CC BY
15
16. CIA document "DCI Testimony before the Joint Inquiry into Terrorist attacks Against the United States" [Electronic resource] / / CIA. - Access mode: https://www.cia.gov/news-information/ speeches-testimony/2002/ DCI_18_June_testimony_new.pdf (accessed: 03/10/2022)
17. Hajj Visa [Electronic resource] / / Saudia. - Access mode: https://www.saudia.com/before-flying/travel-information/hajj-and-umrah/hajj-visa (accessed: 03/10/2022)
18. Kuala Lumpur Declaration on International Terrorism [Electronic resource] / / Organization of Islamic Cooperation. - Access mode: http://ww1.oic-oci.org/english/ conf/fm/11_extraordinary/declaration.htm (accessed: 03/10/2022)
19. Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers on Terrorism [Electronic resource] / / Organization of Islamic Cooperation. - Access mode: http://ww1.oic-oci.org/english/conf/fm/11_extraordinary/final.htm (accessed: 03/10/2022)
KANYBEK KUDAYAROV. INTRODUCTION TO TURKEY'S DEFENSE POLICY. Analytical Review.
Keywords: Turkey; defense policy; defense industry; armament; military conflict; security.
Kanybek Kudayarov,
PhD(History)/ Research Associate, Asia and Africa Department member, INION RAN, e-mail: kana8306@mail.ru © Kudayarov K. 2022
Citation: Kudayarov K. Introduction to Turkey's defense policy. Analytical Review // Russia and the Moslem World, 2022, № 3 (317), P. 80-90. DOI: 10.31249/rmw/2022.03.08
Abstract. The review analyzes the publications of nine Turkish specialists who give an idea of the modern defense policy of Turkey, the main stages of its development and implementation. The authors provide comprehensive theoretical and practical information for a better understanding of the processes taking place in the military sphere.
Much attention is paid to the domestic and foreign policy processes that predetermined the further development of the Turkish defense policy, the ultimate goal of which is to transform the Republic of Turkey into a strong regional power. Strategic autonomy, which official Ankara seeks both in the field of military-industrial production and in other sectors of the state's life, is an indispensable condition for achieving this goal.
The studies described in the review claim to make an important contribution to understanding the logic that the Turkish leadership adheres to in implementing its regional policy.
Introduction
In recent years, defense policy and strategies for its implementation have become an increasingly popular topic for discussion not only in the expert and scientific circles of Turkey, but also attract the attention of the general public. The rapid development of the Turkish military-industrial complex and certain technical achievements in the national defense sector give reason to believe that a big breakthrough has been achieved in this direction. The emerging trend towards strengthening military power occurred several decades ago, and according to some sources much earlier, being a natural reaction of the Turkish authorities to external and internal threats to national security. The current geopolitical situation along the perimeter of Turkey's external borders has only accelerated the processes and shaped the coverage of this issue in its dynamics, without paying due attention to its introductory part and the origins of the formation of this discourse. It is this fact that became the reason for writing this book by a team of Turkish experts who fill in some gaps in the coverage of this issue.
A team of authors led by Ferhat Pirincci and Murat Eschiltas conducted a study of Turkey's defense policy. Among the affected aspects are such as defense and international security (Ryfat Yengel), defense and armament relations (Ferhat Pirincci), defense economy (Selami Sezgin), defense planning (Mehmet
Hilmi Ozdemir and Nursima Shankulubey Baikal), new defense technologies (Ercyment Karapynar), the history of the Turkish defense industry until 1974 (Husnyu Ezlu), the development of the Turkish defense industry in 1974-2020 (Merv Saren), Turkish defense strategies (Murat Aslan), Turkish policy in the field of military partnership and defense cooperation (Ryfat Yengel), as well as Turkey's military and defense strategies (Murat Eshiltas).
Defense and international security
Ryfat Yengel, a doctoral student at the Middle East Technical University (Ankara, Turkey), believes that from the point of view of ensuring security, the multipolar system of the world order seems to be more stable compared to the unipolar one. Since the first, in his opinion, reduces the risk of conflict and expands the scope of possible cooperation. Yengel explains his position with three points: firstly, as the number of independent participants in multipolar systems increases, the number of compromises will increase, and the opportunities for cooperation will expand, reducing the risk of conflict. Secondly, an increase in the number of major powers in the system will reduce the risk of conflict by raising the threshold of tension, as these states will disperse their focuses. For example, as it was between the USA and the USSR during the Cold War. In addition to the security aspect, there was also an acute struggle that turned the opposite camp into a hostile one. Since there was no other force that could challenge the material capabilities of these states, all their attention was focused on each other. Thirdly, it will be easier to balance the behavior of actors with the help of alliances, since the system assumes the presence of many major powers. Thus, the trends in the field of arms buildup will slow down and the likelihood of a possible conflict between the parties will decrease, thanks to the alliances and allies that will play a deterrent role.
