The relationship between foreign policy, national security, and national interest

Foreign policy is a field related to a state's power elements and state capacity. State capacity also defines the limits of a state's influence in foreign policy. Protecting and consolidating the country's independence, integrity, sovereignty, and political unity, increasing the state's influence, reputation, and deterrence, and defending and developing the nation's interests are the priorities of foreign policy. Let us state immediately that the concept of national interest is also highly controversial. The question of whose interest national interest actually represents is naturally asked. Because ruling classes always present their own interests as the national interest. 

Since foreign policy is conducted in an international environment that is by nature complex, unstable, tense, competitive, and full of chaos, the conjuncture is important. It is often even decisive. Therefore, there are periods in foreign policy when one is more effective or weaker. There are ruptures, anxious processes. There are problematic, difficult phases between opposing alliances, within the alliances themselves, there are problems, topics, and agenda items. There are years when alliances multiply, diversify, increase their influence, or crack, disintegrate, and lose their effect.  

Let us give an example from our own history. Turkey has experienced the anxiety of loneliness after the War of Independence, after World War II, after the Cyprus Peace Operation, and after the Cold War. Even while being within Western institutions and Western alliances, its position within these alliances has always been debated, both in foreign and domestic politics. Our position within NATO, which we joined in 1952, has become more debated, questioned, and criticized since the 1960s, also under the influence of developments in domestic politics. The problematic relationship we have had with the European Union, with which we have had relations since the Ankara Agreement dated September 12, 1963, due to our inability to become a member, is an important agenda item not only for foreign policy but also for domestic politics. It should not be forgotten that Turkey has been part of the Customs Union since January 1, 1996, that it is the first and only state to be a member of the Customs Union without being a member of the European Union, and that our legitimate calls for the Customs Union to be updated according to today's conditions and in line with our country's demands have not found much response. In this way, the European Union has reached a very decisive position over our country's domestic market, foreign trade regime, and customs regime by ensuring that Turkey complies with the decisions it takes without including Turkey. The government of the period was the DYP-SHP coalition government, and its leaders were Tansu Çiller and Murat Karayalçın. This coalition, formed by the two major parties of the center-right and center-left, a government whose equivalent in political science is a grand coalition, practically signed a tutelage agreement.  

FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY 

Just as the conjuncture is decisive when conducting foreign policy, and just as the existing world system, alliance relations, state capacity, and the preferences of decision-makers are decisive, the state's defense and security priorities, threat definitions, and threat perceptions are also decisive. Because foreign policy has a direct, unshakable, and inseparable relationship with defense and security policies. Therefore, approaches regarding national security are important, even decisive, in foreign policy preferences. 

Let us state immediately that just as national interest is directly related to the interests of the ruling classes and it is difficult to reach a consensus on this definition, the definition of security is also like this, and it is not very possible to reach a consensus. The definition of security, who makes this definition, what is included in the scope of this definition, and what the priorities are, is a highly controversial issue. Because the following questions are immediately asked: Security of borders? Security of institutions? Security of industrial facilities? Security of ordinary people, the citizen on the street? For whom, how, and to what extent is national security? National security aimed at what purpose? National security decided by whom? These questions can certainly be multiplied further...

When it comes to security policies, and even more so, securitized policies, convincing the public is very important. National security is an area where it is relatively easy to convince the public. Politicians do not struggle much in this regard. Because there is an area that is considered untouchable, difficult to question, not easily criticized, and where those who criticize and question are subjected to all kinds of pressure. A large part of the public is already ready to be convinced. However, strategic communication, crisis management, process management, and correct communication management are still required to convince the masses. 

When both foreign policy and national security are discussed, since the scale, volume, and capacity of the state primarily come to mind, the discussion on this subject begins immediately. Is it a great power, a medium-sized power? Is it a regional power, a regional actor, a great power, a global power, or a superpower? Is it a game maker or a spoiler? Does it possess all of the power elements (political, economic, military) or only one or two? Does it have nuclear deterrence or not? What is the state of its leadership ability? Should population, underground resources, and surface area necessarily be seen as a power element or not? The questions can be multiplied further... 

Those who know that scaling up in foreign policy is not easy, and that it cannot be possible overnight or from today to tomorrow, also know that foreign policy is a continuation of domestic policy, and they know which measures to use in foreign policy. 

For example, it is known that leaders and cadres who conduct foreign policy entirely for use in domestic politics are not as effective, deterrent, or powerful in foreign policy as they try to appear domestically. For example, it is known that states that talk a lot, speak loudly, but cannot fulfill the requirements of their words are not as respected in foreign policy as they try to portray domestically. For example, it is known that the words of governments that do not take measures against a situation in foreign policy, cannot take them, or do not get the desired result even if they do, and whose sanctions do not work afterwards, are not taken seriously abroad regarding domestic politics. 

Because the "other side" is also knowledgeable about your country's domestic politics. They are knowledgeable about the cost of living, unemployment, and poverty. They are knowledgeable about your internal and external debts. That is why the following idiom is used for foreign policy that speaks from a high pedestal but lacks the power to fulfill its words: "diplomacy without teeth." That is, toothless diplomacy, that is, diplomacy without the power of sanctions. 

Therefore, when conducting foreign policy, it is mandatory to be rational and realistic, to know the limits of your power, and to stay away from ambitious, resentful, aggressive attitudes and adventurous moves. And of course, one should not mock anyone's intelligence either.