bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
1-25
Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural
Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited*
Erman Akıllı**
Abstract
This paper’s aim is to read the process that crowned with
the practice of cultural diplomacy thanks to TURKSOY
and Turkic Council in Central Asia (especially in between
Turkic republics and in general Turkic World) through
Karl Deutch’s “transactionalist” approach. In his book,
“Political Community and the North Atlantic Area”
Deutsch explains the transactionalist theory as a study
that would enable “possible ways in which men someday
might abolish war.” So, the question is “How can men
learn to act together to eliminate war/conflict as a social
institution?”. Therefore, also, this article is an attempt to
answer this question with cultural diplomacy and cultural
diplomacy implementations through international
organizations such as TURKSOY and Turkic Council in
the Turkic World.
Keywords
TURKSOY, Turkic Council, Cultural Diplomacy,
Transactionalism, Karl Deutsch.
Date of Arrival: 17 January 2019 – Date of Acceptance: 01 July 2019
You can refer to this article as follows:
Akıllı, Erman (2019). “TURKSOY, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism
Revisited”. bilig – Journal of Social Sciences of the Turkic World 91: 1-25.
**
Assoc. Prof. Dr., Kırşehir Ahi Evran University, International Relations Department – Kırşehir/Turkey
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7782-0881
ermanakilli@ahievran.edu.tr
*
1
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
Introduction
During the Cold War years, interaction and communication in Central Asia,
particularly in Central Asian Turkic states, were built up on bloc politics that
led by Soviet Russia through the understanding of Soviet Union. After the
dissolution of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and end of the
Cold War, international politics got into a transition process in Worldwide.
During this transition process; states needed to realign themselves and revise
their foreign policy approaches towards to the new understanding in the
World politics. According to this new understanding; bloc boundaries lost
their limitation especially on post-Soviet countries. Through the shredded
layers of iron curtain, new foreign policy opportunities aroused for all,
around the World, but especially, for newly independent post-Soviet states.
Dissolution of USSR, also made it easier for new expansions both in
terminology and institutional basis. Hence, new regional institutional
approaches aroused in various regions such as: Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN), Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), BRICS,
Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO), Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation
(BSEC), Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and many different others.
Nonetheless, thanks to the new expansions in the terminology, Turkic
World term received a solid ground to construct on. Undoubtedly, one of
the most recent and newest cases in institutionalization of international
cooperation is the one in the Central Asia region known as the Turkic
World. It is the concept that mainly implies six independent Turkic
speaking states, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, Turkmenistan,
and Uzbekistan. In a broader understanding the Turkic World also includes
many Turkic people that live in northern, eastern, central, and western Asia,
northwestern China, and parts of Eastern Europe. Thanks to that kind of
institutionalization, it occurred and manifested through various processes
such as formal coordination, signing and legalization of international
agreements, foundation of bureaucratic structures, modes of official
discourses, dialogues and conventions on the grounds of Turkic World.
As a result of this occurring and manifesting process, TURKSOY, the
International Organization of Turkic Culture was founded in 1993 by the
Republic of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and
2
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
Uzbekistan. Apart from its founding member states, TURKSOY also have
observer members namely as: The Altai Republic (Russia Federation), The
Republic of Bashkortostan (Russia Federation), The Autonomous Territorial
Unit of Gagauzia (Moldova), The Khakas Republic (Russia Federation),
The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, The Republic of Sakha-Yakutia
(Russia Federation), The Republic of Tatarstan (Russia Federation) and The
Tyva Republic (Russia Federation).
Referred to as the UNESCO of the Turkic World, TURKSOY is an
international organization of cultural cooperation between its member
countries, having been established on the basis of their common language,
history and cultural values. Its main aims are to strengthen common bonds
of heritage among Turkic peoples and to transmit and promote this heritage
around the world. In other words, TURKSOY’s activities, can be summed
as practicing Cultural Diplomacy in the sphere of Turkic World.
Cultural Diplomacy can be described as course of actions, which are based
on and utilize the exchange of ideas, values, traditions and other aspects
of culture or identity. Through this exchange, relationships between states
could be strengthen, sociocultural cooperation between states may be
enhanced or mutual national interests could be promoted. As implied in the
explanation of Cultural Diplomacy; TURKSOY’s cultural and value-based
activities enhances relations between Turkic states.
Aside from TURKSOY, on October 3, 2009 the leaders of four states,
namely Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkey have signed an
agreement of cooperation between Turkic speaking states. This is reflected
in a number of regional institutional innovations such as Turkic Council
(the Cooperation Council of Turkic Speaking States) and its related
institutions such as TURKPA (Parliamentary Assembly of Turkic Speaking
States), International Turkic Academy, and the Turkic Business Council.
Turkic Council has various of different activities but according to the
cultural diplomacy basis “Orkhun Exchange Program” is a pivotal model
for the Turkic World that enables student and staff exchange between
Turkic states’ universities. That exchange program makes it possible to
form a common cultural and academic ground for Turkic World. Apart
from that TURKSOY’s activities as promoting common art, cultural
figures, values and heritages of Turkic World strengthens relations between
3
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
the Turkic states on this manner. Hence, Cultural diplomacy establishes
a two-way communication and trust with other countries. Nonetheless,
through Cultural Diplomacy and cultural interaction might bring political
interaction as well.
This paper’s aim is to read the process that crowned with the practice of
cultural diplomacy thanks to TURKSOY and Turkic Council in Central
Asia (especially in between Turkic republics and in general Turkic
World) through Karl Deutch’s “transactionalist” approach. Meanwhile,
no comprehensive analyses of these institutions, their foundations and
development processes as well as the policies that have led to these outcomes
have been carried out from academic perspective. Indeed, there are a number
of written literatures solely emphasis on mentioned institutions, approaches
and concepts separately; for instance, role of culture in foreign policy
(Von Maltzahn 2015, Bound et al. 2007, Gould-Davies 2003, Cummings
2009, Barlas Bozkuş 2011) or regarding to the cultural diplomacy concept
for states (Purtaş 2013a, Kitsou 2011, Guozuo 2017, Chartrand 1992,
Sönmezoğlu et al. 2010, Schneider 2009, Gienow-Hecht & Donfried 2010,
Feigenbaum 2001, Kozymka 2014, Vlahos 1991, Geertz 1973, Ateş et al.
