An increase in regionalism is observed after the 1990s in line with the interests and objectives of countries that are geographically close to each other. It can be said that nation-states within the world economy prefer to establish collective action mechanisms and regional cooperations instead of acting alone in order to protect themselves against security threats, global risks, problems, and economic crises. Regionalism emerging in the economic sense and in the context of commercial relations, and area studies, which is its branch of research, as well as regionalization based on common identity and culture or aiming for political harmony, are also increasing today. Today, it is possible to mention at least three important area studies as regional dialogue, regional cooperation, and regional integration.
The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), which takes place among South Asian and Pacific countries and maintains mutual trade, has a flexible structure; therefore, it can be given as an example of regional dialogue. It is possible to say that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which established trade cooperation between the USA, Mexico, and Canada, is a stronger cooperation. The reason for this is that it is not based solely on free relations; along with this, the idea of collective action in the fields of employment, service procurement, and investment increases the view of regional cooperation. It is possible to say that regional integration is the deepest and strongest. The European Union (EU) can be shown as an example of this. It is known to have emerged as a regional cooperation project aiming for the regional reconstruction of Europe, which was destroyed after World War II, and to prevent the risk of a possible new war, aiming to increase cooperation and mutual interdependence between countries. However, the fact that many European countries fell into distress after COVID-19 and the increasing economic crisis has caused many arrows of criticism to be turned toward the issue of regional integration.
It is observed that the development process of area studies has given birth to the term comparative regional studies. However, it is seen that this situation is handled only under disciplinary categories such as “sociology” and “political science” due to Eurocentric studies. The history of social sciences, on the other hand, ignores “regionalism” because it writes the history of disciplines. Within the development process, critical area studies emerge. It is divided into two in the context of taking the needs of policymakers as given and taking a region as a “place” that is closed and given. The most important feature of critical area studies is that it speaks out much against the West not defining itself as “a region” or “a place” and the assumption that regions are non-Western places.[1]
Regarding Turkic world studies, it can be said that the emergence of independent Turkic states as a result of the major political developments experienced after the end of the Cold War era and the Soviet Union (USSR) becoming a thing of history has increased area studies. The sudden reach of the number of Turkic states possessing international official sovereignty to 6 with Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan gaining independence expresses an important geopolitical change in the Eurasian context. At the same time, Turkic-origin autonomous republics, the majority of which are within the Russian Federation, have also become actors capable of establishing trans-border relations more freely. Parallel to these events, the naming of “Turkic world,” which includes Turkic and related communities across a wide geography from eastern Europe to Far Asia, has gradually become established. There are strong historical and cultural ties between Türkiye and the Turkic republics, which are the main actors within this umbrella concept. Although Turkic peoples spread over a wide area on the east-west-north axes within the flow of history, the relations of the Turks in Anatolia, the North of the Black Sea, the Idel-Ural Region, the Caspian Basin, and the Khorasan Region with each other and with other Turkic regions did not break until the 20th century. It should also be noted that Anatolia is in a central position in these relations. In this context, the attraction possessed by Anatolia in terms of relations maintained by traditional non-governmental organizations, migrations, and travels, its location at a junction where roads meet, and the importance it carries in terms of trade can be shown as the primary factors. As the first of these developments, the consolidation of Russian dominance in the North of the Black Sea, the Caucasus, and Central Asia as the last quarter of the 19th century was entered can be given as an example.
As the final link completing this process, the Cold War period that started following World War II can be mentioned. Türkiye and other Turkic communities were now located in opposing ideological camps. The end of the 20th century, however, witnessed the beginning of a process in the opposite direction. With the end of the Cold War, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan becoming independent states can be shown as the actual development that started the rapprochement process. In addition to this, the great development experienced in the fields of transportation and communication is also active as an effective factor in terms of increasing cooperation and realizing cultural proximity for the Turkic peoples.
The strategic choice of the newly independent Turkic states to orient toward the West became another factor increasing the rapprochement with Türkiye. It can be said that this choice pushed Türkiye beyond being a brotherly country to assuming the role of a bridge and model country. The fact that Türkiye, whose political and economic integration with the West increased throughout the Cold War, possessed characteristics such as secularism, Islam, and democracy together, and the close relations it established with the Western academic world, were effective in its being seen as a model country by the Turkic republics. With the addition of the diplomacy focused on strengthening the independence of these countries, which Türkiye followed with determination, an enthusiastic rapprochement was born between Anatolian Turkishness and the rest of the Turkic world in the 1990s; Türkiye came to the fore as the locomotive (core) country of cooperation in the Turkic world.
The problem created by regional integration, which allows for self-criticism, is that Türkiye is not contiguous with most of the Turkic world countries. This situation brings to mind the question of where the concept of the Turkic world begins and where it ends. It is observed that the “place” problematization of area studies is also valid for the Turkic world. Because Türkiye and other Turkic states are not contiguous.[2] For this reason, the question “Can Turkic world area studies be conducted?” maintains its validity even today.
It would be appropriate to mention the organizations established for international cooperation mentioned above for the issue of inter-country regionalism. In the past thirty-year period, inter-state organizations established together by the Turkic states have also taken the stage. The International Organization of Turkic Culture (TURKSOY), the Parliamentary Assembly of Turkic States (TURKPA), and the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) can be shown as examples of these. OTS was established in 2009 with the Nakhchivan Agreement under the name of the Cooperation Council of Turkic Speaking States (Turkic Council / Keneş) and renewed its name as the Organization of Turkic States at the 2021 Istanbul Summit. This revision, beyond a name change, is a transition from a cooperation organization to an inter-state organization. Now, for the member states, a transition phase to multilateral cooperation under one roof has begun, rather than bilateral cooperation. Indeed, in a short time, 19 cooperation areas were identified within the body of OTS, and the appointment of experts from member countries to these areas has also been completed. These steps can be expressed as a tendency toward combined power institutionalization, which has successful examples such as the European Union (EU) and “the BRIC Countries” (BRICS).[3] Although cultural issues are predominant, indicators economically also reveal the increase between Türkiye and the Turkic republics in the last 20 years.
