OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between

Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025

248

COMPLEMENTARY OR CONTRADICTORY? TÜRKIYE’S EMERGING MIDDLE

POWER INTERACTIONS WITH THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE

EUROPEAN UNION

GONCA OĞUZ GÖK

goncaoguzgok@gmail.com

Associate Professor at the Department of International Relations, Marmara University, Istanbul

(Turkey). https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8056-8952

NEVRA ESENTÜRK

nesenturk@yahoo.com

Associate Professor at the Department of International Relations, Yalova University, Yalova

(Turkey). https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3132-9760

Abstract

This paper investigates whether Türkiye’s policies towards the United Nations (UN) and the

European Union (EU) are complementary or contradictory, situating the analysis within the

broader discourse of emerging middle power diplomacy and the regionalisation of

globalisation. Emerging or third-wave middle powers are pivotal in acting between regional

and global governance structures, utilising multilateral frameworks to address complex

international challenges as well as regional issues. Türkiye’s foreign policy has often been

interpreted through the lens of its hybrid identity, positioning at the intersection of multiple

regions conceptualised as a “cusp state” or “liminal” state. Türkiye’s growing engagement

with the UN and long-standing normative and behavioural efforts of being a member of the

EU exemplify its emerging middle power status, where regional efforts intersect with global

ambitions. While the UN provides a universal platform for addressing global issues and gaining

status in global governance, the EU offers more focused, normative, and region-specific

opportunities. This paper evaluates the question of whether Türkiye’s dual institutional

engagement with the EU and the UN represents alignment or tension, thereby enriching the

ongoing discussion on the regionalisation of globalisation. In order to do that, the paper

utilises a comparative analysis of policy documents, official statements, and diplomatic efforts

in certain niche areas of Türkiye’s multilateral strategies in the UN and the EU throughout the

2000s. In doing so, it speaks to a growing body of work that calls into question linear or

harmonious assumptions about the interplay between regionalism and multilateralism in

emerging middle power strategies and their implications for middle power theory.

Keywords

Türkiye, Emerging Middle Powers, European Union, United Nations, Regional and Global

Governance.

Resumo

Este artigo analisa se as políticas da Turquia em relação às Nações Unidas (ONU) e à União

Europeia (UE) são complementares ou contraditórias, situando a análise no âmbito mais

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

249

amplo do discurso sobre a diplomacia emergente das potências médias e a regionalização da

globalização. As potências médias emergentes ou da terceira vaga são fundamentais na

interação entre as estruturas de governação regional e global, utilizando quadros multilaterais

para abordar desafios internacionais complexos, bem como questões regionais. A política

externa da Turquia tem sido frequentemente interpretada através da lente da sua identidade

híbrida, posicionando-se na intersecção de várias regiões concebidas como um «Estado

liminar» ou «Estado limítrofe». O crescente envolvimento da Turquia com a ONU e os esforços

normativos e comportamentais de longa data para ser membro da UE exemplificam o seu

estatuto emergente de potência média, onde os esforços regionais se cruzam com as

ambições globais. Enquanto a ONU fornece uma plataforma universal para abordar questões

globais e ganhar status na governança global, a UE oferece oportunidades mais focadas,

normativas e específicas para cada região. Este artigo avalia a questão de saber se o duplo

envolvimento institucional da Turquia com a UE e a ONU representa alinhamento ou tensão,

enriquecendo assim a discussão em curso sobre a regionalização da globalização. Para tal, o

artigo utiliza uma análise comparativa de documentos políticos, declarações oficiais e esforços

diplomáticos em determinadas áreas específicas das estratégias multilaterais da Turquia na

ONU e na UE ao longo da década de 2000. Ao fazê-lo, refere-se a um conjunto crescente de

trabalhos que questionam pressupostos lineares ou harmoniosos sobre a interação entre

regionalismo e multilateralismo nas estratégias das potências médias emergentes e as suas

implicações para a teoria das potências médias.

Palavras-chave

Turquia, potências médias emergentes, União Europeia, Nações Unidas, governação regional

e global.

How to cite this article

Gök, Gonca Oğuz & Esentürk, Nevra (2025). Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging

Middle Power Interactions with the United Nations and the European Union. Janus.net, e-journal of

international relations. Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional

Organizations, VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1, December 2025, pp. 248-271. https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-

7251.DT0525.13

Article submitted on 02nd June 2025 and accepted for publication on 08th October 2025.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

250

COMPLEMENTARY OR CONTRADICTORY? TÜRKIYE’S EMERGING

MIDDLE POWER INTERACTIONS WITH THE UNITED NATIONS

AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

GONCA OĞUZ GÖK

NEVRA ESENTÜRK

Introduction

The growing scholarly attention to emerging middle powers reflects a broader interest in

understanding how states situated between traditional great powers and developing

countries shape the evolving architecture of regional and global governance. Traditional

middle powers are frequently conceptualised as constructive and stabilising actors,

operating within multilateral frameworks and contributing to the legitimacy and

functionality of existing international institutions (Joordan, 2003). Conceptualised as

“Southern middle powers”, states like Brazil and South Africa increasingly

pursue selective multilateralism, either by engaging only in regimes aligned with their

national interests or by playing a catalytic role through niche diplomacy to support and

revitalise the liberal international order (Efstathopoulos, 2021). Joordan (2017) argued

very early that the emerging middle power concept has lost its analytical value, as

emerging states increasingly defy the behavioural expectations historically tied to this

category. He suggests abandoning the term in favour of more precise tools that reflect

the strategic diversity of countries like Turkey, Brazil, and India. (Joordan, 2017). Most

recently, Robertson & Carr (2023) called for the historization of the middle power

concept, asking, “Is anyone a middle power?” Emerging middle powers are frequently

characterised by their regional influence and their capacity to “punch above their weight”

in international affairs. The literature often assumes that not only regional activism

reinforces middle powers’ global influence, but the fate of the liberal international order

is also highly tied to the role and influence of regional powers (Aydın, 2021).

Within this debate, Türkiye emerges as a particularly salient case, given its multiple

identities, shifting regional and multilateral alignments, and increasingly complex

engagement with formal and informal global governance institutions. This paper

interrogates the extent to which the regional and global roles of emerging middle powers

align or potentially conflict, particularly at a time in which the liberal international order

and its norms and institutions, as well as conceptualisations, are being contested. In

order to answer that question, this paper investigates Türkiye’s engagement with the UN

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

251

and the EU as an emerging middle power throughout the 2000s. These two formal

platforms differ in terms of geographic scope, normative foundations, and institutional

logic, yet both have served as key arenas in which Ankara has continuously projected its

international identity and pursued recognition of its status.

Much of the literature has focused on various dimensions of Türkiye’s middle power

efforts (Parlar Dal, & Dipama, 2024; Sarı, & Sula, 2024; Islam and Nyadera, 2024; Kutlay

and Öniş, 2021), including specific regions such as Asia (Ü ngör, 2025), the Middle East

(Öniş and Kutlay, 2017) and Europe/EU (Düzgit, 2025; Soyaltin-Colella and Demiryol,

2023), as well as efforts in the UN platform as an emerging middle power, more broadly.

This study attempts to direct specific attention to a relatively understudied area by

analysing Türkiye’s middle power efforts in the EU and the UN in a comparative

perspective. Despite not attaining full membership status, Türkiye has maintained an

enduring engagement with the EU, spanning decades of institutional alignment, economic

interdependence, and norm-driven dialogue. As Senem Aydın-Düzgit (2023) argues,

Ankara’s relationship with the EU serves not only as a regional anchor but also as a litmus

test for its alignment with liberal international norms, especially in periods marked by

global democratic retreat. The EU’s emphasis on democratic norms and normative

institutional convergence aligns closely with the ideational aspects of middle power

theory, while the economic interdependence between Türkiye and the EU contributes

significantly to the material foundation of Ankara’s regional and international presence

(Düzgit, 2023; Aydın, 2021). Hence, Türkiye’s candidacy status and institutionalised ties

with the EU provide a unique empirical setting to assess key dimensions of emerging

middle power role, including material capacities such as trade and economic integration,

as well as ideational dynamics, particularly in relation to democratic reforms specifically

and normative role more generally. In this respect, juxtaposing Türkiye’s engagement

with both the EU and the UN allows for a more careful examination of whether regional

and global institutional roles of middle powers align or diverge. While existing studies

have explored Türkiye’s regional diplomacy or its normative contestation with the EU

individually (Düzgit, 2023), to the best of our knowledge, none have assessed how these

dual institutional engagements in the UN and the EU interact under the evolving

conditions of the post-hegemonic international order. This study aims to contribute by

treating the UN and the EU not as isolated arenas but as intersecting formal international

platforms through which Türkiye’s middle power role is articulated, constrained, or

reinforced.