2016), regarding to TURKSOY and Turkic Council, and more importantly
an international organization’s role on cultural diplomacy there are also a
number on literature (Kozymka 2014, Purtaş 2013b, Ateş et al. 2016, Purtaş
2017, Durdular 2017) and about Deutsch’s theory (Deutsch 1952, Deutsch
1957, Deutsch 1966, Ulusoy 2012, Adler 1997, Adler & Barnett 1998,
Dedeoğlu 2004, Dedeoğlu 2016) also reviewed and magnified under the
lens of security perspective. But none of them tried to explain the cultural
diplomacy concept in Turkic world –that shines with TURKSOY and
Turkic Council– through the lens of Deutsch’s transactionalist approach.
Therefore, this article is an attempt to realize a complex study of cultural
diplomacy and transactionalism of international cooperation in the frames
of the TURKSOY and Turkic Council. In his book, “Political Community
and the North Atlantic Area” (Deutsch 1957); Karl W. Deutsch explains the
transactionalist theory as a study that would enable “possible ways in which
men someday might abolish war.” So, the most important question is “How
can men learn to act together to eliminate war as a social institution?” This
study’s main aim is to answer this question with cultural diplomacy and
cultural diplomacy implementations through international organizations
4
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
such as TURKSOY and Turkic Council in the Turkic World.
(Post) Structuralist or Constructivist Return in the IR: Identity,
Interaction and Culture
Dissolution of the USSR also had a huge impact on International Relations
theories as well; during the Cold War years, Realist theory power/threat/
security centric approach dominated the field. But with the wake of 1990s,
another theory, the Constructivism emerged into the field which considers
states like the Realist theory as the main actor of the international system
and treats the international system at the structural level as predicted by the
Neo-Realist theory. On the other hand, the theory argues that, contrary
to the claim of Realism, states have no single and fixed understanding of
national interests/foreign policy agendas, but that states have built their
perceptions of national interest/ foreign policy agendas through their
identities, culture(s) and values. Because these notions are, in the course of
time, on the basis of political conjuncture, can be re-constructed and rebuilt
(Smith 1991: 359) through social interaction, but they are vital for a state to
take the necessary position against its friends and foes (Kowert 1998: 1). In
other words, a state’s identity, values and culture are the main components
to image of the state so according to this image, position of the state in the
international system could only be defined. Nonetheless, as Constructivism
suggests, social interaction is the key element of the international system
and this social interaction happens between states on the basis of their
‘constructed’ image.
Alexander Wendt, one of the leading academics of constructivist theory,
emphasizes that the actors first define their image and then determine
their target, purpose and action according to the image they define and,
more accurately, determine their national interests (Wendt 1992: 424). In
this context, what the actors do and what they do is directly related; more
precisely, there is an organic link between the notion of image and foreign
policy actions. However, according to Wendt, structures in the international
system are not objective but rather the result of image and identity building
as a result of interactions between subjects (Wendt 1994: 385). Nonetheless,
Wendt argues that the structure of the system is not constant and that the
anarchic structure is actually influenced by the constant interaction between
the actors (Wendt 1992: 392). Also, constructed image is dependent with
5
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
the identity of the state. So, it’s crucial to shed light on identity and its effect
on foreign policy through the lens of Constructivism.
Contrary to Neo-Realists presume, Wendt says that values, identity and
national interests are not imposed by structure of international system. In
other words, construction of identity according to Constructivist theory is
not an externally imposed form, but interactions of actors with one another.
In other words, the existence of system-centered identity construction
is emphasized; indeed, such algorithm can be applied to the domestic
environment as well as to the international environment, and the internal
cultural factors that constitute the state identity can be included in this
process (Jepperson et al. 1996: 15).
According to Wendt, who advocates system-centered analysis, the behavior
of states is formed on the basis of variables that take their essence from
four different types of identity. These types of identity are; corporate,
model (type), role and collective identities. According to Wendt, some of
these identity types may change over time; however, the national interest
understandings which states form on the basis of the corporate identities of
their selves will be free from the general structure and the wind of change in
the political conjuncture (Wendt 1994: 232-233).
According to Wendt, the core of the national interests created on the basis
of the corporate identity, is the motivation of the existence of states. Hence,
Wendt implies that these motivational interests are crucial that states need
to attach great importance for their survival, which are; physical survival,
autonomy, economic well-being and collective self-esteem (Wendt 1994:
234). The principle of physical survival is used to preserve the existence of
a state-owned nation-state structure, but is generally used to preserve the
boundaries. However, according to Wendt, this general use is not generally
valid; for sometimes the states can tolerate the dissolution of borderline
regions around them and the creation of new regional powers and/or borders
within the state (Wendt 1994: 235). In this context, the basic element for
the principle of physical survival is the preservation of the nation-state
structure rather than the continuity of boundaries.
The principle of autonomy; means that a state can use its own resources on
its own will and make constitutional/constituent agreements to which it is
6
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
a party (Wendt 1994: 235). In other words, the principle of autonomy is a
state’s ability to act as an autonomous actor in the international system. On
the other hand, this principle is directly related to the independence of a
country; a non-free state will not be able to meet the future demands from
the country nor to respond to the future. However, according to Wendt, this
principle implies an ambivalent situation, as in the same physical survival
principle; because the elements necessary for the protection of independence
will vary from situation to situation (Wendt 1994: 235-236).
Another principle that constitutes the national interest is the Economic
Welfare Principle; The principle is defined as the continuation of the
current economic order, the level of consistent/stable production and the
conservation of economic resources. From a general point of view, the
principle of Economic Prosperity is defined as growth-oriented; but this
is not necessary, according to Wendt: There are economies in the world
that are not growth-oriented but have a consistent level of production.
According to him, the reason that growth focus is mandatory is that the
Economic Welfare Principle is defined on the periphery of capitalist logic;
for this reason, a legitimate basis can be provided to increase the financial
interests (Wendt 1994: 235-236).