According to the second point of view, bipolar systems are more stable compared to multipolar ones and focus more on the
dynamics of allied relations. According to this point of view, the more large powers there are in the system, the more uncertainty and unreliability. While in multipolar systems, large countries will have to spend time and resources on coordinating actions with allies and managing the alliance, in bipolar systems they can create their own strategies in accordance with their own calculations [1, p. 12]. In bipolar systems, small states are more dependent on superpowers for security and cannot pursue an independent policy. In a unipolar world, the hegemon country determines the security zone based on its own interests. Regardless of the behavior of the hegemon, other states will distrust the hegemon because of the excessive asymmetry of power and the resulting sense of insecurity. This encourages other States to increase their power or create counter-coalitions.
The reason for the emergence of wars is largely explained by the anarchy prevailing in the international system, where there is no entity with incomparably greater power than others and able to deter other states from using force. In this case, conflicts between states will have a long-term character and are capable of escalating into a full-scale war due to the absence of deterrent factors [1, p. 16]. One of the reasons for the emergence of wars is the creation of a situation called the "Thucydides trap", i.e. there is a situation when a rapidly developing state in economic and military terms begins to pressure other (developed) states, challenging their rights to a certain privileged subjectivity in international relations. As a result, an environment As a result, a competitive environment in all respects is formed, there is a confrontation between new and old geopolitical forces that are relatively equal in power [1, p. 16], which quite naturally can turn into a war. As an example, it is appropriate to cite the nature and dynamics of relations between China and the United States, which, according to the author, will certainly fall into the "Thucydides trap". The author comes to the conclusion that there is no formula that could guarantee to prevent war.
Defense and armament relations
Ferhat Pirincci (Uludag University, Bursa, Turkey) believes that armament appears to be one of the most important tools of defense policy if viewed in the context of national and international security. There is an undeniable relationship between defense, weapons and wars. Among the large number of threats to the security of states, wars are the greatest danger. To counter such threats, states are strengthening their defense potential through active armament. Armament has been one of the main areas for cooperation in the international arena since the twentieth century. The development of weapons technology has significantly increased the importance of defense in security policy.
The relationship between defense and armament is explained by the fact that states arm themselves to ensure internal stability, but over time they also begin to worry about the external factor associated with unresolved problems both along the outer perimeter of their borders (territorial disputes, ideological conflicts, historical hostility, etc.) and in a wider geographical area. Thus, armament becomes not just a goal, but a means of ensuring protection and security [2, p. 47].
The arming of one state can be perceived as a signal to activate a similar process in the opposing state and lead to a certain arms race. By the arms race, the author understands the competition between two or more states for military superiority. This competition can be caused by both existing security problems and other objective and subjective reasons: for example, distrust and hostility between certain states. The model developed by Lewis F. Richardson for elucidating the arms race in the First World War, made an important contribution to this concept. Taking into account the activities of the main countries in the field of armaments, Richardson predicted that if armament prevails over trade, the arms race will progress and after a while will cause a war between the parties. Under the influence of Richardson's behavioral school, many mathematical analyses of
the arms race in international relations have been carried out. An arms race leads to an alliance, and alliances in turn exacerbate the arms race. Thucydides in the "Peloponnesian Wars" placed special emphasis on alliances and the arms race between Sparta and Athens. According to Thucydides, Sparta perceived the strengthening of Athens and the creation of alliances as a threat to itself and turned to increasing its military power and making alliances in order to maintain its influence. Thucydides' work emphasizes that such a policy (meaning the arms race between Sparta and Athens, the establishment of alliances, deterrence, and much more) played an important role in the emergence of the war [2, p. 50]. Research at the theoretical level shows that armaments and alliances eventually lead to war between rival powers. Moreover, the side that is afraid of losing its superiority in the arms race resorts to war and considers it necessary to neutralize the enemy while there are military capabilities for this.
