Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2013. 351 pp.

The peer-reviewed book is a collective work of Turkish and European researchers. It was prepared on the basis of the materials of the conference of the same name, which was held in October 2010 in Istanbul, and published three years later. The team of authors, led by E. Canan-Sokullu, Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Bahcesehir University (Turkey), who served as editor-in-chief, set out to give a complete picture of Turkey's security policy.

The work turned out to be very voluminous: it consists of an introduction, sixteen chapters, a conclusion, appendices and an extensive list of references. Structurally, the book is divided into four parts, which greatly facilitates orientation in a diverse and rather complex material. The first part is devoted to the main theoretical approaches to the concept of "security" and the challenges of the XXI century. The second part of the book deals with the internal changes that took place in the Republic of Turkey in the new millennium. The third part is devoted to the analysis of external threats to the country's security. The fourth part is devoted to the problems of the Euro-Atlantic partnership.

Altunay Ilgar kyzy ALIYEVA-Post-graduate student of the Faculty of World Politics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, alieve_altunay@mail.ru.

Debate on security issues in Turkey. Challenges and changes of the 21st century / Edited by E. Janan-Sokullu. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2013. 351 p.

page 211
At the beginning of the study, the authors, in my opinion, quite logically turned to the evolution of conceptual and theoretical ideas about security. They note that traditional research focusing on military threats and the role of the state as the sole and main reference object of security dominated the academic environment in the era of"bipolarity". Since the end of the cold war, perceptions of security have changed. In the context of globalization, the importance of the military power of States began to decrease; non-State actors began to acquire greater importance. Along with "traditional" security threats, the agenda began to include issues that arose as a result of uneven socio-economic development of countries and nations, ethnic and religious contradictions, climate change, etc. As early as the 1980s, representatives of the Copenhagen School of International Relations drew attention to these problems and criticized traditional security studies. Among the main theorists of this direction, the most famous are B. Buzan and O. Weaver, who put forward the theory of "regional security complexes" [Buzan & Warver, 2005], which is discussed in detail by the authors of the peer-reviewed book. The Copenhagen School is also credited with developing the concept of "securitization", which implies the inclusion of new objects and problems perceived as threats in security issues.

The authors of the collection argue that today there is no single theoretical approach that explains the perception of threats and security. They consider the best approach to this problem to be one that involves analyzing security at several levels (global, regional, national, individual) and in several areas (political, military, social, energy, etc.). However, the study of Turkey's security policy is based on certain provisions of the Copenhagen School. At the same time, the authors of the book often approach them critically. As an example, the concept of the "isolation state" put forward by B. Buzan can be cited. The idea of Turkey's "isolating" role, bordering three regional security complexes - European, Middle Eastern, and Central Asian-is based on its geopolitical position. During the period of "bipolarity", the country acted as a kind of buffer zone separating the West from the USSR, in the 1990s - as a "bridge state" connecting the West and the East, and in the 2000s it began to position itself as a "center state", leading a multi-vector, balanced policy with the United States. all border regions. Accordingly, the perception of Turkey as an" isolation state " is a conceptual innovation. However, the "isolator" is characterized by a passive foreign policy. Professor of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Tübingen (Germany) T. Diez actually refutes this position, arguing that today Turkey conducts an active foreign policy in the regional and international arena, therefore, it is incorrect to apply this concept to it.

"Isolation state" is not the only unfamiliar term that the reader encounters when reading a peer - reviewed work. Authors, for example, often refer to the concept of "soft security". To date, the content of this concept remains the subject of controversy. It should be noted that here, too, the authors of the work differ in their interpretations. Thus, S. Oner (University of Bahcesehir, Turkey) defines "soft security" as a synthesis of economic and social security. Researcher from the Institute for European Union Studies (Marmara University, Turkey) R. Izci adds politics and ecology to the economy and social sphere. A different point of view is shared by A. Sezen (Eastern Mediterranean University, Northern Cyprus), who believes that modern Turkey is characterized by the projection of "soft power" on the security sphere. Most researchers believe that "soft security" comes to the fore when non-military threats arise, including terrorism, religious extremism, human trafficking, illegal immigration, organized crime, environmental problems, etc.

The authors of the book focus on continuity in the evolution of the understanding of Turkey's security. Turkish specialists Ch. Ustyun (Gediz University) and Shenyuva Island (Middle East Technical University, Turkey) write that after the formation of the Turkish Republic, the Turkish authorities were bound by the fear of losing the country's territorial integrity, national identity and republican system. During the Cold War, Turkey began to see the security of its Western allies as its own. Subsequently, this gave rise to problems-

page 212
the emergence of a new system of international relations in the 1990s did not immediately lead to the refusal of the Turkish authorities to understand state security primarily as the protection of national interests from military threats.

In the reviewed work, one can find several opinions regarding the starting point in the evolution of Turkey's ideas about security: the end of the Cold War in 1991, the assignment of the status of a candidate for membership in the European Union in 1999, the rise to power of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in 2002. Supporters of the first approach believe that with the collapse of the USSR The strategic importance of Turkey as an" eastern outpost " of the West has significantly decreased. Reacting to the situation in the regional environment, Ankara faced the need to find its place in the new world political system and restructure its security policy. Another point of view is based on the fact that a radical change in approaches to security is associated with the internal political transformation of Turkey. In particular, S. Oner connects this transformation with the process of Europeanization of the country that began in late 1999. Its important result was the "desecuritization" of foreign policy, which manifested itself in the weakening of the role of the military-bureaucratic elite, which throughout the history of the Republic of Turkey occupied a central place in political and public life.

