Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
Tezin Türü: Yüksek Lisans
Tezin Yürütüldüğü Kurum: Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi, SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ, Türkiye
Tezin Onay Tarihi: 2018
Tezin Dili: İngilizce
Öğrenci: Noor Fahmi Pramuji
Danışman: CAFER TAYYAR ARI
Özet:This study aims to perform a comparative analysis of Turkey and Indonesia's foreign policy on Palestine Issue and Syria Crisis in particular. It also reviews both countries’ foreign policy toward the Middle East since their declaration of becoming Republic states in general. As foreign policy theory, neoclassical realism is applied. It then discusses changing dynamics and analyses influential factors shaping Turkey and Indonesia policies of Palestine Issue and Syria Crisis at the unit and systemic level of analysis. It summarises that the factors of leaders' perceptions upon international and regional systemic changing trends and pressures as well as state powers have become influential factors. In case of Palestine issue, during 2004-2016, Turkish domestic politics has undergone domestic transformations namely first public opinion and civil society's roles influence the foreign policy. Before the AKP party came to power, a determinant actor of Turkey’s foreign policy was the military. However, the military role then decline. Instead, the role of non actor states including civil society and non-government organizations have increased. Domestic public opinion has been marked by a re-emergence of common historical and cultural senses under Ottoman heritages. This factor then results in a reactive engagement of Turkey to the Middle East. Second, the emergence of civilian leader as a new actor of foreign policy. The mechanism of foreign decision-making then shifted v following a decline of military influence. An active civilian control emerged and domestic political structure rebuilt. It resulted in multi-actor of foreign policy such as NGO, think tanks, etc. They contribute as the new tool of Turkish soft power. Third, leader factors. Leaders play roles in attracting international public opinion. Turkish leader’s opinion perceives that no permanent peace of region without peace in Palestine. They also put an emphasis to a strategic importance of Muslim world. Therefore Turkey needs to re-engage into the regional issues. Fourth, an increase of Islamist factor. Re-involvement of Muslim groups into domestic politics serves a democratic equality for all parties. Turkish NGO with Islamist outlook also rises as a pressure group, thus it impacts on the concern to the Palestine issue. They put a large concern to the sensitivity of Jerusalem status and nature as a holy city for Muslims especially a concern to who will control that holy city.Fifth, a proactive foreign policy. the Israel-Palestine conflict that perceived as the heart of regional instability results in proactive foreign policy into the settlement of Palestine issue. In regional level, the main source of regional conflict is the Palestine-Israel conflict. In sum, Turkey conducts a balancing policy during the AKP administration regarding Palestine issue. Indonesia sets the aspiration of an active engagement policy in the Middle East. It could be seen such as a presence of special of the Middle East diplomatic mission, Indonesia government recognition and support to Hamas after won the parliament election for Gaza strip, the efforts to be honest broaker in Palestine-Israel conflict, and an official representation in Ramallah. Indonesia also is officially consistent to adopt a nonrecognition policy of the state of Israel. Indonesia has undergone several diplomatic efforts in regional and international level to support the recognition of the state of Palestine and proposed on humanitarian approach by providing a continuation of humantarian aids for Palestinians. In comparison with Turkey, during 2004-2016, Indonesia has undergone transition era to civil democracy era. It has turn into a democracy process and reach democratic stability in post-transition. In democratic era of Indonesia, anti-colonialism spirit of 1945 Constitution has been continued as a historical basis of Indonesia's engagement. Besides, Indonesian government accomodates Muslim aspiration through the presence of Islamist considerations into the state’s foreign policy. An increase of Islamist factor in domestic politics namely Islamist-oriented aspirations in domestic public opinion. There a high level of sensitivity upon the issues including the Jerusalem issue in which Al-Aqsa mosque vi placed on as one of prominent issues, beyond Palestinian refugee issue and Israel occupation on Palestinian lands for the Indonesian Muslim groups and government. In other words, there interplay between Muslim groups and Indonesian government in regard to deal with Palestine issue. A major of Indonesian Muslims and government officially are united to struggle for Palestinians. Other Islamist factors are Muslim groups as the moral force. Muslim groups put pressure if the government behave in passive response to the Islamist issues. An example of strong and harsh pressures of all segment Muslim groups over any initiative of opening diplomatic ties with Israel by Indonesian governments, so it is often suspended by eventually cancelled. In addition, an increasingly role of Islamist parties as well as new Indonesia's international orientation and identity have affected a continuity of nonrecognition policy towards Israel and supporting Palestine in accordance with two-state solution. In the level of international, the wave of democratization policy leads to the emergence of democratised foreign policy. Indonesia's democratised foreign policy has been conducted through various diplomatic efforts creating an active involvement of nonstate actors. After the Syrian revolution in 2012 escalated, it has turned into a civil war. The emergence of various non-state actors such the ISIS, the PYD-YPG, and other militant or radical groups, as well as direct intervention of regional and international powers sparked the conflict much more escalated. These have posed direct threat to Turkey and challenged Turkey’s Middle East policy, notably in Syria. Therefore, Turkey’s Syria policy has changed from soft power to hard power approach. Several domestic influential factors shaping Turkish policy first a humanitarian dimension of crisis namely the influx of refugees results in an open door policy. Since 2011, Syria conflict has sparked refugee waves to Turkey. As a direct neighboring countries, it had been demanded by international community and domestic humanitarian nature to open the borders and secure the people. Second, the security threat in Turkey-Syria’s borders. Assad regime’s military policy against the Syrian oppositions and the development of the crisis with an engagement various non-state