The final principle that constitutes the national interest is the principle of
Common Self-Esteem; as a principle; it is expressed as a community feeling
good. Respecting by the other means recognition; that is, if a state is respected
by another state, the state’s self-esteem will be positive; If the government
does not see respect and recognition, self-esteem will be negative. In other
words, there can only be cooperation between states of mutual respect and
recognition; that is, the preservation of the principle of mutual respect is
possible only by mutual respect and recognition. According to Wendt, these
principles are the principles that built the national interest of a country,
and it is seen that the principles mentioned in the above are similar to those
of realist theory thinkers Robert Osgood’s definition of national interest
(Osgood 1953).
According to the Realist theory, interest is the raison d’être of the states in the
international system. The core of the definition of national interest in the
Neo-Liberalist theory constitutes the principle of cooperation in anarchic
international system, which can affect the interests. According to the Neo7
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
Realist theory, the national interest is the whole of the actions that emerged
from the external imposition of the (international) structure to the states.
Constructivist theory defines states’ perception of national interests as the
result of identity building as a result of interactions between other subjects
in the system. However, Wendt, argues that the notion of national interest
rises on the basis of the principle of four main motivational interests.
These principles are; physical survival, autonomy, economic well-being and
collective self-esteem.
As mentioned in detail above, Constructivism defines international system
as the result of social interaction between the states; and this interaction
crowned by image which is summed by identity, value, culture. Apart
from these notions, Realist theory explained the main drive for the states
as national interest, in a power-driven international system. But according
to the Constructivists, this main drive shapes the (international) system if
it built upon identity, culture and values. In other words, so called social
interaction actually a trade of positive ‘image’ that states constructed for
their foreign policy goals. For this point, its crucial to shed light into
the Deutschean theory, which crowns interaction, communication and
integration for the ultimate salvation in the game of anarchy.
Karl Deutch’s “Transactionalist” Approach
The origin of the transactionalism approach, which can be summarized
as a theory, is based on Karl W. Deutsch’s book ‘Political Society and the
North Atlantic’; It explains how the main purpose of political integration
acts as a means to stabilize the state system and to prevent war and conflict
with other states. Deutsch writes that there are two stages in international
integration. The first phase he describes is a sort of pluralistic security
community that ‘feels’ or does not exhibit any shared organization evoking
a sense of community (Deutsch 1957: 127).
The transactionalist approach also aims at establishing an organized and
interdependent community that is distinguished from the conditions
necessary for the communication approach, the random grouping of
individuals, and the support and maintenance of a sense of community
between the population of a particular region. Deutsch’s concepts and
analytical vocabulary are largely derived from the theory of communication
8
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
and his previous work on nationalism (Deutsch 1953).
Core of the Deutsch’s ‘transactionalist’ approach was the assumption that
communication is the main binder of social groups in general and political
communities in particular; he implies that communication enables a group
to think together, to see together, and to act together (Deutsch 1966:
77). Deutsch also underlines that, through transactions such as trade,
migration, tourism, culture, educational exchanges and the use of physical
communication, a social fabric is built not only among elites but also the
masses instilling in them a sense of community (Deutsch 1966: 78). As
mentioned above, Deutsch’s “transactionalist” approach enables regional
integration for parties that share common grounds of communication,
trade, migration, tourism, culture, educational exchanges and etc. (Deutsch
1966: 78).
In transactionalist theory approach; it’s been underlined that more levels
of transaction between regions lead to greater integration and greater
political stability within the nation-state system. The theory is to explain
how fragmentation can occur, as well as integration at an international and
transnational stage. It tells us that these regions, which deal with each other,
will lead to more fragmentation from different ‘civilizations’ and more
integration than the same ‘civilization’.
The second phase of integration that Deutsch describes is an amalgamated
security community; in this phase, integration is similar to the pluralistic
security community, with the notable difference that some organizations
share, the pluralistic security community defined by Deutsch does not share
any organization. A united security community can act as a single unit.
There is a greater risk of conflict among individual members of the group,
but at the same time there is a potential to act as a single unit. Because
of this greater risk, the pluralistic security community seems to be a more
viable option than the combined security community (Deutsch 1957: 128).
As Deutsch defines in two different phases of integration and defining which
one can be preferred, he implies what’s the meaning and sum of integration
on the basis of stability. He expressed the feeling that the community needed
for political integration should pursue beyond sharing common values.
It must be a mutual sympathy and loyalty sensation called ‘us’. People
9
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
must identify with one another. There must be mutual communication,
common needs and mutual attention (Deutsch 1957: 129). In other words,
transactionalism holds shared interests and values which are important for
integration; also, it is the interaction and communication that leads to a
level of integration which is encouraged by shared values, as well as leading
to more integration.
The Catalyst: ‘Cultural Diplomacy’
If one considers Soft Power concept as a body of a tree; branches of the tree
should be Cultural Diplomacy, Public Diplomacy, Foreign Aids, Nation
Branding and Digital Diplomacy (Akıllı 2016: 152). All these alt concepts
are related to the Soft Power concept. Joseph Nye, who coined the Soft
Power concept into International Relations literature with his famous book
“Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power”, explains “The
ability to persuade through culture, values and ideas, as opposed to ‘hard
power’, which conquers or coerces through military might” (Nye 1990:
34). Nonetheless, culture is on a higher plain than institutions, values, or
efforts to secure a greater say in international affairs and to play a greater
role in shaping World discourse in so far it imbues all these things and many
beyond (Zhang 2017: 44).
Cultural Diplomacy can be described as course of actions, which are based
on and utilize the exchange of ideas, values, traditions and other aspects of
culture or identity. Through this exchange, relationships between states could
be strengthen, socio cultural cooperation between states may be enhanced
or mutual national interests could be promoted. Cultural Diplomacy can
be practiced by either the public sector, private sector or civil society (Akıllı
2016: 153-4).