When the course of Azerbaijan-Türkiye economic relations is examined, it is seen that a tight cooperation has formed. At this point, it is first necessary to underline that Türkiye is Azerbaijan’s second-largest trading partner after Italy.[4] Türkiye’s economic relations with Kazakhstan have also shown a continuous increase. Looking at the figures for 2021, the trade volume, which was 462 million dollars at the beginning of the 2000s, reached 2.9 billion dollars in 2021. Türkiye ranks 13th in Kazakhstan’s exports and 4th in the list of countries from which it imports.[5] It is observed that a great increase has also occurred in Kyrgyzstan-Türkiye commercial relations over the years. The trade volume, which was 22 million dollars in 2000, increased approximately forty-fold and reached 836 million dollars in 2021.[6] Türkiye-Uzbekistan economic relations are also in a course that does not lose its vitality and shows a continuous increase. It is seen that the Uzbekistan-Türkiye trade volume, which was 167 million dollars in 2000, increased approximately twenty-fold upon reaching the year 2021, reaching 3.4 billion dollars.[7] Türkiye-Turkmenistan economic relations have been quite active since the beginning of the 1990s when this country gained its independence. When the last twenty years are taken as a basis, it is seen that Türkiye is the number one commercial partner of this country. The trade volume of the two countries, which was 1.696 billion dollars as of 2021, was already at the level of 1 billion dollars in 2000.[8]
Based on these data, it can be stated that the connection of the Turkic republics with each other is not only cultural but also in an economic sense, and as a result, Turkic world area studies are increasing day by day. However, it is seen that this situation also changes according to Türkiye’s policies. Depending on Türkiye’s position in foreign policy, relations between the Turkic republics become tight or flexible. Ultimately, the point reached today is an integration (bloc-forming) process under the roof of the OTS, which is the subject of evaluations such as “becoming a combined power,” “regional integration movement,” or “potential globalization move.” For instance, the “One Belt One Road” (New Silk Road) project, which China started in 2013 with the discourse of making Asia the center of global trade again by integrating it with the world via Europe and Africa, is of a nature that could also increase the socio-economic rapprochement between Turkic states and communities. Along with this, matters such as Azerbaijan and Türkiye becoming contiguous through the Zangezur Corridor and the opening of a path to a common market exist today. If this happens, the characteristic of being contiguous will be provided, and it can be said that it will eliminate the criticisms aimed at naming it as Turkic world area studies throughout the world.
Furthermore, the increasing number of Turkic world research centers and Asia-Eurasia study centers day by day shows the existence of interest in this field. However, this situation is also not sufficient.[9] There are very few studies institutionally. Following the increase in critical area studies, it is also seen that the lens forming the scale has shifted from geopolitics to a relational view. The abundance of refugees coming to Türkiye as a result of mutual agreements instead of neighboring Poland, Romania, and Belarus as trans-border entities after the Russia-Ukraine crisis explains this situation.
References
[1] Göçer, D. (2022). 21. Yüzyıl Bölge Çalışmaları: Üç Yaklaşım . Alternatif Politika , 14 (2) , 359-382 . DOI: 10.53376/ap.2022.13
[2] Şahin, K. (2023). Türkiye ve Türk Cumhuriyetleri: 30 Yıllık Serencam. Şahin, K. ve Kol, S. (Ed.), Bağımsızlığın 30. Yılında Türk Dünyası Analizleri (s. 1-29). Sakarya: Sakarya Üniversitesi Yayınları.
[3] Brezilya, Rusya, Hindistan, Çin ve Güney Afrika’dan oluşan bir ekonomik iş birliği örgütüdür. BRICS terimi bu ülkelerin İngilizce isimlerinin baş harflerinden oluşturulmuştur.
[4] Turgunov, E. (2022). Türkiye ve Türk Cumhuriyetleri Arasındaki Diplomatik İlişkilerin 30. Yılı, Weekly e-bulletin, Akhmet Yassawi University Eurasian Research Institute, 28.03.2022-03-04-2022, No: 348, https://www.eurasian-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/ Haftalik-e-bulten-28.03.2022-03.04.2022-No-348.pdf,
[5] TCTB (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Ticaret Bakanlığı). “Kazakistan Ülke Profili”, https://ticaret.gov.tr/data/5ee21c4a13b876e308cc15c5/ Kazakistan_2022.pdf,
[6] TCTB (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Ticaret Bakanlığı). “Kırgızistan Ülke Profili”, https://ticaret.gov.tr/data/5ed8e6c613b876d8ec73d58f/ Kırgızistan_2022.pdf
[7] TCTB (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Ticaret Bakanlığı). “Özbekistan Ülke Profili”, https://ticaret.gov.tr/data/5ef20f4213b876b1f88518d8/ Özbekistan_2022.pdf,
[8] TCTB (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Ticaret Bakanlığı), (2022d). “Türkmenistan Ülke Profili”, https://ticaret.gov.tr/data/5f05d4d213b8761868766d8d/ Türkmenistan_2022.pdf,
[9] “Review of Regional Research” adlı Uluslararası Bölgesel Bilim Derneği’nin, yani Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung’un adlı yayın organı örnek olarak gösterilebilir. Bu ve benzeri çalışmalar maalesef ülkemizde pek azdır fakat ilerleyen süreçte sayılarının artacağı umulmaktadır.
Photografh: Anadolu Ajansı
