Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Cultural Diplomacy as an Important Foreign Aid Tools: The Case Study of Yunus Emre Institute

Year 2022, Volume: 14 Issue: 4, 431 - 440, 29.12.2022

Sait Yağcı

https://doi.org/10.52791/aksarayiibd.1021431

Abstract

While military power and economic sanctions played an important role in
interstate relations during the Cold War, the concept of soft power, which consists
of cultural, historical and universal values that countries have in the post-Cold War
conjuncture, has begun to replace hard powers. In the last quarter of the 20th
century, the armament and ideological warfare of the bipolar system began to lose
its importance. These two concepts have been replaced by elements such as identity
and culture. In this direction, countries have started to use their cultures, languages
and values to have an impact on other countries without using hard power. This
situation has caused powerful states in the world to reconsider their foreign policies.
Turkey has been one of the countries that attaches importance to the concept of soft
power and uses it effectively in foreign policy since the beginning of the 2000s.
Especially with the 2000s, Turkey has made important changes in its foreign policy
to keep up with this new order and has adopted an approach that includes foreign
aid and cultural diplomacy in foreign policy. The effective use of cultural
diplomacy in foreign policy has broken the prejudices of the receiving countries. In
this context, cultural diplomacy has an extremely important role in making foreign
aid more effective.

Keywords

Yunus Emre Institution soft power hard power

References

  • Akçay, Engin. 2012. Bir Dış Politika Enstrümanı Olarak Türk Dış Yardımları. Ankara: Turgut Özal Universitesi.
  • Bayraktar, Zülfikar. 2012. ‘Türkiye’nin Balkanlardaki Yumuşak Gücü: Türk Kültürü’. Karadeniz Araştırmaları 9(35):181–89.
  • Brown, Robin. 2016. ‘Alternatives to Soft Power: Influence in French and German External Cultural Action’. in The Routledge Handbook of Soft Power, edited by N. Chitty. Cambridge: Routledge.
  • Çavuş, Tuba. 2012. ‘DIŞ POLİTİKADA YUMUŞAK GÜÇ KAVRAMI VE TÜRKİYE’NİN YUMUŞAK GÜÇ KULLANIMI’. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 2(2):23–37.
  • Cimbala, Stephen J. 1998. Coercive Military Strategy. United States of America: Texas A&M University Press.20
  • Erguvan, Esra. 2010. ‘The Instruments of Soft Power within Turkish Foreign Policy in the Post - Cold Era: Turkish International Cooperation and Development Agency (TIKA) As Case of Turkey’s Soft Power Application’. Master thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
  • Fraser, Matthew. 2008. ‘American Pop Culture as Soft Power: Movies and Broadcasting’. Pp. 172–91 in Soft Power Superpowers: Cultural and National Assets of Japan and the United States, edited by W. Yasushi and D. McConell. United States of America.
  • Gallarotti, Giulio. 2011. ‘Soft Power: What It Is, Why It’s Important, and The Conditions Fot Its Effective Use’. Journal of Political Power 4(1):25–47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2011.557886.
  • Gould, Nigel. 2003. ‘The Logic of Soviet Cultural Diplomacy’. Diplomatic History 27(2):193–221.
  • Gramsci, Antonio. 1986. Hapishane Defterleri. İstanbul: Onur Yayınları.
  • Gray, Colin S. 2011. Hard Power and Soft Power: The Utility of Military Force as an Instrument of Policy in the 21st Century. Strategic Studies Institute.
  • Güzel, Süleyman Çağrı. 2016. ‘DIŞ YARDIMLARDA DESTEKLEYİCİ BİR UNSUR OLARAK KÜLTÜREL DİPLOMASİ VE YUNUS EMRE ENSTİTÜSÜ ÖRNEĞİ’. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi 30(2):0–0.
  • Kardaş, Tuncay, and Ramazan Erdağ. 2012. ‘Bir Dış Politika Aracı Olarak TİKA’. Perceptions Journal of International Relations 16(3):167–94.
  • Lam, Peng Er. 2007. ‘Japan’s Quest for “Soft Power”: Attraction and Limitation’. East Asian Institute 24(4):349–63.
  • Lee, Geun. 2009. ‘A Theory of Soft Power and Korea’s Soft Power Strategy’. Korean Journal of Defense Analysis 21(2):205–18. doi: /doi/abs/10.1080/10163270902913962?journalCode=rkjd20.
  • Lele, Ajey. 2013. Asian Space Race: Rhetoric or Reality? India: Springer.
  • Nye, Joseph S. 2004. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. 1st ed. New York: Public Affairs.
  • Nye, Joseph S. 2008. ‘Public Diplomacy and Soft Power’. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616:94–109.
  • Nye, Joseph S. 2017. Dünya Siyasetinde Başarının Yolu: Yumuşak Güç. Ankara: BB101.
  • Otmazgin, Nissim. 2012. ‘Geopolitics and Soft Power: Japan’s Cultural Policy and Cultural Diplomacy in Asia’. Asia Pacific Review 19(1):37–61.21
  • Purtaş, Fırat. 2013. ‘Türk Dış Politikasının Yükselen Değeri: Kültürel Diplomasi’. Gazi Akademik Bakış 7(13):1–14.
  • Schneider, Cynthia. 2003. ‘Diplomacy That Works: Best Practices in Cultural Diplomacy’. Cultural Diplomacy Research Series.
  • Vuving, Alexander L. 2009. Merican Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Toronto.
  • Yılmaz, Sait. 2011. ‘Yumuşak Güç ve Evrimi’. Turan Stratejik Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi 3(12):31–36. Yunus Emre Enstitüsü (2013), Faliyet Raporu, 2012 Yunus Emre Enstitüsü (2014), Faliyet Raporu, 2013
  • Yunus Emre Enstitüsü (2015), Faliyet Raporu, 2014
  • Yunus Emre Enstitüsü (2016), Faliyet Raporu, 2015
  • Yunus Emre Enstitüsü (2017), Faliyet Raporu, 2016
  • Yunus Emre Enstitüsü (2018), Faliyet Raporu, 2017
  • Yunus Emre Enstitüsü (2019), Faliyet Raporu, 2018
  • Yunus Emre Enstitüsü (2020), Faliyet Raporu, 2019
  • Yunus Emre Enstitüsü (2021), Faliyet Raporu, 2020
  • Yoshiko, Nakano. 2008. ‘Shared Memories: Japanese Pop Culture in China’. Pp. 111– 28 in Soft Power Superpowers: Cultural and National Assets of Japan and the United States, edited by W. Yasushi and D. McConell. New York: An East Gate Book.