Methods of armament are also an important aspect in the arms race. From ancient times until today, weapons have been considered the most important tool for protecting against threats. With regard to the domestic production of weapons, we can say that two points are important here: 1) states are not able to meet their defense needs and at the same time keep up with the pace of development of weapons technologies, while not having the necessary economic potential, since research and development work in the military field requires very large financial injections, and weapons systems produced as a result of each undertaken project cannot always give the desired result. Consequently, if the state does not have sufficient technologies and funds for their development and improvement, then it remains only to purchase weapons, which, of course, is less costly [2, p. 60]. As an exception, it is worth mentioning Mexico, which has the necessary economic and technological infrastructure for the production of basic weapons systems, but does not produce it; 2) many states continue their initiatives for the domestic production of weapons, despite these costs. By 1945 Only the
USA, USSR, Great Britain, Canada and Sweden produced these weapons systems. However, by the 1980s, more than 50 countries of the world had made attempts to develop basic weapons systems with the help of the domestic defense industry. Here there is a dilemma between economic and strategic calculations of the costs incurred by states. Strategically, this is justified, since the state that produces its own weapons is more independent in the foreign policy field. Despite the economic burden, the developed domestic defense industry can positively affect the economic development of the country by expanding the export line at the expense of military products. Another significant advantage is that the military industry gives impetus to the development of other economic sectors of the state. One of the methods of production of weapons is the licensed one, which allows not only to save significant funds to the state-the acquirer of the license, but also in the future to produce their weapons based on the experience gained through licensed production. Another method of arms production is the organization of joint production with the technology-owning country. However, this method is less common than the first one. States usually acquire the missing types of weapons abroad. The arms trade involves a seller, a supplier and a buyer. It should be borne in mind that the selling countries and the buying states cooperate only if there is no confrontation between them. Almost all arms-producing countries have reached the fourth technological generation in the production of military products and the 11th stage in the field of armaments. In the sale of weapons, suppliers are often guided not only by economic, but also by political and strategic goals. In the case of the sale of military products, cooperation does not end there, since it is also required to conduct instruction on its use, organize trainings, and carry out timely modernization of weapons. Among the goals of the arms supplier countries, it is worth noting their desire to influence the buyer country, including as a lever of pressure on the host country [2, p. 65]. Among other benefits, we note that in the case of the sale of
weapons to a country at war with another state, the manufacturer has the opportunity to directly check the technical characteristics of new weapons, without personally entering into conflicts on the one hand, and saving on R&D on the other [2, p. 66].
Defense economy
Selami Sezgin (Siirt University, Siirt, Turkey) believes that the importance and necessity of the defense economy increased in the late 1980s - early 1990s. Defense demand, the arms race, military procurement, military personnel, arms trade, defense industry, development and defense relations are the most researched topics in the defense economy. There are many studies examining the balance between defense spending and employment; the relationship between the development of the defense sector and regional development, etc. At the same time, empirical studies have not been conducted on the impact of defense spending on the volume of borrowings of a militarytechnical and technological nature in Turkey. However, it was found that total defense spending, including spending on defense equipment, did not affect the volume of borrowing, with the exception of borrowing related to the import of weapons [3, p. 79].
Demand for defense. There are many models that explain the determinants of defense spending. External security issues are not the main concern of defense in developing countries, giving way to internal security issues. Although defense spending in Turkey has been going on for many years, internal rather than external threats have been predominant. The most important factors determining defense spending are budget capabilities and the degree of limited resources. The main determinants of government spending are. The country's GDP and the income of the population. Defense expenditures are determined in accordance with the income and structure of the country's population [3, p. 83]. Many studies have been conducted to identify the main factors that make up defense spending in
Turkey. According to a study covering the period 1949-1998, national defense spending is determined by NATO defense spending, as well as threats to Turkey from Greece. However, in recent years, the Greek threat has given way to the terrorist threat (both inside and outside the state) as a factor determining defense spending. According to research conducted in Greece, Turkey's defense spending appears to still be the main determinant of official Athens' defense spending.
As you know, countries with a developed and effective defense industry are precisely highly developed countries in which the military-industrial branch is developing as a certain sector aimed at meeting the domestic needs of the country in the products of the military-industrial complex. The analysis of the defense industry is complicated by the fact that it is a complex structure in which combined types of economic activities are concentrated. An important distinguishing feature of such enterprises / companies is that they produce products for the state and, thanks to this, monopsonal markets are formed. Defense enterprises should be considered not only as enterprises for the production of weapons, but also as an important part of the military-industrial complex, which determines the level of defense spending. From this point of view, the defense industry plays a very important role in protecting the country [3, p. 90].
Today, Turkish defense companies are among the top hundred in the world. In the rating of the magazine "Defense News" for 2020, the number of Turkish defense companies reached 7. Aselsan A.§., which took the 48th place in the general list, is the leading Turkish company in the defense sector. Despite the fact that it was founded back in 1975, significant changes in turnover have been achieved only in recent years, bringing it to $2 billion 172 million in 2019. The second place in the all-Turkish rating is occupied by the company Tusa§ (Turk Havacilik ve Uzay sanayii A.§.), which took the 53rd place. This is followed by BMC, Roketsan, STM, FNSS and Havelsan, respectively located on 89th, 91th, 92th, 98th, 99th places. Among the countries with
the largest number of companies in the Top 100, Turkey became the fourth country with seven companies, behind the USA (41 companies), England (10 companies) and China (8 companies).