Another description of Cultural diplomacy as following is; “Cultural
diplomacy represents a facet of diplomacy that has not been utilized
completely in building better relationships and although it could serve as
a linking bridge toward better relations…” (Kitsou 2011: 21). According
to another definition of Cultural Diplomacy; “it is an actor’s attempt to
manage international relations by transferring its cultural resources and
achievements abroad.” The underlying assumption is that the political
interaction will be easier between those who are close to each other
10
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
in cultural terms. Because of that, the scope of the term is hard to be
determined correctly (Sönmezoğlu et al. 2010: 438). Generally speaking, it
is accepted that cultural diplomacy owned by a state is mostly related to that
state’s government (Sancar 2012: 169). It is said that cultural diplomacy is
one the most important instrument to advertise positive image facilitating
diplomatic affairs (Chartrand 1992: 134). Cultural diplomacy, according
to another definition; is the strategy of developing mutual understanding
between states through human communication and exchange as a concept
of international relations (Purtaş 2013a: 2).
Apart from that, Cultural Diplomacy is defined as a behavior introducing
cultural advantage to audiences (Fisher 2009: 253-254). In this context, the
importance of the message and the perception that is intended to transfer
to audiences are revealed. So, having the potential to awaken curiosity and
interest to the targeted state, messages given to audiences will in the future
cause a barrier for a potential prejudice to targeted state (Sancar 2012:
170). More precisely, a country that can be influenced by another country’s
cultural values, makes it easy to accept the legitimacy of latter’s foreign
policy goals.
As Sancar emphasizes that the power of directing the masses without
resorting to crude powers and persuading them to certain issues has risen in
“language” (Sancar 2012: 170). In this context, countries using the Cultural
Diplomacy instrument have two main elements on which they stand; namely
language and education. It is much easier for a country to be effective in the
target country or countries where it spreads its own language compared
to other countries. On the other hand, education is used as a means of
supplementing the language. Beyond the classical meaning of education,
areas of arts and culture are also implemented into the definition. Countries
that make the most use of cultural diplomacy are former colonialists; or,
countries those of which can afford such activities in terms of their foreign
policy goals (Sönmezoğlu et al. 2010: 438-439).
In other words, cultural diplomacy is an interaction and communication
tool for states, that can be used to built up and promote common (cultural)
values and (foreign policy) goals for each other. Regarding to this assumption,
TURKSOY and Turkic Council’s est ratio is to provide a common ground
for Turkic World to create an integrated community. For doing so cultural
11
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
diplomacy interpretations, such as TURKSOY’s activities and Turkic
Council’s cooperation areas (for instance, Orkhun Exchange Program) have
been used. Of Corse, this kind of attempt is to realize that an integrated
community (with communication and interaction) eventually provide a
safe area that provident disputes/conflicts/wars as Deutsch suggested in his
famous work (Deutsch 1957).
Turkic World’s UNESCO: TURKSOY
After the dissolution of the USSR, newly independent Turkic states
(Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan)
pursued their state building on cultural basis (Purtaş 2017: 91) actually,
that kind pursuit intercepts with Deutsch’s approach of transactionalism.
As Purtaş implies, through this culture-based state building led them to
identify their identity both domestically and internationally (Purtaş 2017:
91). While a culture-based transformation happening in the very days
of the independence for the Turkic states in Central Asia, TURKSOY
founded to enhance this transformation and boost the relations between
the mentioned states as well as Turkey. TURKSOY (The International
Organization of Turkic Culture) was founded in 1993 by the Republic
of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and
Uzbekistan. As title of this section resembles and since their fundamental
principles, activities and goals (of intercultural cooperation) are the
same, TURKSOY also referred as UNESCO of the Turkic Word, is an
international organization that crowns cultural cooperation between
its member and observer states. Every member state represented in the
minister of Culture level in the organization. TURKSOY’s corner stones
based on common language, history and cultural values; through these
values, TURKSOY enhancing relations between members by strengthening
common bonds of the Turkic legacy (Purtaş 2017: 91-92). For doing so,
TURKSOY is organizing commemorative events that crowns common
Turkic culture and history as well as celebration of the Nowruz Feast.
Apart from these events, promoting common Turkic art takes an
important place for TURKSOY’s activities. Since TURKSOY is the very
organization for dialogue and interaction for Turkic World, promoting
art and forging bonds through it shapes TURKSOY’s activities. Art is a
universal language that can provide communication ground, even there
12
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
isn’t any available to establish; thus, TURKSOY considers art is the crucial
element for dialogue and communication and pays tremendous amount of
importance in its activities. For doing so TURKSOY organized a number
of art events starting from its foundation; 19 opera days, 10 photographer’s
gatherings, 5 sculptures’ gatherings, 7 congresses of literature journals of
the Turkic World, 3 Kashgarly Mahmut Short Story Competitions and
5 seminars on intangible cultural heritage; as well as with the exchange
of repertoires, conductors and musicians among Turkic World Youth
Chamber Orchestra (established in 2010) and Youth Choir (established
in 2015) (Purtaş 2017: 99).
Apart from art, TURKSOY also promotes culture as the main ground for the
dialogue and communication between its members; for instance, cultural
capitals of Turkic World have been declared (like Astana, Kazakhstan at
2012). As representative of their national cultures, cultural capitals of
Turkic World host many events during the year: from artistic gatherings
to theatre, from classical music performances to various showcases (like
Turkvision), being the cultural for a year provides the chance to introduce
positive image of the country towards to World. Indeed, these events
drastically increase the number of culture tourists as well.
Through the promotion of art TURKSOY both aimed to enhance the
bonds in the Turkic World as well as introduce the uniqueness and richness
of Turkic culture towards the rest of the World. Nonetheless, TURKSOY
has been an international gateway for the post-Soviet Turkic States; hence
they were behind the iron curtain’s restrictions. Through TURKSOY,
those states able to enhance their introduction to international system
as well. Thanks to TURKSOY’s activities, which provides a solid ground
for cultural dialogue, interaction and communication, Turkic republics
have successfully enforced policies to sustain peaceful coexistence as well
as restoration, preservation, integration and promotion of the common
culture (Purtaş 2017: 100).
TURKSOY’s activities enable member states and most importantly for
Turkic World, to build up a mutual ground with the norms of common
cultural values and promoted it through cultural diplomacy activities.
Today, member and observer states of TURKSOY are get to gather (as
mentioned above) and have regular meetings in the basis of culture, art
13
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
and common values; this kind of interaction and communication added
vital benefits for the dream of an integrated Turkic World.