Önemli Bir Dış Yardım Politikası Aracı Olarak Kültürel Diplomasi: Yunus Emre Örneği

Year 2022, Volume: 14 Issue: 4, 431 - 440, 29.12.2022

Sait Yağcı

https://doi.org/10.52791/aksarayiibd.1021431

Abstract

While military power and economic sanctions played an important role in interstate relations during the Cold War, the concept of soft power, which consists of cultural, historical and universal values that countries have in the post-Cold War
conjuncture, has begun to replace hard powers. In the last quarter of the 20th century, the armament and ideological warfare of the bipolar system began to lose its importance. These two concepts have been replaced by elements such as identity and culture. In this direction, countries have started to use their cultures, languages and values to have an impact on other countries without using hard power. This situation has caused powerful states in the world to reconsider their foreign policies. Turkey has been one of the countries that attaches importance to the concept of soft power and uses it effectively in foreign policy since the beginning of the 2000s. Especially with the 2000s, Turkey has made important changes in its foreign policy to keep up with this new order and has adopted an approach that includes foreign
aid and cultural diplomacy in foreign policy. The effective use of cultural diplomacy in foreign policy has broken the prejudices of the receiving countries. In this context, cultural diplomacy has an extremely important role in making foreign
aid more effective.

Keywords

cultural diplomacy yunus emre Institution soft power hard power

References

  • Akçay, Engin. 2012. Bir Dış Politika Enstrümanı Olarak Türk Dış Yardımları. Ankara: Turgut Özal Universitesi.
  • Bayraktar, Zülfikar. 2012. ‘Türkiye’nin Balkanlardaki Yumuşak Gücü: Türk Kültürü’. Karadeniz Araştırmaları 9(35):181–89.
  • Brown, Robin. 2016. ‘Alternatives to Soft Power: Influence in French and German External Cultural Action’. in The Routledge Handbook of Soft Power, edited by N. Chitty. Cambridge: Routledge.
  • Çavuş, Tuba. 2012. ‘DIŞ POLİTİKADA YUMUŞAK GÜÇ KAVRAMI VE TÜRKİYE’NİN YUMUŞAK GÜÇ KULLANIMI’. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 2(2):23–37.
  • Cimbala, Stephen J. 1998. Coercive Military Strategy. United States of America: Texas A&M University Press.20
  • Erguvan, Esra. 2010. ‘The Instruments of Soft Power within Turkish Foreign Policy in the Post - Cold Era: Turkish International Cooperation and Development Agency (TIKA) As Case of Turkey’s Soft Power Application’. Master thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
  • Fraser, Matthew. 2008. ‘American Pop Culture as Soft Power: Movies and Broadcasting’. Pp. 172–91 in Soft Power Superpowers: Cultural and National Assets of Japan and the United States, edited by W. Yasushi and D. McConell. United States of America.
  • Gallarotti, Giulio. 2011. ‘Soft Power: What It Is, Why It’s Important, and The Conditions Fot Its Effective Use’. Journal of Political Power 4(1):25–47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2011.557886.
  • Gould, Nigel. 2003. ‘The Logic of Soviet Cultural Diplomacy’. Diplomatic History 27(2):193–221.