In order to do this, the paper builds on the widely accepted definition of the middle power

role that encompasses material, ideational, and behavioural dimensions. Material

capacity, particularly economic development, remains a foundational element of the

middle power role, but is increasingly insufficient on its own. Ideational dimension is

highly related to domestic democratic practices and normative discourse, and has been

a critical dimension of middle power conceptualisations in literature. Lastly, behavioural

elements are defined as active participation in multilateral institutions, coalition-building,

and niche diplomacy, among others (Carr, 2014).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

252

Methodology

This study adopts a qualitative, comparative document-based research design to

examine Türkiye’s middle power role in its engagements with the United Nations (UN)

and the European Union (EU). The analysis draws on official speeches, policy documents,

and diplomatic initiatives from the early 2000s to the present. Sources were selected

according to three criteria: (i) relevance to Türkiye’s multilateral strategies in either the

UN or EU; (ii) significance within one of the three historical periods (2001–2009, 2010–

2015, 2016–present); and (iii) availability as official and verifiable primary material.

The periodisation reflects critical turning points in Turkey’s middle power role in both

institutions, shaped by systemic, regional, and domestic transformations. The first period

(2001/2–2009/10) corresponds to EU-driven reforms and active multilateral diplomacy

culminating in Türkiye’s election to the UN Security Council in 2009. The second period

(2010–2015/16) was marked by regional turbulence following the Arab uprisings and by

Türkiye’s unsuccessful UN bid, reflecting growing scepticism about its trajectory. The

third period (2016–present) has unfolded in the context of democratic regression,

economic fragility, and the broader retreat of liberal internationalism. Framing the

analysis through these periods makes it possible to compare how systemic, regional, and

domestic factors have shaped Türkiye’s middle power role across the UN and EU, and

whether its strategies produced complementarity or contradiction.

Türkiye’s middle power role was assessed through the comparative lens of

complementarity and contradiction, structured along the material, ideational, and

behavioural dimensions. To make these concepts analytically clear, each dimension was

connected to observable indicators drawn from the selected policy materials. The material

dimension was examined through budgetary commitments, institutional contributions,

and support for multilateral initiatives, such as financial or logistical backing for UN and

EU programs. The ideational dimension focused on Türkiye’s stance on democracy,

human rights, and broader normative commitments in both the UN and the EU, as well

as the role it sought to assume within these organisations. The behavioural dimension

was analysed through diplomatic activism, which included assuming leadership in specific

niche areas, coalition-building within the UN and the EU, and the ability to generate

outcomes such as election to positions like the UNSC seat or the inability to create

outcomes in mediating the Ianina Nuclear Issue on the UN platform. Analyses of

“complementarity” refer to instances where Türkiye’s material, ideational and

behavioural dimensions of the middle power role in the UN and EU reinforced each other

(e.g. EU-driven reforms enhancing credibility in UN forums), while “contradiction” refers

to divergences across the two institutions (e.g. reformist rhetoric at the UN coinciding

with democratic backsliding and stalled EU accession). Informal practices and non-public

records were excluded in order to focus on formal, institutionalised policy initiatives and

outputs. As another limitation, the voting behaviours in both organisations were not

examined in detail, as the study prioritises declared policies and initiatives over formal

roll-call records. These decisions inevitably introduce limitations, since reliance on official

discourse may overstate coherence and underrepresent informal or contradictory

practices, but the analysis was situated within the broader literature on emerging middle

powers.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

253

Emerging Middle Powers in between Regional and Global Governance

The concept of middle power has evolved significantly within the field of international

relations. Traditionally, middle powers have been defined as states that are neither great

nor small but possess sufficient material resources and diplomatic capacity to exert

influence in multilateral settings. These states tend to favour rules-based international

order, multilateral engagement and are often seen as stabilisers within the global system

as “good international citizens” (Cooper, 2011). Nye’s smart power index conceptualises

national power as a deliberate mix of hard power (e.g. military and economic might) and

soft power (cultural and diplomatic influence) to yield effective influence (Nye, 2011).

Similarly, Cline’s capability measures aggregate tangible resources - such as population

size, economic strength, and military force - and then scales them by intangible factors

like strategic purpose and national will in an equation for “perceived power” (Cline, 1977).

While these tools offer a quantifiable measure of a state’s overall power assets, their

relevance for analysing Türkiye’s middle power role is limited. Middle power status is not

determined by raw capabilities alone; it is also defined by how states like Türkiye leverage

their capabilities through active diplomacy, coalition-building, and normative leadership

in international forums - dimensions that static indices struggle to capture (Cooper &

Parlar Dal, 2016; Jordaan, 2017). In Türkiye’s case, its ability to “punch above its weight”

in regional and multilateral settings owes as much to policy entrepreneurship and

strategic alignments as it does to measurable resources, underscoring the need to look

beyond composite power indices when assessing its middle power role (Jordaan, 2017).

While early middle-power conceptualisations focused largely on countries like Canada

and Australia, contemporary scholarship recognises the emergence of a diverse group of

"emerging middle powers," particularly from the Global South, including Mexico,

Indonesia, and South Korea, among others. These states differ from traditional middle

powers not only in terms of geography and political culture but also in their preferences

and institutional behaviour. A key distinction among middle powers lies in their material,

ideational, and behavioural dimensions (Karadeniz and Oğuz Gök, 2019). Materially,

emerging middle powers possess growing economic capabilities and regional influence,

enabling participation in platforms like the G20 and MIKTA (Mexico, Indonesia, South

Korea, Türkiye, and Australia). Ideationally, however, many of these states exhibit

democratic fragility or normative ambiguity, sometimes conceptualised as hybrid regimes

(Öniş, 2017), authoritarian middle powers (Aydın-Düzgit, 2023) or awkward ones

(Abbondanza and Wilkins, 2022), making their commitment to liberal values less clear-

cut than their traditional counterparts. Behaviorally, they often engage in coalition-

building, meditation and engage with niche diplomacy areas. In recent years, emerging

middle powers such as Türkiye have increasingly turned to military capacity and defence

industry activism as instruments to elevate their status within the shifting international

order (Parlar Dal and Dipama, 2024). However, although the use of military technology

is a defining element of emerging middle powers, it mostly has boosting effects on

domestic regime survival (Soyaltın-Colella and Demiryol, 2023).

The middle power’s dual role in the regional-global nexus has also been discussed in the

literature. Nolte (2010) earlier argued that regional leadership could serve as a platform

for global engagement for middle powers. Aydın (2021) suggests that emerging middle

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

254

powers tend to contribute to the liberal international order in complex ways, especially

through their regional policies as democratic role models in support of institutional norms.

However, some recent empirical cases challenge this assumption. For instance, South

Korea's middle power identity is deeply conditioned by regional security dynamics and

U.S.-China rivalry, which constrain its global positioning despite high levels of

institutional engagement (Mo, 2017). Furthermore, some potential regional powers

might not exercise leadership as demonstrated by Brazil’s detachment from South

America following Cardoso and Lula presidencies (Nolte and Schenoni, 2024). Emerging

middle powers often oscillate between regional activism and global aspiration, creating a

fragmented and sometimes contradictory foreign policy profile.

Scholars increasingly underscore the need to include the domestic and systemic

constraints for exercising regional roles more systematically (Nolte and Schenoni, 2024).