Turkic Council and Orkhun Exchange Program
The Cooperation Council of the Turkish-speaking Countries (Turkish
Council) is an intergovernmental structure that promotes cooperation
in between the Turkic World. The organization was established with the
Nakhichevan Agreement signed by Turkey, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and
Kazakhstan at the Turkish Summit in 2009, in Nakhichevan. The Turkic
Council reflects the common political will of the member states and takes
meetings at heads of states level (https://www.turkkon.org/en/organizasyontarihcesi).
Even though the organizational structure established at 2009, very first
summit of the Turkic Council held at 1992 in Ankara. Beside from Turkey’s,
leaders of the newly independent states namely as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan met at the summit. After the
first summit, next one held at Istanbul in 1994; at Bishkek in 1995; at
Tashkent in 1996; at Astana in 1998; at Baku in 2000; at Istanbul in 2001;
at Antalya in 2006; Nakhichevan in 2009; at Istanbul in 2010; at Almaty
between 20-21 October 2011 with the theme “Economic and Commercial
Cooperation”; at Bishkek in between 22-23 August 2012 in Bishkek with the
theme of “Educational, Scientific and Cultural Cooperation”; 15-16 August
2013 in Qabala District of Azerbaijan with the theme “Transportation”; at
Bodrum in between 4-5 June 2014 with the theme of “Tourism”; and 11
September 2015 with the contact of Media and Information Technologies
in Astana (http://www.mfa.gov.tr/turk-konseyi-en.en.mfa).
As it can be seen from these summits, Turkic Council acts as the top level
of dialogue authority between the member states and thus, serves as the
common ground for the Turkic World’s mutual decisions. As an important
aspect of the dialogue, education takes an important role in the Turkic
Council too; starting from 2017 Orkhun Exchange Program enabled to
provide students and academics to have an alternative type of exchange (like
Erasmus+ KA107 and Mevlana Exchange Program) between Universities
in the Turkic World. Orkhun Exchange Program, which provides student
and academic staff exchange for higher education institutions of the Turkic
14
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
Council members, developed by the Turkish Council and its regulation
signed by the member states meeting that held at Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas
University between 6-7 April 2017. (http://www.turkkon.org/en-US/
Haber-Arsivi/301/1130/3822)
The pilot project of the Orkhun Exchange Program started in the first stage
for undergraduate students in the Department of International Relations,
Political Science, International Relations and Political Science from
2017-2018 academic year. Bilateral protocols between the participating
universities have been signed in this context. Current Orkhun Exchange
Program Universities are: Azerbaijan: Baku State University; Kazakhstan:
International Hodja Ahmet Yesevi Turkish-Kazakh University, Al-Farabi
Kazakh National University, L.N. Gumilyev Eurasia National University;
Kyrgyzstan: Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas University, International University
of Kyrgyzstan; Turkey: Ataturk University, Istanbul University (http://
turkunib.org/orhun/).
Orkhun Exchange Program has potential for future, but right now University
numbers needed to be increased and students and academic staff at program
Universities should be encouraged to take part in it. Nevertheless, Orkhun
Exchange Program is one of the tools for the cultural diplomacy for the
Turkic World had muster and shall be supported by the Turkic Council
members for a more broader exchange program in University level. As
Erasmus+ starting point, through Orkhun Exchange Program it would
become a reality to form a solid common ground in higher education for
Turkic World as well. In which, dialogue and interaction will be crowned
and practiced in the community.
Organizations, Critiques and Deutschean Theory
As mentioned under the introduction title, the grand puzzle for this article
is Deutsch’s famous statement about the transactionalism as “the study of
possible ways in which men might someday abolish war” (Deutsch 1957: 3).
For solving this ultimate puzzle; its crucial to understand Deutsch expression
(Deutsch 1957: 3-4) that within the security/political communities, the
occurring and expectation of war is minimized. On the other words, erupting
war (or/and conflict) in -politically- integrated communities are less likely
considering to nonintegrated or less communicated regions/countries.
15
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
In the core of transactionalism, the idea is simple and understood: To end the
ongoing game of mutual mistrust within the anarchic international system,
states had to transform the system of anarchy by building mutually binding
norms for peaceful ways of competition. Self-interested actors would not
give up their interests, but socialize themselves respectively each other to
non-violent mode of conduct (Beyer 2005: 2). As mentioned above, in
transactionalist theory approach; it’s been underlined that more levels of
transaction between regions lead to greater integration and greater political
stability within the nation-state system; these regions, which deal with each
other, will lead to more fragmentation from different ‘civilizations’ and
more integration than the same ‘civilization’. Thus, communication as the
key mechanism of the social mobilization of communities that in turn was
responsible for historical process of national development. Similar processes
in the international sphere in circumstances where states build security
communities among themselves. international integration is defined as the
achievement of security within a region. Deutsch, defined integration as ‘the
attainment, within a territory, of a “sense of community” and of institutions
and practices strong enough and widespread enough to assure for a “long”
time, dependable expectations of “peaceful change” among its population
(Deutsch 1957: 5) In other words, communication and interaction will
eventually lead integration; and it will provide a mutual relevance between
states that create a beneficial interaction ultimately to state trust for each
other. Foundation of TURKSOY enabled a habitat to share common
cultural values of Turkic World, created a platform that states represented
in Ministry of Culture level. Same situation goes for the Turkic Council
as well, in which states represented by Ministry of Foreign Affairs; both
institutions (TURKSOY and Turkic Council) are provided safe and solidary
ground for their member states.
Beyer explains main target of the security community approach in the
international relations is to theorize how to prevent conflict between
states; of course, it’s important to keep in mind that Deutsch theorized
this approach during the Cold War years, in which International Relations
dominated by Realist theory. So, the core drive of the theory actually
crowned with the Realist approach’s assumptions of staying alive for a
state; which is being ‘power’ful (in manners of military and economic).