armed groups (the YPG-PYD, ISIS, other moderate and radical groups) that began in 2013 have made the situation more complicated. Due to their activities strived to claim the sovereignty and conducted terror attacks, hence those have posed threats to Turkish national security and territorial integrity. Another risk is the influx of foreign terrorist fighters across the border through Turkey on their way to and from Syria. vii Even, probably they reside in Turkey as a third country before returning to home countries. So, it also has to dealt with the way to send them back to countries of origin. In the international level, the most influential factors are first the international and regional actors’ engagement into the conflict. Since 2015, there has increased the international interventions. Foreign countries and non state actors’ involvement have created the strategic pattern of alliance and enmity among global and regional powers as well as non-state actors. Second, the rise of ISIS. This terror organization posed the threat to Turkish national security through multiple suicide bombings. Third, the emergence of the PYD threat. This group has taken benefits of Syria conflict through controlling the Syrian Kurds, self-proclaiming several cantons and establishing a sphere of influence or terror corridor in northern Syria bordering Turkey. On the other hand, Indonesian government policy towards the Syria crisis can be explained through the influencing factors as follow. First, a commitment to non-alignment with any military bloc as one of basic ideas of the principle of Independent Foreign Policy. In Syria conflict, Indonesia prevents from any engagement of the multilateral and bilateral military pact with Syria and major powers. Instead, it prefers to strengthen ties rely on peaceful coexistance. Given, Indonesia has a critical and substansial roles in the establishment of the NAM, so it positions itself to commit the basic spirit of nonalignment. Second, the leader perceptions. Indonesia stance is sided with neither the Assad regime nor the oppositions while it adopts non-interference into Syria’s domestic politics. In other words, Indonesia’s official stance is neutral. This stance is meant it fighting against any colonialism and violation forms caused by the regime under the world peace and security. Indonesia government not interpret the neutral stance as a neutral politic that means not to care to the crisis but conducts policy in a way of achieving its national interest. Third, the protection of Indonesian citizens in Syria as a foreign policy’s priority. In order to pursue this goal, Indonesian government is still opening diplomatic representatives in Damascus, Aleppo and Latakia. This representatives has main task to protect, defend and secure them until they are repatriated to Indonesia. No matter who rules, it will cooperate in line with its strategic interests still remain there. Moreover, the influential factors in international level are first the ISIS and Indonesian foreign fighters dimension. Indonesia was also targeted by the ISIS through multiple ISIS-linked and inspired terror attacks. Besides, ISIS also is defined as a threat as the possible terror attacks conducted by Indonesia-origined foreign fighters return to home. viii The potential threats of the presence of the ISIS’ supporters and recruits in Indonesia is revival of local extremist groups’ sleep cells that probably conducting terror attacks, promoting inter and intra religious conflict, fulfilling the lack of local militant group’s capability, recruiting the new cadres targeting youth cadres. Second, Indonesia’s role within the framework of the OIC. Despite, Indonesia is the world’s majority Muslim populated country and an active actor in the OIC, in fact, Indonesia has no significant role on Syria crisis. It has only played the limited role due to several factors namely a minor actor in term of regional geopolitics and the lack of experience upon the regional complex politics. It remains to manage limited bilateral ties with Syria government. In sum, it tends to conduct a passive foreign policy on Syria crisis. In conclusion, Turkey has adopted and preferred to choose humanitarian and political-oriented approach towards Syria crisis. However, after several international developments rised which put risks to its national security, Turkish foreign policy has then shifted to propose a security-oriented approach. It combines soft and hard powers in formulating process of the foreign policy. Meanwhile, Indonesian government also has put forth primarily humanitarian approach in dealing with the humanitarian crisis in Syria while suggesting such political solution stance in order to solve that crisis with optimalizing the way of diplomacy. Indonesian leaders stance is to prevent a military approach. When it is evaluated on the basic principle of Indonesian foreign policy namely independent and active principle, Indonesia is independent but not active. In this context, these basic principles determine it not enter a formal alliance, further not interferring and involving into other state’s domestic problems. Instead, it should actively encourage bilateral cooperations with other countries. In addition, it demonstrates a status quo of Indonesia’s independent and active foreign policy in a pragmatic way. In this situation, it might recognise that there is a gap between its aspiration and capability to play wider global roles especially in participating to the conflict resolution of the Middle East region. Indonesia government and Muslim group tend to stand in opposite in case of Syria crisis. Indonesian government tend to position in moderate stance and keep in status quo of non-interference policy upon the domestic problem of Syria. For Indonesian goverment, there several reasons why Indonesia still continue to open its diplomatic representative and develop bilateral ties in Syria while most countries closed their diplomatic office in Damascus. First, historical relations between Syria and Indonesia. Syria was the first countries which recognized Indonesia’s independence. Second, Indonesia avoids to be ix perceived by Syria regime of getting involved into Syria’s domestic issue especially Syria’s territorial sovereignty. Third, respect to Syria as a member of the NAM. In which the NAM adopts non-interefere policy as an agreement amongst member states. While Indonesia considers the NAM was birth and insipired by the Bandung Conference with its “Dasasila Bandung” whose an important principle is to respect other state territorial sovereignty. In other words, Indonesia has been trying to play a normative international role in case of Syria crisis. In sum, Indonesian political power might not be powerful yet in affecting the conflict resolution directly compared to other international and regional actors such as Turkey might be has.