The 2008 global financial crisis, the rise of BRICS, and shifting patterns of power

distribution have created new spaces for middle power activism but also exposed the

limits of formal IOs. Hynd (2025) introduces a timely and critical refinement to middle

power theory by analysing how these states seek repositioning in hierarchies of

international status and order. Rather than merely acting as norm entrepreneurs or

institutional supporters, middle powers today engage in a form of order navigation,

alternating between revisionist tendencies and status quo alignment. Through the case

of South Korea, Hynd (2025) also shows how elite-driven narratives and structural

change enable states to reposition themselves within global hierarchies. Therefore, the

relationship between regional and global roles for middle powers is neither linear nor

harmonious. As Efstathopoulos (2023) and Hynd (2025) both suggest, emerging middle

powers represent a hybrid category that might be both conformist and disruptive at the

same time. Understanding this complexity requires moving beyond binary typologies and

recognising the fragmented nature of contemporary middle power diplomacy

(Efstathopoulos, 2023).

Türkiye as an Emerging Middle Power in Regional and Global Governance

Historically, the foundations for Türkiye’s middle power behaviour can be observed earlier

than the post-Cold War period. Barlas (2005) conceptualises Turkey's very early regional

diplomatic activism in the 1930s, particularly in the Balkans and Mediterranean, as middle

power activism. Despite limited material capacity, Ankara employed regional coalition-

building efforts in the Balkans, which culminated in the Balkan Pact, while not being

successful in the Mediterranean region. During the Cold War, Türkiye’s role as a middle

power in coalition-building was limited due to systemic constraints stemming from

superpower rivalry. While it served multiple terms as a non-permanent member of the

UN Security Council and aligned closely with Western allies, its multilateral engagements

largely reflected the priorities of the transatlantic order (Aral, 2004). In the post-Cold

War period, however, Ankara began to adopt a more active regional and global

diplomacy. Beginning in the 1980s, Türkiye integrated into the neoliberal economy and

began to search for a more active role in its immediate region and beyond during the

Turgut Özal Era. In the 1990s, it sought to address crises such as the Bosnian War by

engaging in intense diplomacy in the UN. Toward the end of the decade, this activism

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

255

was further shaped by then Foreign Minister İsmail Cem’s “world state” or “global state”

vision

1

, which emphasised improving relations with neighbouring countries, stressing

Ankara’s historical and cultural legacy. These developments laid the groundwork for

Turkey’s regional and global middle power diplomacy in the 2000s.

Emergence of a Middle Power Role in the UN (2000-2011)

Türkiye’s economic performance in the 2000s contributed to its growing involvement in

multilateral platforms. After the 2001 financial crisis, the JDP (Justice and Development

Party) governments implemented economic reforms, achieving annual growth rates

averaging 5–7% (Gök and Karadeniz, 2018). Improved economic indicators allowed

Ankara to project a more confident profile in regional and global issues. Türkiye

successfully campaigned for a non-permanent UN Security Council seat for 2009–2010,

securing 151 votes. Ankara’s measurable material and personal contributions to the UN

increased but remained relatively modest compared to rising states such as BRICS (Parlar

Dal and Kurşun, 2018). Normatively, during the early 2000s, Türkiye’s foreign policy

discourse was characterised by a deliberate emphasis on democratic reforms and

proactive multilateralism. The early JDP government prioritised alignment with EU norms,

judicial reforms, and the decentralisation of state institutions.

Türkiye’s diplomatic behaviour from 2002 to 2010 increasingly reflected classic middle

power activism, focused on the quest for mediation, humanitarian diplomacy, and

coalition-building efforts. Initiatives such as the co-sponsorship of the “Alliance of

Civilisations” in 2005 provided a symbolic platform through which Ankara sought to

bridge intercultural divides and promote mutual understanding in a post-9/11

environment. During this period, Turkish policymakers strived to be a mediator in various

regional conflicts, often in coordination with UN efforts (Karadeniz and Gök, 2024). A

notable example was Türkiye’s mediation between Israel and Syria from 2007 to 2008,

wherein Ankara hosted several rounds of indirect peace talks. Türkiye (in partnership

with Brazil) took a role in the Iran nuclear issue in 2010 and brokered the Tehran

Declaration in May 2010. This initiative demonstrated Ankara’s willingness to take the

initiative in the UN together with other rising powers such as Brazil. While these efforts

contributed to Ankara’s visibility within the UN system, they have been quite limited in

terms of achieving concrete outcomes (Sever and Gök, 2016). When the deal failed to

gain full traction, Turkish policymakers did not hesitate to take the step of voting against

UN Security Council Resolution 1929 (June 2010), which imposed a new round of

sanctions on Iran.

2

This was a crucial moment for Türkiye’s middle power efforts at the

UN. On one hand, it underscored Türkiye’s mediation-first attitude, but on the other, it

put Ankara at odds with the P5 consensus, revealing a potential rift between Ankara’s

independent activism and great power expectations. It also demonstrated the limits of

its middle power activism in the UN platform due to structural factors (Gök and Sever,

2016) as well as bilateral relations with the US (Sarı Ertem, H., & Karadeniz, R. F., 2019).

Nevertheless, as Sarı and Sula (2024) note, Türkiye’s pursuit of initiatives in UN forums

1

https://www.sam.gov.tr/media/perceptions/archive/vol2/19970900/IsmailCem1.pdf

2

https://press.un.org/en/2010/sc9948.doc.htm#:~:text=,be%20allowed%20for%20its%20implementation

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

256

reflects a broader pattern of middle power strategies aiming to amplify normative

presence despite structural constraints.

Middle Power Diplomacy under Domestic and Regional Constraints

(2011-2016)

Türkiye’s material power continued to grow in the early 2010s but faced mixed fortunes

by mid-decade. Economically, Ankara initially enjoyed relative growth after the 2008

global financial crisis. Its GDP climbed from around $730 billion in 2010 to over $950

billion by 2013 (Kutlay and Öniş, 2021). This encouraged Ankara’s confidence and

resources to pursue projects at the UN. Türkiye elevated its profile in the G20 during this

time, hosting the Antalya Summit in 2015, where the Women 20 (W20) initiative was

introduced. It also joined the informal MIKTA group established in 2013, aligning with

peer traditional and emerging middle powers. However, from the mid-2010s onward,

Türkiye’s economy began to face setbacks as domestic democratic backlash, political

instability and external factors, including the Arap uprisings and regional turmoil, led to

currency depreciation and slower growth rates (Kutlay and Öniş, 2021). Despite these

setbacks, in 2013–2015, Türkiye contributed voluntarily to UN programs from the United

Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) to

United Nations Development Program (UNDP) projects. During the early 2010s, Ankara

gradually increased its assessed contributions to the UN regular budget, rising from

0.62% in 2012 to 0.75% by 2014. This upward trend facilitated its entry into the Geneva

Group, which comprises major financial contributors to the UN system (United Nations,

2017). Additionally, the Syrian civil war in 2011 imposed huge humanitarian burdens on

Ankara and by 2015, Türkiye hosted over 2 million Syrian refugees, the largest refugee

population in the world at that time. Türkiye ranked among the top 3 humanitarian aid

providers in 2013– 2015 and was the most generous relative to GDP. Such figures

underscore that Türkiye was using its material means to gain influence in the

humanitarian field. Militarily, Ankara’s hard power capacity also grew more evident in

this period. Türkiye began investing in defence industries, including drone technology. It

undertook cross-border military operations, especially from 2015 onward, which

indicated Ankara’s willingness to exercise hard power when deemed necessary. In UN

peacekeeping, Türkiye’s troop/police contributions fluctuated but remained steady (Kaya

Uyar and Sezgin, 2024).