Beyer explains this situation as a nation’s survival constitutes the interest
16
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
of the self-help dominated actors (states) and in the presence of universal
mistrust which driven by Realist theory’s anarchical international system
identification, may eventually lead to provident violence in the instant of
uncertainty such as systemic changes (Beyer 2005: 1-2). For this study’s case,
a critical systemic change is undoubtedly the dissolution of USSR which
led a massive uncertainty process for the ex-Soviet Union states. After the
dissolution, being a nation-state for those states, also brought the situation
of national interest that eventually caused disagreements once allied states in
the Soviet Union. Instances like south Kyrgyzstan ethnic clashes or political
and economic disagreements on the usage of Amu Darya and Syr Darya
rivers shows us that uncertainty and being a newly independent state causes
national interest driven problems. Thus, foundation of TURKSOY and
Turkic Council were so crucial to surpass/consolidate such problems in the
Turkic World. As Beyer suggests, rationalist states pursued their security
under the shade of cooperation (Beyer 2005: 1-2); for Turkic World,
mentioned organizations are huge and strong steps for the long-lasting
cooperation and permanent communication bridges between the states.
Beyer summarizes Deutsch work as trying to sketch a roadmap for states
that will show a way out of the realist paradigm enhanced security trap
of anarchy simply by integration (Beyer 2005: 2). In other words, to end
the anarchy (in a Realist perspective, which international system imposes)
and game of mis-trust is to build mutually binding norms for peaceful
ways of cooperation and competition (Beyer 2005: 2). TURKSOY built
on mutually shared cultural values and the one of the main aims of the
TURKSOY in to promote this very common cultural values around the
World. Nonetheless, Turkic Council built on mutually shared goals (areas of
cooperation). Turkic Council provides cooperation grounds from political
cooperation to economic cooperation; from youth & sports to education
& science; from transports and customs to tourism and diaspora; and from
ICT to information & media areas (Turkic Council Annual Report, 2017).
As Deutsch offers, a mutual cooperation ground(s) with the support of
communication and interaction will eventually end up with integration
and this will create the security community that will ultimately prevent
violence/conflicts/wars.
Deutsch offers two answers: One approach aimed at a pluralistic security
community and starts with intensification of communication and
17
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
cooperation. By that, states would initiate a dynamic process of social
learning and begin to form a set of shared norms. The second step demands
that states had to subdue to some kind of supranational body that would
bind all of them and thus provide predictability necessary for the dependable
expectation of peaceful change. The amalgamated community in analogy to
the nation state confers decision making power from the multilateral to
the supranational level (Beyer 2005: 3). TURKSOY and Turkic Council
are pioneering organizations towards a communication crowned Turkic
World; that approach also brought interaction between the Turkic states.
As summed above; communication and interaction create a strong sense of
integration between the states.
On the other hand, there are also a number of critiques towards to Deutsch
transactionalism approach; such as Adler & Barnett: security/political
community concept revisited and a new approach developed by Adler
& Barnett (1998). In their study, Adler & Barnett suggested a new tree
tier structure to explain the mentioned community model. According
to Adler & Barnett, Deutschean concept of transactionalism has major
flaws, they consider it as fuzzy and badly defined (Adler & Barnett 1998:
29). Their critiques concentrated on some points, which are summed as
below: Problems of measurement and operationalization, lack of clarity on
mechanisms which the key processes operate, lack of evidence to support
the assumption that increased communication would necessarily lead to
cognitive change (Adler & Barnett 1998: 29-65). Adler & Barnett defines
community in three characteristics: First, shared identities, values and
meanings; second, many-sided and direct relations; third, communities
exhibit a certain kind of reciprocity that expresses some degree of long-term
interest (Adler & Barnett 1998: 31). TURKSOY promotes the common
cultural identity of Turkic (member) states (first characteristic); Turkic
Council provides a common ground that multi-faceted relations can be
aroused (second characteristic); and TURKSOY and Turkic Council both
enabled Turkic World states to have mutual and multi-faceted relations
between one and another; thus, helped to create and promote an integrated
community in the basis of cultural diplomacy (third characteristic).
18
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
Conclusion
In this paper its aimed to read the process that crowned with the practice of
cultural diplomacy in Central Asia (especially in between Turkic republics
and in general Turkic World) through Karl Deutch’s “transactionalist”
approach. At the heart of Deutsch’s transactional approach is the assumption
that the communication is the cement of social group in general and
political communities in particular. Communication enables a group to
think together, to see together and to act together. Communication process
and transaction a flow helps spread shared identification among people.
Through transactions such as trade, migration, tourism, culture, educational
exchanges and the use of physical communication facility, a social fabric is
built not only among elites but also the masses instilling in them a sense
of community. Through cultural diplomacy TURKSOY is the pioneer
institution for this type of exchange; furthermore, Turkic Council’s “Orkhun
Exchange Program” provides educational exchange as for those states as
well. TURKSOY and Turkic Council’s Cultural Diplomacy activities will
ultimately deliver positive image of countries that may facilitate diplomatic
affairs. (For the facilitation example of the culture please check: Güzelipek
2017: 773).
On the other hand, sense of community is defined by Deutsch as a belief on
the part of individuals in a group that they have come to agreement on at
least this one point- that common social problems must and can be resolved
by processes of peaceful change. Peaceful change is the resolution of social
problems normally by institutionalized procedure without resort to large
scale physical force. The formation of a security community is the central
concept of transactionalism. There is real assurance that the members of that
community will not fight each other physically but will settle their disputes
in some other way and establish integration. This point also so crucial for
Turkic World; because after the independence, naturally each state wanted
to maximize their national interest goals and that caused critical problems
between states. For instance, Central Asia’s two major rivers, the Amu Darya
and the Syr Darya’s usage share between Turkic states has been a critical
problem since their independence and now it’s one of the biggest water and
energy conflicts in Central Asia region (Lillis 2012). As mentioned under
the introduction title, the grand puzzle for this article is Deutsch’s famous
19
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
statement about his theory as “the study of possible ways in which men
might someday abolish war”; practice of Cultural Diplomacy also would
catalyst these kind of critical problems between states and through this
catalyst a solid common ground for states will be stated for a long-lasting
cooperation and stability in the relations.
References
Adler, Emanuel (1997). “Imagined (Security) Communities: Cognitive Regions in
International Relations”. Millennium: Journal of International Relations 26
(2): 249-277.