  • Gramsci, Antonio. 1986. Hapishane Defterleri. İstanbul: Onur Yayınları.
  • Gray, Colin S. 2011. Hard Power and Soft Power: The Utility of Military Force as an Instrument of Policy in the 21st Century. Strategic Studies Institute.
  • Güzel, Süleyman Çağrı. 2016. ‘DIŞ YARDIMLARDA DESTEKLEYİCİ BİR UNSUR OLARAK KÜLTÜREL DİPLOMASİ VE YUNUS EMRE ENSTİTÜSÜ ÖRNEĞİ’. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi 30(2):0–0.
  • Kardaş, Tuncay, and Ramazan Erdağ. 2012. ‘Bir Dış Politika Aracı Olarak TİKA’. Perceptions Journal of International Relations 16(3):167–94.
  • Lam, Peng Er. 2007. ‘Japan’s Quest for “Soft Power”: Attraction and Limitation’. East Asian Institute 24(4):349–63.
  • Lee, Geun. 2009. ‘A Theory of Soft Power and Korea’s Soft Power Strategy’. Korean Journal of Defense Analysis 21(2):205–18. doi: /doi/abs/10.1080/10163270902913962?journalCode=rkjd20.
  • Lele, Ajey. 2013. Asian Space Race: Rhetoric or Reality? India: Springer.
  • Nye, Joseph S. 2004. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. 1st ed. New York: Public Affairs.
  • Nye, Joseph S. 2008. ‘Public Diplomacy and Soft Power’. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616:94–109.
  • Nye, Joseph S. 2017. Dünya Siyasetinde Başarının Yolu: Yumuşak Güç. Ankara: BB101.
  • Otmazgin, Nissim. 2012. ‘Geopolitics and Soft Power: Japan’s Cultural Policy and Cultural Diplomacy in Asia’. Asia Pacific Review 19(1):37–61.21
  • Purtaş, Fırat. 2013. ‘Türk Dış Politikasının Yükselen Değeri: Kültürel Diplomasi’. Gazi Akademik Bakış 7(13):1–14.
  • Schneider, Cynthia. 2003. ‘Diplomacy That Works: Best Practices in Cultural Diplomacy’. Cultural Diplomacy Research Series.
  • Vuving, Alexander L. 2009. Merican Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Toronto.
  • Yılmaz, Sait. 2011. ‘Yumuşak Güç ve Evrimi’. Turan Stratejik Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi 3(12):31–36. Yunus Emre Enstitüsü (2013), Faliyet Raporu, 2012 Yunus Emre Enstitüsü (2014), Faliyet Raporu, 2013
  • Yunus Emre Enstitüsü (2015), Faliyet Raporu, 2014
  • Yunus Emre Enstitüsü (2016), Faliyet Raporu, 2015
  • Yunus Emre Enstitüsü (2017), Faliyet Raporu, 2016
  • Yunus Emre Enstitüsü (2018), Faliyet Raporu, 2017
  • Yunus Emre Enstitüsü (2019), Faliyet Raporu, 2018
  • Yunus Emre Enstitüsü (2020), Faliyet Raporu, 2019
  • Yunus Emre Enstitüsü (2021), Faliyet Raporu, 2020
  • Yoshiko, Nakano. 2008. ‘Shared Memories: Japanese Pop Culture in China’. Pp. 111– 28 in Soft Power Superpowers: Cultural and National Assets of Japan and the United States, edited by W. Yasushi and D. McConell. New York: An East Gate Book.
There are 32 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Political Science
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Sait Yağcı 0000-0002-2747-3188

Publication Date December 29, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022Volume: 14 Issue: 4

Cite

APA Yağcı, S. (2022). Cultural Diplomacy as an Important Foreign Aid Tools: The Case Study of Yunus Emre Institute. Aksaray Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(4), 431-440. https://doi.org/10.52791/aksarayiibd.1021431
 Download Cover Image