitS. (2023). Authoritarian middle powers and the liberal order: Turkey's contestation of the EU. International Affairs, 99(6), 2319–2337.
9.
Aydın-DüzgitS.KutlayM.KeymanF. (2025). Strategic autonomy in Turkish foreign policy in an age of multipolarity: Lineages and contradictions of an idea. International Politics.
10.
BaşerE. T. (2015). Shift-of-Axis in Turkish foreign policy: Turkish national role conceptions before and during AKP rule. Turkish Studies, 16(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2015.1050958
11.
BertrandG. (2013). Turkish diplomacy since 2003: Transition from realpolitik to a liberal foreign policy?Perspectives: Review of International Affairs, 2, 63–82.
12.
BilgiçA.PilcherJ. (2023). Desires, fantasies and hierarchies: Postcolonial status anxiety through ontological security. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 48(1), 3–19.
13.
BilginP. (2007). Only strong states can survive in Turkey's geography: The uses of “geopolitical truths” in Turkey. Political Geography, 26(7), 740–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2007.04.003
14.
BilginP.InceB. (2015). Security and citizenship in the global south: In/securing citizens in early republican Turkey (1923–1946). International Relations, 29(4), 500–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117814562219
15.
BozdağlıoğluY. (2004). Turkish foreign policy and Turkish identity: A constructivist approach. Routledge.
16.
BrowningC. (2016). Ethics and ontological security. In Ethical security studies (pp. 160–173). Routledge.
17.
ÇağaptayS. (2014). The rise of Turkey: The twenty-first century’s first Muslim power. Potomac Books.
18.
ÇapanG.ZarakolA. (2019). Turkey’s ambivalent self: Ontological insecurity in ‘kemalism’ versus ‘erdoğanism. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(3), 263–282.
CooperM. (2002). The legacy of atatürk: Turkish political structures and policy-making. International Affairs, 78(1), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.00241
21.
DavutoğluA. (2009). Turkish foreign policy and the EU in 2010. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 8(3), 11–17.
22.
DavutoğluA. (2010). Interview by Jackson diehl. Washington Post.
23.
DavutoğluA. (2013). Zero problems in a new era. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
24.
Della SalaV. (2017). Homeland security: Territorial myths and ontological security in the European union. Journal of European Integration, 39(5), 545–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2017.1327528
GreveP. (2018). Ontological security, the struggle for recognition, and the maintenance of security communities. Journal of International Relations and Development, 21(4), 858–882. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-017-0108-y
27.
GülsevenE. (2010). Identity, security and Turkish foreign policy in the post-cold war period: Relations with the EU, Greece and the Middle East. In School of social sciences theses. [PhD Disseration] Brunel University.
28.
HaleW. (1992). Turkey, the Middle East, and the Gulf crisis. International Affairs, 68(4), 679–692. https://doi.org/10.2307/2622709
29.
InnesA. J.SteeleB. J. (2014). Memory, trauma and ontological security. In ResendeE.BudryteD. (Eds.), Memory and trauma in international relations: Theories, cases, and debates. Routledge.
30.
International Crisis Group. (2010). Turkey and the Middle East: Ambitions and constraints.
31.
JordaanE. (2003). The concept of a middle power in international relations: Distinguishing between emerging and traditional middle powers. Politikon, 30(1), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/0258934032000147282
32.
JordaanE. (2017). The emerging middle power concept: Time to say goodbye?South African Journal of International Affairs, 24(3), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/10220461.2017.1394218
33.
KaraM. (2022). Linking Turkey’s domestic politics and foreign policy: The Justice and development party’s political strategies and their divergent foreign policy effects. Turkish Studies, 23(4), 529–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2022.2060082
34.
KeymanE. F. (2017). A new Turkish foreign policy: Towards proactive “moral realism”. Insight Turkey, 19(1), 55–70.
35.
KinnvallC. (2018). Ontological insecurities and postcolonial imaginaries: The emotional appeal of populism. Humanity & Society, 42(4), 523–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160597618802646
36.
KirdişE. (2015). The role of foreign policy in constructing the party identity of the Turkish Justice and development party (AKP). Turkish Studies, 16(2), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2015.1044444
37.
KutlayM.ÖnişZ. (2021a). Understanding oscillations in Turkish foreign policy: Pathways to unusual middle power activism. Third World Quarterly, 42(21), 3051–3069. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2021.1985449
38.
KutlayM.ÖnişZ. (2021b). Turkish foreign policy in a post-western order: Strategic autonomy or new forms of dependence?International Affairs, 97(4), 1085–1104.
39.
MaessenE. (2014). Reassessing Turkish national memory: An analysis of the representation of Turkish national memory by the AKP. Middle Eastern Studies, 50(2), 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/00263206.2013.870895
40.
MitzenJ. (2006a). Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security dilemma. European Journal of International Relations, 12(3), 341–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066106067346
41.
MitzenJ. (2006b). Anchoring Europe’s civilizing identity: Habits, capabilities and ontological security. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(2), 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500451709
42.
MüftülerM.YükselM. (1997). Turkey: A middle power in the new order. In CooperA. F. (Ed.), Niche diplomacy (pp. 184–196). Palgrave Macmillan.
43.
OngurH. Ö.ZenginH. (2016). Transforming habitus of the foreign policy: A bourdieusian analysis of Turkey as an emerging middle power. Rising Powers Quarterly, 1(2), 117–133.
44.
ÖnişZ.KutlayM. (2017). The dynamics of emerging middle-power influence in regional and global governance: The paradoxical case of Turkey. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 71(2), 164–183.
45.
ÖztürkA. E. (2021). Religion, identity and power: Turkey and the Balkans in the twenty-first century. Edinburgh University Press.
46.
ÖztürkA. E.AkgönülS. (2019). Turkey: Forced marriage or marriage of convenience with the western Balkans? In The western Balkans in the world(pp. 225–240). Routledge.
47.
ÖztürkA. E.BaşerB. (2022). The transnational politics of religion: Turkey’s diyanet, islamic communities and beyond. Turkish Studies, 5, 701–721.
48.
PrattS. F. (2017). A relational view of ontological security in international relations. International Studies Quarterly, 61(1), 78–85.
49.
RumeliliB. (2007). Constructing regional community and order in Europe and southeast Asia. Palgrave.
50.
RumeliliB. (2012). Liminal identities and processes of domestication and subversion in international relations. Review of International Studies, 38(2), 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210511000830
51.
SözenA. (2013). A paradigm shift in Turkish foreign policy: Transition and challenges. In Islamization of Turkey under the AKP rule (pp. 101–121). Routledge.
52.
SteeleB. J. (2008). Ontological security in international relations: Self-identity and the IR state: Routledge.