Adler, Emanuel & Michael Barnett (Ed.) (1998). Security Communities. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Akıllı, Erman (2016). Türkiye’de Devlet Kimliği ve Dış Politika. 2nd Edition. Ankara:
Nobel Yay.
Ateş, Şerif, Ş. Köktürk & M. Barut (Ed.) (2016). Kültürel Diplomaside Sınırların
Dışında Düşünmek. İstanbul: Yunus Emre Enstitüsü Kültürel Diplomasi
Akademisi Yay.
Barlas Bozkuş, Şeyda (2011). “Kültür Diplomasisinin Sınırları: Türk Kültür ve
Sanatının Uluslararası Platformlarda Tanıtımı (1980-2010)”. Global Media
Journal 2 (3): 1-19. http://globalmediajournaltr.yeditepe.edu.tr/makaleler/
GMJ_3._sayi_Guz_2011/PDF/Bozkus.pdf (Accessed: 14.03.2019).
Beyer, Cornelia (2005). “A Presentation of Emanuel Adler’s Concepts of Integration”.
Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations 4 (3): 1-20.
Bound, Kirsten, R. Briggs, J. Holden & S. Jones (2007). Cultural Diplomacy.
London: Demos.
Chartrand, Harry Hillman (1992). “International Cultural Affairs: A Fourteen
Country Survey”. Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society 22 (2).
http://www.compilerpress.ca/Cultural%20Economics/Works/ICR%20
1992.htm (Accessed: 20.07.2018)
Cummings, Milton C. (2009). Cultural Diplomacy and the United States
Government: A Survey. Washington: Americans for the Arts. https://www.
americansforthearts.org/sites/default/files/MCCpaper.pdf (Accessed: 14.03.
2019).
Dedeoğlu, Beril (2004). “Yeniden Güvenlik Topluluğu: Benzerliklerin Karşılıklı
Bağımlılığından Farklılıkların Birlikteliğine”. Uluslararası İlişkiler 1 (4): 1-21.
Dedeoğlu, Beril (2016). Uluslararası Güvenlik ve Strateji. 3rd Edition. İstanbul:
Derin Yay.
20
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
Deutsch, W. Karl (1953). Nationalism and Social Communication: An Inquiry
into the Foundations of Nationality. Cambridge: The Technology Press,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Deutsch, W. Karl (1957). Political Community and the North Atlantic Area:
International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Deutsch, W. Karl (1966). The Nerves of Government. New York: The Free Press.
Durdular, Ercan (2017). “Parliamentary Assembly of Turkic-Speaking Countries
(TurkPA): Beyond Parliamentary Diplomacy”. Perceptions 22 (1): 115-142.
Feigenbaum, Harvey B. (2001). “Globalization and Cultural Diplomacy”. Center
for Arts and Culture Art, Culture & the National Agenda Issue Paper.
Washington: George Washington University. 1-29.
Fisher, Ali (2009). “Four Seasons in One Day: The Crowded House of Public
Diplomacy in the UK”. Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy. Ed. Taylor
P. and Snow N. New York: Routledge. 252-261.
Geertz, Clifford (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gienow-Hecht, C. E. Jessica & Mark C. Donfried (2010). Searching for a Cultural
Diplomacy. New York: Berghahn Books.
Gould-Davies, Nigel (2003). “The Logic of Soviet Cultural Diplomacy”. Diplomatic
History 27 (2): 193-214.
Guozuo, Zhang (2017). Research Outline for China’s Cultural Soft Power. Singapore:
Springer.
Güzelipek, Yiğit Anıl (2017). “‘Kosova ABD’nin 51. Eyaleti’ Söyleminin
Medeniyetler Çatışması ve (Neo) Realizm Özelinde Karşılaştırmalı Tahlili”.
Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi 7 (13): 761-779.
"History of Organization, The Cooperation Council of The Turkic Speaking States"
(Turkic Council). https://www.turkkon.org/en/organizasyon-tarihcesi
(Accessed: 20.07.2018)
Jepperson, Ronald L., Alexander Wendt & Peter J. Katzenstein. “Norms, Identity
and Culture in National Security”. The Culture of National Security: Norms
and Identity in World Politics. Ed. Peter J. Katzenstein. New York: Columbia
University Press. 1-36.
Kitsou, Sofia (2011). The Power of Culture in Diplomacy: The Case of U.S.
Cultural Diplomacy in France and Germany. Ionian University. http://
www.exchangediplomacy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/3.-SofiaKitsou_The-Power-of-Culture-in-Diplomacy-The-Case-of-U.S.-CulturalDiplomacy-in-France-and-Germany.pdf (Accessed: 16.02.2018).
Kowert, Paul A. (1998). “National Identity: Inside and Out”. Security Studies 8
(2-3): 1-34.
21
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
Kozymka, Irena (2014). The Diplomacy of Culture: The Role of UNESCO in
Sustaining Cultural Diversity. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Lillis, Joanna (2012). “Uzbekistan Leader Warns of Water Wars in Central Asia”.
Eurasia Net. https://eurasianet.org/s/uzbekistan-leader-warns-of-waterwars-in-central-asia (Accessed: 20.07.2018).
Nye, Joseph. S. (1990). Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power.
New York: Basic Books.
Nye, Joseph. S. (2002). The Paradox of American Power. New York: Oxford
University Press.
“Orhun Process Exchange Program is Now at Service of the Turkic Academic
World!”.TurkicCouncil.http://www.turkkon.org/en-US/HaberArsivi/301/1130/3822 (Accessed: 20.07.2018).
Osgood, Robert (1953). Ideals and Self-Interests in America’s Foreign Relations.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Purtaş, Fırat (2013a). “Türk Dış Politikasının Yükselen Değeri: Kültürel Diplomasi”.
Gazi Akademik Bakış 7 (13): 1-14.
Purtaş, Fırat (2013b). “Kültürel Diplomasi ve Türksoy”. Medeniyet ve Kültür
Araştırmaları Merkezi. http://mekam.org/mekam/kulturel-diplomasi-veturksoy (Accessed: 21.02.2018).
Purtaş, Fırat (2017). “Cultural Diplomacy Initiatives of Turkic Republics”.