During 2010–2015, Türkiye’s normative role experienced significant challenges, which

had ambivalent effects on its middle power role at the UN. In the early part of this period,

Ankara initially welcomed uprisings in Arab countries, framing itself as an advocate for

democratic transitions. However, as the Arab Uprisings turned more complex, with civil

wars in Libya and Syria, a military coup in Egypt, Türkiye’s stance became more

contested. Ankara’s attempt to position itself as both a regional and global actor is

exemplified and tested in its engagement with regional crises, including Syria (Dağ,

2022). Consequently, Türkiye’s normative credibility suffered criticisms, and Türkiye’s

failure to secure a UN Security Council seat in the October 2014 election, a surprising

loss to Spain, was widely attributed to diminished support due to Ankara’s controversial

regional policies and concerns about its internal politics.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

257

Türkiye’s ideational posture was reflected in its growing critique of the UN Security

Council’s structure during this period. President Erdoğan began voicing the slogan “the

world is bigger than five” in the UN speeches (Aral, 2019). This rhetorical stance appealed

to many nations frustrated with great-power dominance, thus potentially strengthening

Türkiye’s image as a reformist middle power. Yet as Ankara advocated democratic values

abroad, at home, there were growing criticisms of its domestic democratic credentials as

well as its policy choices towards the Arap uprisings. Therefore, its normative discourse

at the UN both supported and constrained its middle power role in this period. It

supported it by giving Türkiye a distinctive identity (a democracy advocating for reform

and humanitarianism) that set it apart from both Western great powers and non-Western

authoritarian powers. But it constrained it by putting doubt on Türkiye’s consistency and

reliability, which adheres to the values it preaches. This tension would only grow in the

next period as Ankara’s domestic regime transformed and its economy faced growing

tensions.

In behavioural terms, since 2010, Turkish policy makers have further institutionalised

mediation efforts on the global stage (Süleymanoğlu-Kürüm, 2011). In September 2010,

Türkiye and Finland jointly launched the “Mediation for Peace” initiative at the UN,

creating a Group of Friends of Mediation to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes.

This led to the UN General Assembly’s first-ever resolution on mediation (A/RES/65/283)

in 2011. Türkiye’s leadership was pivotal in co-sponsoring the resolution and

subsequently co-chaired the Friends of Mediation group (Sofos, 2022). In June 2012,

the UN, with input from Türkiye, issued the “United Nations Guidance for Effective

Mediation”, a handbook of best practices for mediators. Ankara showcased this as an

achievement of its niche diplomacy, even translating the guidance into Turkish (the first

non-UN language version) (Karadeniz and Gök, 2024). The outbreak of the Syrian civil

war tested Ankara’s mediation and humanitarian efforts, as Türkiye kept its border open

to Syrian refugees and worked closely with UN agencies UNHCR (UN Refugee Agency),

WFP (World Food Programme), and UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund) to manage

refugee camps. By contributing over $2 billion per year in humanitarian aid by 2014–

2015 (much of it for Syrians), Türkiye became the world’s second-largest humanitarian

donor after the U.S. in 2014. Ankara continued its willingness to be a major player at the

UN in the humanitarian field by hosting the first-ever World Humanitarian Summit in

Istanbul in 2016. In addition to these coalition-building and mediation efforts, Türkiye’s

behaviour in this period was not free of contradictions. As regional conflicts intensified,

Ankara continued to choose to use hard power sources and take sides in the Syrian civil

war, which will intensify in the next period.

An Asymmetrical Middle Power in Search for Strategic Autonomy in the

UN (2016–Present)

Since 2016, Türkiye’s material capacity as a middle power has been marked by

asymmetrical trends as it continues to be strong in certain areas and highly vulnerable

in others, all unfolding in a more multipolar global economic and normative context. On

the one hand, Türkiye remains a sizable economy as Türkiye’s status in the G20 is

undiminished. Additionally, Ankara has invested in the defence industry in the past

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

258

decade and developed indigenous high-tech drone weapons. On the other hand, Türkiye’s

economy in the late 2010s and early 2020s has been volatile and fragile. A currency crisis

in 2018 and subsequent inflation surges eroded some of Türkiye’s economic gains. GDP

per capita in USD terms fell, and foreign investment waned due to perceived political and

financial risks. Ankara finds itself in a difficult situation of slow growth, high inflation and

chronic unemployment (Öniş and Kutlay, 2021). However, Türkiye’s defence

expenditures and military power keep growing even at the expense of other sectors

(Parlar Dal and Dipama, 2024). As of 2025, Turkey continues to contribute 117 personnel

to UN Peace Operations.

3

The ideational dimension of Türkiye’s UN engagement since 2016 has been defined by

profound domestic political changes. Domestically, in the aftermath of the failed coup

attempt of July 2016, Turkish rulers adopted emergency rule, which paved the way for a

new executive presidency. By 2018, Ankara had transitioned from a parliamentary

democracy with substantial checks and balances to a highly centralised presidential

system with power concentrated in the President. This period also saw Türkiye’s Freedom

House and V-Dem democracy ratings downgraded as Ankara was now classified as “not

free”.

4

The rise of populist and authoritarian-leaning governments worldwide and a

general retreat of liberal internationalist rhetoric meant Türkiye’s democratic backlash

was somewhat in parallel with the broader international trend. In this context, Ankara

has reframed its ideational narrative at the UN in two main ways. First, Ankara

emphasises sovereignty and non-interference as pluralist values. Turkish policymakers

refer to strategic autonomy in foreign policy, which underpins their efforts to position

themselves as an independent diplomatic actor, distinct from traditional Western

alignments (Tüfekçi, 2025). However, there has not been a dramatic shift from its voting

orientation as it continues to be mostly in common with Western states on issues related

to human rights in general (Aral, 2022). Ideationally, Ankara’s discourse begins to

embrace a more explicitly Islamic and nationalist tone, positioning Türkiye as a voice for

the Muslim world and the oppressed in the UN as President Erdoğan argued that “Islamic

country with veto power on UN Security Council is no longer just a need, but an

imperative”

5

. Türkiye started to demonstrate willingness to align more with a broader

coalition of states (Russia, China, many in the global South) including BRICS (Brazil,

Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

Türkiye’s diplomatic behavior in the UN arena has been characterized by various

initiatives, defined as an “unusual middle power activism” that mixes cooperation with

unilateralism (Kutlay and Öniş, 2021). Chief among these was the Black Sea Grain

Initiative in July 2022 which was an UN-brokered deal Türkiye facilitated between Russia

and Ukraine to safely export Ukrainian grain during the ongoing war. Ankara hosted and

mediated the talks in Istanbul and the resulting agreement allowed nearly 33 million tons

3

https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/01_contributions_to_un_peacekeeping_operations_by_countr

y_and_post_86_may_2025.pdf

4

https://freedomhouse.org/country/turkey

5

President Erdoğan’s address to foreign ambassadors serving in the capital Ankara, available at

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/turkiye/muslims-who-make-up-1-4-of-world-must-be-justly-represented-in-

global-decision-making-bodies-turkish-president/3498834

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

259

of grain to reach global markets.

6

Another initiative has been promoting environmental

sustainability through the “Zero Waste” project brought into the UN. In December 2022,

the UN General Assembly (UNGA) unanimously adopted Türkiye’s draft resolution

declaring March 30 the International Day of Zero Waste, co-sponsored by 105 countries.

7

Zero Waste has broadened Türkiye’s diplomatic portfolio beyond conflict-related topics,

into environment. This kind of “eco-diplomacy” is a newer behavioral dimension for

Ankara. Türkiye has also sustained its earlier commitments since the late 2010s as it

remains co-chair of the Group of Friends of Mediation, convening annual ministerial

meetings. It works in coalitions to influence debates, and it often acts as a mediator, as

seen not only in Ukraine but also in conflicts like Somalia (hosting Somalia-Somaliland

talks in 2019) and between Serbia and Bosnia (facilitating meetings in 2018–2021).

In sum, Ankara's middle power efforts especially in the last decade is characterized by

asymmetries across its material, ideational, and behavioral dimensions. Materially,

Türkiye exhibits a paradoxical mixture of significant military and indigenous defense

industry capabilities alongside persistent economic and technological dependencies.