The author notes that Ankara's defense spending accounted for the highest share in the budget from 1923 to 2004. And it was only since 2004 that they began to give way to the primacy in the field of education. It is noteworthy that the decrease in defense spending occurs against the background of an increase in the number of threats (problems with Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Cyprus problem, the Syrian crisis, instability in Iraq, the Armenian problem and the fight against terrorist groups (FETÖ, DHKP-C, PKK, DEA§).
Continued in №4 (317).
Literature
1. Öncel R. Savunma ve uluslararasi güvenlik / / Savunma politikasina giri§ / Piringgi F., Ye§ilta§ M. (ed.). - Istanbul: SETA Kitaplari, 2021. - P. 13-42 [Defense and international security.] - Turk.
2. Piringgi F. Savunma ve silahlanma ili§kisi // Savunma politikasina giri§ / Piringgi F., Ye§ilta§ M. (ed.). - Istanbul : SETA Kitaplari, 2021. - P. 43-74. [Pirincci F. Defense and armament relations.] - Turk.
3. Sezgin S. Savunma ekonomisi // Savunma politikasina giri§ / Piringgi F., Ye§ilta§ M. (ed.). - Istanbul: SETA Kitaplari, 2021. - P. 75 - 102. - Type^ H3. [Sezgin C. Defense policy.] - Turk.
4. Özdemir M.H., Baykal N.§. Savunma planlamasi / / Savunma politikasina giri§ / Piringgi F., Ye§ilta§ M. (ed.). - Istanbul : SETA Kitaplari, 2021. -P. 103-134. - Turk.
5. Karapinar E. Geli§en Savunma teknolojileri // Savunma politikasina giri§ / Piringgi F., Ye§ilta§ M. (ed.). - Istanbul : SETA Kitaplari, 2021. - P. 135-166. [New defense technologies] - Turk.
6. Özlü H. Gegmi§ ve kurulu§ : 1974 öncesi döneminde türk savunma sanayii / / Savunma politikasina giri§ / Piringgi F., Ye§ilta§ M. (ed.). - Istanbul: SETA Kitaplari, 2021. - P. 167-192 [History and foundation: The Turkish defense industry in the period up to 1974.] - Turk.
7. Seren M. Geni§leme ve yükseli§ : 1974'ten günümüze türk savunma sanayii // Savunma politikasina giri§ / Piringgi F., Ye§ilta§ M. (ed.). - Istanbul : SETA
Kitaplan, 2021. - P. 193-224 [Expansion and rise: The Turkish defense industry from 1974 to the present.] - Turk.
8. Aslan M. Turkiye'nin savunma stratejileri ve politikalari / / Savunma politikasina giriç / Pirinççi F., Yeçiltaç M. (ed.). - Istanbul : SETA Kitaplari, 2021. - P. 225-252. [Defense strategies of Turkey.] - Turk.
9. Öncel R. Türkiye'nin ittifak politikalari ve savunma i§ birlikleri // Savunma politikasina giriç / Pirinççi F., Yeçiltaç M. (ed.). - Istanbul : SETA Kitaplari, 2021. - P. 253-282. [Turkey's policy in the field of military partnership and defense cooperation.] - Turk.
10. Yesiltas M. Türkiye'nin askeri ve savunma stratejisi: hedefler, destekleyici unsurlar ve sonuçlar // Savunma politikasina giriç / Pirinççi F., Yeçiltaç M. (ed.). - Istanbul : SETA Kitaplari, 2021. - P. 283-317 [Turkey's military and defense strategy: goals, auxiliary elements and results] - Turk.
SHARIPOVA GUZAL. A BRIEF HISTORY OF MULTICULTURALISM IN MALAYSIA
Keywords: multiculturalism; ethnic groups; Islam; Buddhism; Christianity; multiethnic society.
Sharipova Guzal,
Basic doctoral student,
International Islamic Academy of Uzbekistan (Uzbekistan, Tashkent),
e-mail: guzallsharipovaa@gmail.com © Sharipova G. 2022
Citation: Sharipova G. A Brief history of multiculturalism in Malaysia // Russia and the Moslem World, 2022, № 3 (317), P. 90-100. DOI: 10.31249/rmw/2022.03.09
Abstract. This article discusses a brief history of the formation of multiculturalism in Malaysia, gives examples of the development of the culture of interethnic and religious relations and considers the influence of religious teachings on the policy of multiculturalism.