Perceptions 22 (1): 91-114.
Sancar, G. Aslı (2012). Kamu Diplomasisi ve Uluslararası Halkla İlişkiler. İstanbul:
Beta Yay.
Smith, Anthony (1991). “The Nation: Invented, Imagined, Reconstructed”. Journal
of International Studies 20 (3): 353-368.
Schneider, Cynthia P. (2009). “The Unrealized Potential of Cultural Diplomacy:
“Best Practices” and What Could Be, If Only…”. The Journal of Arts
Management, Law, and Society 39 (4): 260-279.
Sönmezoğlu, Faruk, Deniz Ülke Arıboğan ve Beril Dedeoğlu (Ed.) (2010). “Kültürel
Diplomasi”. Uluslararası İlişkiler Sözlüğü. 4th Edition. İstanbul: Der Yay.
“The Cooperation Council of Turkic Speaking States”. Republic of Turkey Ministry
of Foreign Affairs. http://www.mfa.gov.tr/turk-konseyi-en.en.mfa (Accessed:
20.07.2018).
Turkic Council Annual Report 2017. Turkic Council. https://www.turkkon.org/
assets/pdf/yayinlar/turk-konseyi-2017-faaliyet-raporu-8-en.pdf (Accessed:
14.03.2019).
Ulusoy, Hasan (2012). “Revisiting Security Communities After the Cold War:
The Constructivist Perspective”. SAM. http://sam.gov.tr/wp-content/
uploads/2012/01/Hasan-Ulusoy3.pdf (Accessed: 14.03.2019).
22
• Akıllı, Turksoy, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited •
bilig
AUTUMN 2019/NUMBER 91
Vlahos, Michael (1991). “Culture and Foreign Policy”. Foreign Policy 82: 59-78.
Von Maltzahn, Nadia (2015). The Syria-Iran Axis: Cultural Diplomacy and
International Relations in the Middle East. New York: I. B. Tauris.
Wendt, Alexander (1992). “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social
Construction of Power Politics”. International Organization 46 (2): 391425.
Wendt, Alexander (1994). “Collective Identity Formation and the International
State”. American Political Science Review 88 (2): 384-396.
23
bilig
GÜZ 2019/SAYI 91
Türksoy, Türk Keneşi ve Kültürel
Diplomasi: İşlevselciliğin Yeniden
Tahayyülü*
Erman Akıllı**
Öz
Bu makalenin amacı, TÜRKSOY ve Türk Keneşi
sayesinde Orta Asya’da (özellikle Türk cumhuriyetleri
arasında ve genel olarak Türk Dünyası’nda) kültürel
diplomasi pratiğiyle taçlandırılan etkileşim sürecinin Karl
Deutch’un “işlevselcilik” yaklaşımıyla incelenmesidir.
“Siyasal Toplum ve Kuzey Atlantik Bölgesi” adlı
kitabında Deutsch, işlevselcilik yaklaşımını “bir gün
(insanlığın) savaşı ortadan kaldırmasını mümkün
kılacak” bir çalışma olarak açıklamaktadır. Öyleyse,
burada sorulması gereken temel soru insanların, sosyal
bir yapı içerisinde birlikte hareket ederek savaş/çatışma
ihtimalini ortadan kaldırmayı nasıl öğreneceği sorusudur.
Bu bağlamda, çalışmada Türk Dünyası’nda TÜRKSOY
ve Türk Konseyi gibi uluslararası kuruluşlar aracılığıyla
kültürel diplomasi ve kültürel diplomasi uygulamaları ile
bu sorunun cevaplanması da amaçlamaktadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler
TÜRKSOY, Türk Keneşi, Kültürel Diplomasi, İşlevselcilik,
Karl Deutsch.
Geliş Tarihi: 17 Ocak 2019 – Kabul Tarihi: 01 Temmuz 2019
Bu makaleyi şu şekilde kaynak gösterebilirsiniz:
Akıllı, Erman (2019). “TURKSOY, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism Revisited”.
bilig – Türk Dünyası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 91: 1-25.
**
Doç. Dr., Kırşehir Ahi Evran Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi, Uluslararası İlişkiler
Bölümü – Kırşehir/Türkiye
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7782-0881
ermanakilli@ahievran.edu.tr
*
24
bilig
падение 2019/Выпуск 91
ТЮРКСОЙ, ТЮРКСКИЙ СОВЕТ
И КУЛЬТУРНАЯ ДИПЛОМАТИЯ:
ПЕРЕСМОТР ТРАНЗАКЦИОНАЛИЗМА*
Эрман АКЫЛЛЫ**
Аннотация
Цель этой статьи – рассмотреть процесс в Центральной
Азии, который увенчался практикой культурной дипломатии
благодаря ТЮРКСОЙ и Тюркскому совету (в особенности
между тюркскими республиками и в тюркском мире в целом)
в контексте концепции транзакционализма Карла Дойча. В
своей книге «Политическое сообщество и североатлантический
регион» Дойч объясняет теорию транзакций как исследование,
которое позволило бы «возможным путям, когда мужчины
когда-нибудь могут отменить войну». Итак, вопрос в том, «Как
люди могут научиться действовать сообща, чтобы устранить
войну / конфликт как социальный институт?». Таким образом,
эта статья также является попыткой ответить на этот вопрос
путем внедрения культурной дипломатии и культурной
дипломатии через международные организации, такие как
ТЮРКСОЙ и Тюркский совет в тюркском мире.
Ключевые слова
ТЮРКСОЙ, Тюркский совет, культурная дипломатия,
транзакционализм, Карл Дойч.
Поступило в редакцию: 17 января 2019 г. – Принято в номер: 01 июля 2019 г.
Ссылка на статью:
Akıllı, Erman (2019). “TURKSOY, Turkic Council and Cultural Diplomacy: Transactionalism
Revisited”. bilig – Журнал Гуманитарных Ηаук Τюркского Мира 91: 1-25.
**
Доц., д-р, Университет Ахи Эвран, г. Кыршехир, кафедра международных отношений–
Кыршехир/ Турция
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7782-0881,
ermanakilli@ahievran.edu.tr.
*
25