Ideationally, its foreign policy discourse is shaped by reference to a new world order,

engaging selectively with established liberal norms. This manifests in a re-

conceptualization of "justice" that often contests dominant interpretations, and a rhetoric

that collides human rights advocacy with a strong emphasis on national sovereignty, and

increasingly pluralist elements. Behaviorally, Türkiye employs a foreign policy toolkit,

encompassing hard power resources together with coalition building and preventive

measure, balancing efforts across competing power blocs and growing criticism towards

current order while being predominantly on the side of western powers in its voting

orientation towards issues at the UNGA platform. These patterns, increasingly involving

informal engagements in addition to formal ones arise not merely from tactical responses

but also from Türkiye's unique regional embeddedness and the inherent dynamism of the

contemporary global order especially since 2010s. Ankara's foreign policy in dual

institutional settings in the post-2015 presents an example of what can be conceptualized

as an "Asymmetrical Middle Power."

8

Türkiye’s Middle Power Engagement with the European Union

Türkiye’s relations with the European Union (EU) have had a long trajectory. As a middle

power, Türkiye’s engagement with the EU includes various political, economic, and

diplomatic factors that can be explained in material, ideational and behavioral dimensions

in middle power theory. Although recently the relations have reached a standstill in

accession negotiations, in historical perspective, Ankara has sought closer ties with the

EU as part of its modernization project in political and economic terms, and to enhance

6

The Black Sea Grain Initiative: What it is, and why it is important for the world.” United Nations News.

September 16, 2022. Accessed date April, 2025. https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/09/1126811. Tingyang,

Zhao. All under Heaven: The Tianxia System for a Possible World Order, translated by Joseph E. Harroff.

California: University of California Press, 2021.

7

https://www.un.org/en/observances/zero-waste-

day#:~:text=On%2014%20December%202022%2C%20the,Waste%2C%20to%20be%20observed%20annu

ally.

8

Author’s own conceptuzalization

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

260

its international standing in alignment with liberal international norms. Considering the

deep trade relations between Türkiye and the EU, geopolitical significance, long lasting

intercultural mobility between the two communities over the years, Türkiye’s middle

power status allows it to assert significant influence in its interactions with the EU.

However, the process has been stalled with challenges and complex accession

negotiations in the past decade.

Turkey’s Alignment with the EU: Wide ranging Economic and Political

Reforms, Optimistic Dialogue, and Strategic Positioning (2001-2009)

After 1999 Helsinki Summit when Türkiye was granted the candidacy status, the political

relations between Ankara and the EU were intensified. Thus, between 2001 and 2009,

Ankara’s engagement with the EU was marked by significant political, economic, and

diplomatic developments with some emerging challenges after 2006. This period was

crucial in shaping Türkiye’s aspirations for EU membership and understanding its position

as a middle power within the European context.

Specifically, the period between 2001 and 2004 was also known as “the virtuous circle”

(Öniş and Kutlay, 2016) or “golden age of Europeanization” (Müftüler-Baç, 2005). In

this period, Türkiye adopted significant political reforms to fulfill the Copenhagen

criteria and progress in its accession path to the EU. The political reforms were partly

a response to the 2001 economic crisis in Türkiye, which triggered political instability

and calls for reform. Under these domestic circumstances, based on 2001 National

Program for the adoption of the acquis communautaire, Ankara adopted wide-ranging

political reforms between 2001 and 2004 to expand fundamental human rights,

freedoms, and democratization. These reforms can be classified as “increased legal

protection of fundamental human rights of all Turkish citizens irrespective of religious

and ethnic origin, the role of military in Turkish politics and the freedom of expression

in Türkiye” (Müftüler-Baç, 2005: 22). There were also judicial reforms to enhance the

independence of the judiciary. In addition, reforms concerning civil society and political

participation were encouraged to have a more vibrant civil society. Non-governmental

organizations (NGOs) became more active in promoting democratic values and

monitoring government actions (Öniş, 2003; Eralp, 2009). Müftüler-Baç (2005) argues

that the EU acted as a powerful external catalyst for these internal political and legal

reforms, intensifying the Europeanization process in this period. Öniş and Kutlay (2016)

claim that the virtuous cycle in this period boosted Ankara’s capacity as a role model in

ideational terms and that the EU membership process had a transformative impact on

that.

In addition to the high pace of political reforms mentioned above, in the period between

2001 and 2004, Türkiye adopted critical economic reforms following the severe economic

crisis of 2001. The economic reforms required to fulfil the Copenhagen economic criteria,

particularly in relation to its pursuit of EU membership, were closely aligned with the

expectations of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) programs. These reforms focused

on achieving fiscal discipline and structural adjustments within the Turkish economy. Key

areas of focus included the control of public expenditure to ensure fiscal stability and reduce

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

261

deficits (Öniş, 2003). In the financial sector, reforms had the objective of establishing

greater transparency and promoting stability. In addition to the reform of agricultural

subsidies, progress in privatisation was essential to shift towards a more market-oriented

economy (Öniş, 2003). These economic reforms were crucial for Türkiye’s alignment with

EU economic norms and enhanced its middle power activism materially.

Ankara formally began its accession negotiations in October 2005, a critical milestone

that underscored the relationship’s complexities (European Commission, 2005). In 2004,

the accession of South Cyprus to the EU without a resolution to the Cyprus issue created

a significant impediment to Türkiye’s EU accession path (Eralp, 2009). It led directly to

the stall of a substantial part of the accession negotiations and undermined Ankara’s

political will for reform. Thus, in the first few years following accession negotiations,

Türkiye continued its political reforms at a rather slow pace as part of its commitment to

the Copenhagen criteria: democracy, rule of law, human rights, protection of minorities,

and a functioning market economy (Eralp, 2009; Özer, 2015). The 2007 constitutional

reforms exemplified Ankara’s efforts to bolster political pluralism and judicial

independence. These reforms had the objective of addressing human rights concerns and

combating corruption (European Commission, 2008). Despite progress, there were

criticisms, particularly in the implementation of human rights and freedom of expression

(European Commission, 2009). Although the effectiveness and long-term implementation

of these reforms faced constant challenges and scrutiny, the political reforms during this

period were considered significant as Ankara attempted to meet the EU membership

conditions. The dynamics between the EU and Türkiye were complex, marked by both

cooperation in reform efforts and criticism over the issues of human rights and

democratic governance.

Türkiye-EU relations between 2001 and 2009 were marked by optimistic engagement

and dialogue in behavioural terms, focusing on the accession process and the required

reforms. Ankara also engaged in security cooperation with the EU during this period,

mostly within the framework of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). Ankara

actively participated in the crisis management missions headed by the EU, such as the

EU mission in Kosovo (EULEX) and the EU Force Operation in Bosnia Herzegovina

(European Commission, 2009) and provided support for the second EU police mission in

Bosnia Herzegovina. According to EU officials, Türkiye's strategic significance was further

strengthened by its proactive involvement in international peacekeeping and conflict

resolution, which complemented the EU's regional security goals. Despite progress in

many areas, there were persistent challenges, including the Cyprus issue and human

rights concerns in this period.

Changing Dynamics in Türkiye-EU Relations: Slow Down and Stagnation

of Accession Negotiations, Complex Diplomacy, and Regional Challenges

(2010-2016)

In this period, accession negotiations slowed down considerably due to political tensions

and disputes over issues such as Cyprus, human rights, and setbacks and retreats on

democratic norms (Müftüler-Baç, 2016; Özer, 2015). Türkiye attained a crucial position

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

262

in regional geopolitics because of the instability caused by the Syrian civil war, the

emergence of ISIS, and the 2015 refugee crisis. Thus, Türkiye-EU relations during this

period were marked by the EU's growing perception of Türkiye as an essential partner in

dealing with these challenges.

Between 2010 and 2016, in behavioural terms, the diplomatic landscape between Türkiye

and the EU was marked by both cooperation and persistent challenges. Although Ankara

and the EU reached a migration deal in 2016 to control irregular migration as a result of

efforts to manage the refugee crisis (European Council, 2016), the July 2016 coup

attempt severely altered Türkiye's political climate. In this period, the diplomatic relations

became increasingly contentious due to disagreements over Ankara’s military actions and

tension in the Eastern Mediterranean. Throughout this period, the EU raised concerns

about human rights violations, freedom of the press, and the independence of the

judiciary in Türkiye (European Commission, 2016).

In spite of these obstacles, materially, the Turkish economy grew rapidly during this time,

strengthening its standing as a middle power (World Bank, 2016). Ankara became an

important economic partner of the EU as a result of the Customs Union with the EU,

which was completed in 1996, and it allowed for increased trade relations between the

two parties (Müftüler-Baç, 2016). Furthermore, Türkiye became an essential transit route

for diversifying energy supplies due to its strategic location, especially regarding the

Southern Gas Corridor. This indicates that bilateral relations have become more

interdependent in energy-related matters (European Commission, 2012).

One of the most urgent issues in EU-Türkiye relations was the migration crisis. In 2015,

Europe faced a massive influx of refugees, many of whom crossed through Ankara. This

situation prompted the EU to engage with Türkiye more closely on migration issues. With

the support of Germany, Türkiye, and the EU, they agreed on a Joint Action Plan in

October 2015 to work together on migration (European Commission, 2015). Then, as

part of this initiative, in March 2016, Ankara and the EU agreed on a migration deal to

manage the refugee crisis. The March 2016 deal aimed to curtail the influx of migrants

into Europe and marked a significant turning point in Türkiye's bargaining position with

the EU. In exchange for cooperation in controlling migration, the EU committed to

providing financial aid and reviving accession negotiations, illustrating a transactional

nature in their engagement (European Council, 2016). Beyond these issues, Ankara’s

large population and persistent economic instability raise concerns for the EU. As a result,

while there were opportunities for cooperation, they were frequently overshadowed by

mutual distrust and divergent priorities. Saatçioğlu (2019) argues that in the post-2015

refugee crisis, Turkey-EU relations transformed into functionalism, which was marked by

a strategic partnership based on interdependence and a retreat from the EU’s

conditionality approach.

Transactional Relationship with the EU: Economic Ties, Security

dilemmas, and strategic partnership (2016-Present)

In the period between 2016 and 2025, Türkiye's engagement with the EU can be

described as a significant interaction between a middle power and a regional bloc that

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

263

encompasses a variety of factors, including political dynamics, economic ties, and

regional security concerns. Important changes occurred during this period, as illustrated

by strategic partnerships, Türkiye’s domestic issues, shifting EU priorities, and

geopolitical challenges.

Ankara’s relations with the EU entered a period of stagnation after the July 2016 coup

attempt. Türkiye’s strategic priorities often clashed with the EU’s significant concerns

about human rights and the decline of democratic norms in Türkiye (European

Commission, 2016). During this period, Ankara’s internal political trajectory and the EU's

ongoing emphasis on conditionality with regard to the rule of law and fundamental rights

diverged significantly (European Commission, 2017; Öniş, 2023). In ideational terms,

Türkiye's increasing distance from the EU was highlighted in the European Council's

December 2016 conclusions, which resulted in a formal halt to accession negotiations

with no new chapters being opened or closed (European Commission, 2024). Despite

these obstacles, Ankara made efforts to re-establish itself as the EU’s vital ally in tackling

difficult regional issues, especially the migration crisis, which came to the fore.

The EU and Türkiye continued to interact in the field of migration, even after the (de

facto) freezing of accession negotiations. Thus, the 2015 refugee crisis continued to play

a crucial role in bilateral relations. Although there were fewer irregular crossings at first,

there were still implementation issues and humanitarian concerns regarding the

migration crisis (Saatçioğlu, 2019; Kaya, 2020; Kirişçi, 2014). As previously noted, the

EU and Türkiye came to a major agreement in March 2016 whereby Ankara agreed to

control the refugee flow to Europe in return for political and financial concessions

(European Council, 2016). This arrangement solidified Ankara’s position as a key transit

country while enabling it to exert influence within EU decision-making realms. In this

period, the EU continued to provide financial aid to Türkiye for hosting refugees.

However, there were debates regarding the adequacy and timeliness of this support, and

Ankara often criticised the EU for not fulfilling its financial commitments swiftly (Kaya,

2020). Currently, the migration deal is not in effect, which came to a halt in 2020 due to

political dynamics and complexities of border control issues.

From the economic perspective, Türkiye was consistently perceived as an emerging

market with substantial economic prospects, rendering it an attractive partner for the EU

in material terms (European Commission, 2024). Economic cooperation continued,

especially in the areas of trade and investment, despite persistent political tensions. The

EU continued to be Ankara’s largest trading partner. As a candidate country to the EU,

Ankara sought to enhance these economic ties to influence EU policy frameworks in ways

that could facilitate its economic growth and stability. Debates around updating the

Customs Union started, focusing on areas like services and agricultural products, though

no significant breakthroughs were made by 2024. Özer (2020) argues that modernising

the EU-Türkiye Customs Union is a pragmatic initiative driven by shared economic

interest and vital for a cooperative and functional relationship. Türkiye's potential as a

regional economic hub, particularly in the areas of infrastructure and energy, has been

recognised by the EU. However, the political climate and economic crisis affected

investment sentiment from European companies (European Commission, 2024).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

264

Ankara has a crucial role in tackling regional security issues because of its strategic

location at the intersection of Europe and Asia. The rise of terrorism and instability in

neighbouring regions underscored Ankara's importance as a middle power (European

Commission, 2024). Engagement with the EU encompassed discussions on security

cooperation, counter-terrorism measures, and the management of issues pertaining to

the Middle East, particularly the Syrian civil war. Additionally, bilateral relations were

further strained by tensions over energy exploration rights in the Eastern Mediterranean,

especially in the context of disputes with Greece and Cyprus (European Commission,

2022).

In this period between 2016 and the present, despite facing major obstacles arising from

political issues, security dilemmas, and conflicting views on fundamental human rights,

Türkiye attempted to use its position as a middle power to strengthen its ties with the

EU, albeit at a low level. Ankara's middle power engagement with the EU during this

period was defined by a functional, strategy-oriented partnership based on common

interests. In addition, in the post-2016 period, in behavioural terms, high-level dialogue

meetings continued to form a significant aspect of the relations, particularly on areas of

migration, security, energy, agriculture and trade (European Commission, 2024). These

meetings, together with official contacts between the two sides, indicate a sustained

attempt to put the relations on practical cooperation and find solutions to common

problems, despite the wider political hindrances and standstill in the accession

negotiations.

In Guise of Conclusion: Turkey’s Middle Power Role in the Regional-

Global Nexus

Turkey’s evolving role in the UN and EU over the past two decades reflects key insights

for middle power theory, especially regarding how material, ideational, and behavioural

dimensions are shaped by systemic and domestic changes. At the UN, Turkey’s

contributions fluctuated across time, marked by heightened activism in the early 2000s

and 2010s, but a gradual shift toward selective engagement in the post-2016 period.

Although economic interdependence remained steady in Turkey-EU relations, democratic

backsliding strained ideational alignment, transforming the relationship from aspirational

integration to transactional cooperation. Despite Turkey’s engagements in both settings,

its behavioural strategies at the UN allowed for more flexible, albeit limited, influence,

especially in humanitarian and mediation initiatives. Within the EU, however, formal

structures imposed stricter conditionalities and thus constrained Turkey’s capacity to act

autonomously.

During the 2000–2015 period, Turkey's engagement in both arenas displayed parallel

intensifications in visibility and initiative-taking, particularly in mediation diplomacy and

norm adherence. Yet, this did not always translate into tangible influence. In the UN,

despite active campaigning for Security Council membership and increased budgetary

contributions, limitations in decision-making, which are often dominated by permanent

members, restricted Turkey’s capacity to shape outcomes (Sever and Gök, 2016). Within

the EU, by contrast, while Turkey adopted significant political, legal and economic

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

265

reforms to fulfil the Copenhagen criteria and to align with acquis communautaire, the

accession negotiation process stalled, limiting its normative influence and complicating

its status as a transformative actor (Table 1).

During the post-2016 period, one can trace a clearer divergence between its middle

power role in both institutions (Table 1). In the UN, Turkey has continued to participate

in multilateral settings and champion certain humanitarian initiatives (e.g., grain corridor

diplomacy), yet with a more state-centric and nationalist tone, relying increasingly on

hard power instruments. In the EU, engagement has increasingly been characterised by

transactional cooperation, strategic partnership, and bilateralism, marking a shift from

previous transformative ambitions (Düzgit, 2021).