As, in my opinion, the Turkish expert O. Tyr (Middle East Technical University) rightly believes, serious changes in Turkey's security policy began with the AKP coming to power in 2002. The conceptual basis of its foreign policy was the doctrine of "strategic depth" of A. Davutoglu, the key components of which were the geographical location and historical heritage of the country. The author comes to the conclusion that the new strategy allowed Turkey to actively influence the global agenda, ensuring regional security and stability through the development of foreign economic relations and political dialogue.

By the mid-2000s, the main foreign policy ideologemes of the AKP were formulated. One of the main principles of its activity was the use of new discourses and methods of diplomacy. For example, the principle of proactive (proactive) peaceful diplomacy was adopted, the pillars of which were ensuring "security for all", mediation, and economic interdependence. The AKP leaders managed to achieve great success due to their commitment to the "zero problems with neighbors" concept, which consisted in normalizing relations with all border countries. Ch.Ustyun and O. Shenyuva introduce the reader to an updated understanding of security in Turkey, thanks to which it managed to build a dialogue with many states, in particular with Syria, Iran, and Armenia.

The advantage of the peer-reviewed book is the analysis of security issues in virtually all regions and states with which Turkey directly borders. According to the authors, the unique geographical location allows the country to play the role of one of the key guarantors of regional security. Examples include Turkey's participation in projects aimed at creating an energy corridor between the EU, the Middle East, the South Caucasus, and Central Asia, promoting the development of the Balkan countries and their rapprochement with the EU, strengthening bilateral cooperation with post-Saddam Iraq on security and development issues, and finding a peaceful solution to the Cyprus issue. An interesting point of view is expressed by the employee of the Foundation for the Study of Economic Policy of Turkey B. Gultekin-Punzmann: Turkish-Russian cooperation in the South Caucasus and the Black Sea basin for many years serves as proof of the effectiveness of interstate cooperation in maintaining regional security and stability.

In my opinion, the authors of the reviewed work managed to highlight the problems and threats to security in key areas (political, economic, social, environmental). At the same time, the book weakly shows the correlation of national, regional and global security problems. The study analyzes in detail the threats that arise at the first two levels, while less attention is paid to global threats. Apparently, researchers ' less interest in the third level can be explained by the fact that the country's activation in the international arena began relatively recently.

As Turkey has become more active on a global level, its security policy has also expanded to cover global issues. The agenda of the country included missile defense-

page 213
problems of ecology and climate change. In his research, R. Izci convinces readers that the dilemma of giving preference to environmental protection or promoting economic growth is still unresolved in Turkey today. The imperatives of environmental and human security have come to the fore relatively recently, as they have traditionally been perceived as" non-military " threats that do not require urgent response measures.

The title of the book makes the reader look forward to a discussion on various issues and aspects of Turkish security. However, it does not contain any theoretical disputes and original assessments. It is somewhat surprising that, taking the postulates of the Copenhagen School as a theoretical basis, many authors believe that they do not fully correspond to Turkish realities, as was the case, for example, with the concept of an "isolation state". Another evidence of some methodological "unbalance" of the work is the fact that the concept of "soft security" appears quite unexpectedly in the text. In the section devoted to theoretical approaches, almost nothing is said about it. This term appears only in the chapters devoted to regional aspects of Turkey's foreign policy. Additional difficulties are created by the fact that the authors do not give an exhaustive interpretation of this concept.

Difficulties in understanding security also arise due to the fact that the book under review presents an incomplete picture of modern Turkish foreign policy. Most authors mention the basic principles and concepts, but they occur sporadically and often without explanation. In my opinion, the authors should give at least a brief overview of the key foreign policy ideologies of modern Turkey. This would make it easier to understand the relationship between the AKP strategy and the ideas of the Copenhagen School.

A certain inconsistency in the text of the book is striking. There is a noticeable difference in the degree and depth of study of the problems under consideration by the authors: sometimes researchers "move away" from the central topic and do not focus on security issues. The book was written in the midst of the" Arab awakening", but its authors almost ignored the issue of Turkey's perception of the challenges and security threats generated by the turbulence in the Arab world. Although it was precisely under the influence of this turbulence that mass demonstrations against the ruling AKP took place in this country in the summer of 2013; unfortunately, this important subject was not included in the study. Only O. Tyr provides a brief analysis of the events of the initial stage of the internal destabilization of Syria, which led to the collapse of the Turkish-Syrian partnership.

In general, it should be recognized that the book under review is a very informative work that can shed light on many issues of domestic and foreign policy in modern Turkey. The paper introduces the reader to the basic concepts of security and approaches to its study, which are popular in the Turkish academic environment. It is obvious that the conference, based on the materials of which the book was written, was held at a time when the situation in the region was relatively calm, and the main and considered successful foreign policy ideologems gave the desired effect. The Syrian conflict, the involvement of Turkey in it, the recent incident with the Russian plane (November 2015), as well as the subsequent sharp deterioration in relations between Turkey and the Russian Federation seriously puzzled not only politicians, but also the expert community. Most likely, Ankara's actions have already given a new impetus to studying the issue of changing the vector of Turkey's national security strategy. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the peer-reviewed book has not lost its scientific value. On the contrary, it can be very useful for studying the motives that guide Turkey in the current geopolitical realities.

page 214

Permanent link to this publication: