Session 7: Politics

1st Global Conference

Friday 6th November – Sunday 8th November 2009
Salzburg, Austria

The Repercussions of the US Bullying on Turkish Foreign Policy in Two Case-studies: The Johnson Letter of June 5th 1964 and the Troop Deployment Proposal of March 1st 2003
Sarp Balci
Political Science and Public Administration Department, Ankara University, Turkey

Since 1950’s onwards, Turkey has always been an ally at hand for the US interests in the Near East. However, both the Johnson Letter of June 5th 1964, and the Troop Deployment Proposal of March 1st 2003 incidents were crucial in repositioning Turkey in the international arena, and restructuring the behavioral patterns of Turkish foreign policy-makers.

The Johnson Letter was written in a conjuncture where Turkey was in search of a unilateral intervention towards Cyprus, which would lead to a possible Turco-Greek war in the Near East. The US response was in an abrupt manner, which altered the nature of Turkish foreign policy. The letter was overtly pronouncing a possible isolation of Turkey in the international arena, and brought Turkish policy-makers to reconsider their pro-American position.

The rejection of the US proposal on deploying her troops in Turkey on March 1st 2003 was another milestone in Turco-American relations. According to the US policy-makers the tripod was ready. Along with the newly established and convoluted structure of the Justice and Development Party Government (JDP), the right connections within the major opposition Republican People’s Party (RPP), and with its excessive influence on Turkish politics the NATO-instructed Turkish army; the fate of the troop deployment proposal was predictable for the Bush Administration. All is needed was a little bit of ‘encouragement’ by showing both the carrot and the stick.

This paper is aiming at to reveal the repercussions of the US bullying on Turkish foreign policy in two different cases, and to demonstrate the nature of anti-American behavior in Turkey as a product of long-term distortions implicit in a lasting and a structural relationship.

Download Draft Conference Paper (pdf)

Bullying at the International Level: A Look at Negotiations on World Trade
Seidu Alidu
Leeds Metropolitan University, United Kingdom

Trade is an important element of the contemporary global economy and one of the main driving forces of economic growth, and international trade plays two identifiable roles in economic development. First, it stimulates domestic economies through the provision of cheaper resources, thereby enabling countries to consume more than they would have done without it. Secondly, it motivates domestic producers to manufacture goods for exports into the world economy that have a standard that is akin to that found in the world market, thus increasing productivity and product quality.

Notwithstanding its importance in economic growth, no international body was entrusted with the responsibility of regulating international trade. Until 1995, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was the primary international framework governing trade relations between nations. However, following multilateral trade negotiations at the Uruguay Round GATT gave way to the new World Trade Organisation (WTO) as the main body responsible for the regulation of international trade and negotiations between states. Most developing countries have raised serious concerns about the way in which WTO rules have become an obstacle to their pursuit of economic prosperity.

In this paper, I am going to talk about how trade negotiations between developing and developed economies via the platform of the WTO have mostly ended up in favour of the more developed and richer countries. Using the Doha trade negotiations in (date) as an example, I will argue that developing countries have been bullied into accepting new international trade rules. I will specifically deal with the new trade rules in Agriculture, Services and Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products and their implication for future trade between developing and developed countries.