These divergent dynamics suggest that middle power strategies are context-dependent

and that institutions like the UN and EU expose different facets of middle power diplomacy

for Türkiye. While middle power theory often assumes coherence between regional and

global behaviours, the Turkish case illustrates a fragmented pattern shaped by

asymmetries in institutional constraints, domestic and regional conditions. From a

theoretical standpoint, this supports the view that emerging middle powers are not

homogenous actors but vary according to institutional contexts and domestic factors

(Hynd, 2025).

The asymmetry between Turkey and the EU in terms of institutional hierarchy and

normative expectations contrasts with the more flexible setting of the UN, except for

platforms such as the UN Security Council. This, in turn, suggests that while Turkey

continues to behave as a middle power in both arenas, the forms and degrees of its

influence differ to a large extent (Table 2). Furthermore, the comparison highlights that

regional activism does not always reinforce global activism and vice versa. In the UN,

Turkey’s policies on regional issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the Syrian

crisis elevated its visibility but occasionally constrained its ability to build broader

coalitions due to structural limitations of the UN. In the EU, regional neighbourhood policy

instruments offered opportunities for deeper cooperation, yet political divergences in the

post-2013 period weakened the credibility of its normative claims. Ultimately, Turkey’s

case illustrates the variation and context-specificity of middle power diplomacy

(Efstathopoulos, 2023), reinforcing arguments that rising and emerging powers,

especially those with hybrid or liminal identities, occupy an ambivalent position in global

governance. This underscores the need to rethink — if not say goodbye — the emerging

middle power frameworks by accounting for the specific interplay between domestic

transformation and institutional embeddedness.

While Türkiye’s proactive diplomacy and EU-driven reforms enhanced its credibility in

multilateral forums, direct evidence of reputational payoffs remains uneven. For instance,

Turkey’s election to the UN Security Council in 2009 reflected broad diplomatic support

(UN General Assembly voting records), while EU progress reports of the early 2000s

acknowledged democratic and institutional reforms. Yet systematic third-party

evaluations of Türkiye’s normative influence within the UN remain limited, which could

be further explored in future research.

Future research could further deepen this analysis by systematically examining UN voting

records to assess how Turkey’s coalition-building strategies shape its middle power role.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

266

Such an approach could clarify whether Turkey acts as a consistent coalition partner or

adopts issue-based leadership in specific niche areas. In addition, exploring the regional

dimension of coalition building may provide valuable insights, particularly given that the

European Union itself represents a complex set of regional perspectives. Analyses that

connect Turkey’s regional leadership roles with its broader global positioning in both the

UN and the EU could offer a deeper understanding of how emerging middle powers

balance regional influence and global ambitions.

Appendix

Table 1. Comparative Outlook of Turkey’s Emerging Middle Power Efforts towards the United

Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU)

Dimension

2001/2–2009/10

2010–2015/16

2016–Present

UN

EU

UN

EU

UN

EU

Material

Increased

financial

contributions

to the UN;

G20

membership

Notable

improvements

in

macroeconomic

indicators,

structural

reforms

Increased

UN budget

contribution;

Geneva

Group

membership;

Robust

economic

growth;

enhanced trade

relations;

growing energy

interdependence

Continued but

stable UN

budget,

moderate

economic

strain,

economic

volatility and

uncertainty

Continued

trade

cooperation;

customs

union

update

discussions;

regional

economic

hub

potential

Ideational

Liberal

multilateralism

rhetoric

Wide-ranging

political

reforms; high

pace of

Europeanization

(2001–2004)

Justice-

based

discourse

calls for

UNSC

Reform

(e.g., the

world is

bigger than

five)

Setback in

democratic

reforms; slow

down and

stagnation in

accession

negotiations

Selective

normative

engagement

leans towards

more pluralist

elements (e.g

sovereignty)

Democratic

backsliding;

(de facto)

frozen

accession

negotiations

Behavioral

Non-

permanent

UNSC seat,

Mediation,

Alliance of

Civilisations

Intensive

government–

civil society

interaction;

optimistic

engagement

Friends of

Mediation,

regional

initiatives on

Gaza and

Syria; Brazil

cooperation

on Iran;

limited

impact on

UNSC

outcomes

Cooperation on

migration,

diplomatic

tensions

Selective

multilateralism,

Mediation

efforts; use of

military hard

power (e.g.,

Syria

operations);

new niche

areas like

environment

(e.g., Zero

Waste)

Security &

migration

cooperation;

strategic,

transactional

partnership;

high-level

dialogue

meetings

The table indicates the interactions of the evolving role of Turkey’s middle power efforts

towards the UN and the EU in material, ideational and behavioural dimensions.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

267

Table 2. Turkey’s Middle Power Role in the Regional-Global Nexus

2001/2–

2009/10

2010–2015/16

2016–Present

UN

Material

Medium

High

Medium

Ideational

High

Medium

Low

Behavioral

High

Medium

EU

Material

High

Medium

Ideational

High

Medium

Low

Behavioral

High

Medium

The table indicates the extent of Turkey’s middle power role in the regional and global

nexus in material, ideational and behavioural dimensions.

References

Abbondanza, G., & Wilkins, T. S. (2022). The case for awkward powers. In G. Abbondanza

& T. S. Wilkins (Eds.), Awkward powers: Escaping traditional great and middle power

theory. Palgrave Macmillan.

Aral, B. (2004). Fifty years on: Turkey’s voting orientation at the UN General Assembly,

1948–97. Middle Eastern Studies, 40(2), 137–160.

Aral, B. (2022). Turkey’s voting preferences in the UN General Assembly during the AK

Party era as a counterchallenge to its ‘new’ foreign policy. Journal of Balkan and Near

Eastern Studies, 25(3), 399–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2022.2143852

Aydın, U. (2021). Emerging middle powers and the liberal international

order. International Affairs, 97(5), 1377–1394. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiab153

Aydın-Düzgit, S. (2023). Authoritarian middle powers and the liberal order: Turkey's

contestation of the EU. International Affairs, 99(6), 2319–

2337. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiad225

Carr, A. (2014). Is Australia a middle power? A systemic impact approach. Australian

Journal of International Affairs, 68(1), 70–84.

Cline, R. S. (1977). World power assessment: A calculus of strategic drift. Westview

Press.

Cooper, A. F., & Dal, E. P. (2016). Positioning the third wave of middle power diplomacy:

Institutional elevation, practice limitations. International Journal, 71(4), 516–528.

Cooper, D. A. (2011). Challenging contemporary notions of middle power influence:

Implications of the Proliferation Security Initiative for “middle power theory.” Foreign

Policy Analysis, 7(3), 317–336.

Dag, R. (2022). Geopolitical struggle between Russia and Turkey: The intersection of

Ukraine and Syrian crises. The Rest: Journal of Politics and Development, 12(2), 150–

161.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

268

Efstathopoulos, C. (2021). Southern middle powers and the liberal international order:

The options for Brazil and South Africa. International Journal, 76(3), 384–

403. https://doi.org/10.1177/00207020211042915

Eralp, A. (2009). “The Role of Temporality and Interaction in the Turkey-EU Relationship”,

New Perspectives on Turkey, 40, pp. 149-170.

European Commission (2005). Turkey 2005 progress report.

https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/document/download/07735786-3baa-4304-

aeb1-

3aaa321e24d3_en?filename=sec_1426_final_progress_report_tr_en.pdf (Accessed

May 20, 2025)

European Commission (2008). Turkey 2008 Progress Report,

https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/turkey-progress-report-2008_en (Accessed: May

20, 2025)

European Commission. (2009). Turkey 2009 progress

report. https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/turkey-progress-report-2009_en (Accessed

May 20, 2025)

European Commission. (2012). Turkey-EU positive agenda, enhanced EU-Turkey

energy cooperation.https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2014-

10/20120622_outline_of_enhanced_cooperation_0.pdf (Accessed May 20, 2025)

European Commission. (2015). EU-Turkey joint action plan, fact

sheet.https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/m

emo_15_5860/MEMO_15_5860_EN.pdf (Accessed May 20, 2025)

European Commission. (2016). Turkey 2016

report.https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/document/download/e703a769-bf7f-

46d1-8a13-6a836683e838_en?filename=20161109_report_turkey.pdf (Accessed

May 20, 2025)

European Council. (2016). EU-Turkey statement on migration, press

release. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/18/eu-

turkey-statement/ (Accessed May 20, 2025)

European Commission. (2017). Fifth report on the progress made in the

implementation of the EU-Turkey statement, Brussels, 2.3.2017 COM (2017) 204

final. https://www.ikv.org.tr/images/files/fifth_report_on_the_progress.pdf (Access

ed May 20, 2025)

European Commission. (2022). Türkiye 2022 report.

https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/document/download/ccedfba1-0ea4-4220-9f94-

ae50c7fd0302_en?filename=T%C3%BCrkiye%20Report%202022.pdf (Accessed May

20, 2025)

European Commission. (2024). Türkiye 2024

report. https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/turkiye-report-2024_en(Accessed May 20, 2025)

Gök, G. O., & Karadeniz, R. F. (2018). Analysing “T” in MIKTA: Turkey’s changing

middle power role in the United Nations. In E. Parlar Dal (Ed.), Middle powers in

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

269

global governance. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-

72365

Herzog, M., & Robins, P. (2014). The role, position and agency of cusp states in international

relations. Third World Quarterly, 35(9), 1526–

1541. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2014.976129

Hynd, A. M. (2025). Repositioning middle powers in international hierarchies of status and

order. International Relations. Advance online

publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178251319723

Jordaan, E. (2003). The concept of a middle power in international relations:

Distinguishing between emerging and traditional middle powers. Politikon, 30(1),

165–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/0258934032000147282

Jordaan, E. (2017). The emerging middle power concept: Time to say goodbye? South African

Journal of International Affairs, 24(3), 395–

412. https://doi.org/10.1080/10220461.2017.1394218

Karadeniz, R. F., & Oğuz Gök, G. (2019). Middle power diplomacy in theory and

practice. Turkish Journal of International Relations, 18(1), 45–62.

Karadeniz, R. F., & Oğuz Gök, G. (2024). Searching for a place in global IR through

exceptionalism: Turkey and the Mediation for Peace initiative. All Azimuth: A Journal of

Foreign Policy and Peace, 13(2), 260–

284. https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.1505836

Kaya, H. (2020). The EU-Turkey statement on refugees: Assessing its impact on

fundamental rights. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Kaya Uyar, S., & Sezgin, F. S. (2024). Türkiye’s UN peacekeeping contributions as

instruments of foreign policy amidst global transformations. In TÜBA Academy

Report (Chapter 18). https://doi.org/10.53478/TUBA.978-625-6110-04-5.ch18

Kirişçi, K. (2014). Syrian refugees and Turkey’s challenges: Going beyond

hospitality. Washington, DC: Brookings.

Kutlay, M., & Öniş, Z. (2021). Understanding oscillations in Turkish foreign policy:

Pathways to unusual middle power activism. Third World Quarterly, 42(12), 3051–

3069. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2021.1985449

Mo, J. (2017). South Korea’s middle power diplomacy: A case of growing

compatibility between regional and global roles. International Journal, 71(4), 587–

607. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020702016686380

Müftüler-Baç, M. (2005). Turkey’s political reforms and the impact of

Europeanization. South European Society and Politics, 10(1), 17–31.

Müftüler-Baç, M. (2016). Turkey’s ambivalent relationship with the European

Union: To accede or not to accede. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 13(52), 89–103.

Nolte, D. (2010). How to compare regional powers: Analytical concepts and research

topics. Review of International Studies, 36(4), 881–

901. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026021051000135X

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

270

Nye, J. S., Jr. (2011). The future of power. New York: PublicAffairs.

Nolte, D., & Schenoni, L. L. (2024). To lead or not to lead: Regional powers and regional

leadership. International Politics. Advance online

publication. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-021-00355-8

Öniş, Z. (2003). Domestic politics, international norms and challenges to the state: Turkey-

EU relations in the post-Helsinki era. Turkish Studies, 4(1), 9

34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/714005718

Öniş, Z., & Kutlay, M. (2016). The dynamics of emerging middle-power influence in

regional and global governance: The paradoxical case of Turkey. Australian Journal of

International Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2016.1183586

Öniş, Z., & Kutlay, M. (2021). The anatomy of Turkey’s new heterodox crisis: The

interplay of domestic politics and global dynamics. Turkish Studies, 22(4), 499–529.

Öniş, Z. (2023). Historic missed opportunities and prospects for renewal: Turkey-EU

relations in a post-Western order. Turkish Studies, 24(3-4), 691–

713. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2023.2168192

Özer, Y. (2015). AB’ye üyelik sürecinde Türkiye’de demokratikleşme. Marmara Avrupa

Araştırmaları Dergisi, 23(2), 143–168.

Özer (2020). Modernising the EU-Turkey customs union as an interest-driven initiative,

Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, 19 (1), 175-197.

Parlar Dal, E., & Dipama, S. (2024). Assessing the diffusion of military power capacity of

middle powers: The case of Turkey. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 27(4),

530–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2024.2414166

Parlar Dal, E., & Kurşun, A. M. (2018). Turkey’s global governance strategies at the UN

compared to the BRICS (2008–2014): Clarifying the motivation–contribution

nexus. Perceptions, 23(2), 109–134.

Robertson, J., & Carr, A. (2023). Is anyone a middle power? The case for

historicization. International Theory, 15(3), 379–403.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S175297192300010

Saatçioğlu, B. (2019). The European Union’s refugee crisis and rising functionalism in EU-

Turkey relations. Turkish Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2019.1586542

Sarı, B., & Sula, İ. E. (2024). Turkish foreign policy in a transforming world order: Middle

power strategies and prospects. Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, 29(1), 4–

23.

Sarı Ertem, H., & Karadeniz, R. F. (2019). Lost In Translation: A System-Level Analysis

of the Turkish-U.S. Alliance under the Obama and Trump Administrations. PERCEPTIONS:

Journal of International Affairs, 24(1), 7-38.

Sever, M., & Oğuz Gök, G. (2016). The UN factor in the regional power role and the

Turkish case in the 2000s. In The UN and emerging powers (pp. 18–29)

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 248-271

Complementary or Contradictory? Türkiye’s Emerging Middle Power Interactions with the

United Nations and the European Union

Gonca Oğuz Gök, Nevra Esentürk

271

Sofos, S. A. (2022). Turkey as mediator. The Peace and Conflict Resolution Evidence

Platform.https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/119754/1/Turkey_as_a_Mediator.pdf (Accessed April

2024)

Soyaltin-Colella, D., & Demiryol, T. (2023). Unusual middle power activism and regime

survival: Turkey’s drone warfare and its regime-boosting effects. Third World Quarterly,

44(4), 724–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2022.2158080

Süleymanoğlu-Kürüm, R. (2011). A new sector in Turkish foreign policy:

Mediation. Boğaziçi Journal, 25(2), 189–213.

Tüfekçi, Ö. (2025). Rising power activism vs great power statusquoism: Quest for a place

in African power politics. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 47, 267–282.

Tüzgen, N., & Oğuz Gök, G. (2024). Norm shaper, norm implementer, or norm

antipreneur? Assessing Turkish foreign policy towards R2P. Third World Quarterly,

45(12), 1856–1875. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2024.2386053

United Nations. (2017). Financing the UN development system: Pathways to reposition

for Agenda 2030.https://www.cbd.int/financial/un/un-dsfinancing2017.pdf

Yanık, L. K. (2011). Constructing Turkish “exceptionalism”: Discourses of liminality and

hybridity in post-Cold War Turkish foreign policy. Political Geography, 30(2), 80–89.

World Bank. (2016). Turkey: Country overview.

https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/596391540568499043-

0340022018/original/worldbankannualreport2016.pdf (Accessed April 20, 2025)