The Dimensions and Challenges of Turkey-Africa Political Relations: A Historical-Analytical Inquiry

Abstract

The history of Turkey-Africa relations is the history of development and sustenance of human dignity, freedom, equality and mutual coexistence of states free from exploitation, colonialism and stereotype. Therefore, this study attempts a comparative analysis of Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey relations with Africa in order to identify the core values, benefits and challenges inherent in Turkey's dynamic role in African politics. The study adopted a historical-analytical approach in the comparative evaluation of the variables. The major factors limiting the study and scope of Turkey-Africa relations is lack of available data and insufficient research works resulting in misrepresentations of Turkey's interest and policy options in Africa. The presence of Ottoman Empire in Africa kept away European colonialism and provided the platform of secularism and pluralism in African politics which stimulated the African states to accommodate their politico-religious differences through dialogue and good-faith collaboration. Turkey's unique form of democracy affirms that Islam and democracy are not contradictory but complementary for the political development of modern African nation-states. Thus, Turkey's new international identity positions Turkey as a bridge between Christianity and Islam as well as a buffer against Islamic fundamentalism which promotes the values of co-existence needed for the political development of African states. Turkish educational diplomacy is a source of inspiration for increasing literacy rate in Africa. Thus, Turkey-Africa political relations is more of diplomatic gain than a means of acquiring political power but the negative perception of Africa in international media tends to retard mutual collaboration. Therefore, Turkey's diplomatic relations with Africa if strategically managed will increase the power capability of both blocs in diplomatic negotiations and also in influencing global politics to derive the greatest payoff.

Headnote

Abstract

The history of Turkey-Africa relations is the history of development and sustenance of human dignity, freedom, equality and mutual coexistence of states free from exploitation, colonialism and stereotype. Therefore, this study attempts a comparative analysis of Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey relations with Africa in order to identify the core values, benefits and challenges inherent in Turkey's dynamic role in African politics. The study adopted a historical-analytical approach in the comparative evaluation of the variables. The major factors limiting the study and scope of Turkey-Africa relations is lack of available data and insufficient research works resulting in misrepresentations of Turkey's interest and policy options in Africa. The presence of Ottoman Empire in Africa kept away European colonialism and provided the platform of secularism and pluralism in African politics which stimulated the African states to accommodate their politico-religious differences through dialogue and good-faith collaboration. Turkey's unique form of democracy affirms that Islam and democracy are not contradictory but complementary for the political development of modern African nation-states. Thus, Turkey's new international identity positions Turkey as a bridge between Christianity and Islam as well as a buffer against Islamic fundamentalism which promotes the values of co-existence needed for the political development of African states. Turkish educational diplomacy is a source of inspiration for increasing literacy rate in Africa. Thus, Turkey-Africa political relations is more of diplomatic gain than a means of acquiring political power but the negative perception of Africa in international media tends to retard mutual collaboration. Therefore, Turkey's diplomatic relations with Africa if strategically managed will increase the power capability of both blocs in diplomatic negotiations and also in influencing global politics to derive the greatest payoff.

Keywords

Africa, Colonization, Education Diplomacy, Turkey.

Introduction

Prior to 2002, Turkey was seen as a country that was a kind of junior partner to the United States of America, a relatively dependable ally of Western Capitalist nations and a country that sees African from the prismatic stereotype of Anglo-American Capitalist perspectives (Schleifer, 2011). From such stereotyped perspectives, Sub-Saharan Africa has always been seen as a distant geographical region, associated with poverty, hunger, epidemics and civil war. This forms the principal component of identification of sub-Saharan Africa in Western society.

However, with the end of the Cold War, the disintegration of Soviet Union into independent nations and the sudden rise of United States as a hegemonic power in World politics, a new form of power configuration in international politics was stirred up. Nations began to adopt new foreign policy strategies that would enable them play active role in world politics. In this context, Turkey restructured its post Cold War foreign policy postures on the legacy and character of the Ottoman Empire, in order to construct a new international identity based on the concept of strategic depth, which according to Ahmet Davutoglu will strengthen Turkey's international standing and security (Davutoglu, 2010:43).

The essence of this foreign policy strategy is to integrate Turkey with the neighboring zones in Asia and Africa and to prevent any form of alienation. In particular, the emphasis is to renew the long history of diplomatic and economic relations that existed between Africa and Turkey by the policy makers of new Turkey because of the relative importance that Ataturk attached to promoting substantive diplomatic relations with Africa. Ataturk was aware of Africa's importance that was why he supported Ethiopia against Italy.

However, the history of Africa is characterized by a long history of mutual and diplomatic relations with the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was founded in the late 13th Century, with its dynastic state, centered in what is now known as Turkey. At its height in the mid-1500s, the Ottoman Empire controlled a vast area extending from the Balkan Peninsula to the Middle East and Africa. Different regions in Africa were oriented differently to the Ottoman Empire in relation to trade routes and trading partners and these regions developed in markedly different ways.

Ottoman first contact with Africa started after the conquest of Egypt in 1517 by the Ottoman forces, marking the end of the Mamluks regime that had ruled Egypt for three centuries. In the decades following the Ottoman conquest of Egypt, the Ottoman Empire took control of the major ports of the Maghreb which were Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers and Tangier. Inalcik and Donald, 1994: 218-255). This implies that the key factor in African history is the diplomatic expansion of the Ottoman's rule into African politics and economy. From the mid 16th to the 19th Century, the Ottoman Empire integrated Africa into a common political and economic identity and institutional framework with the Balkans and Middle East.

However, the most remarkable feature of Ottoman's political presence in Africa was that its rule and diplomatic relations with Africa were not based on the exploitative values of colonialism but on the values of mutual partnership and coexistence. This was demonstrated in its diplomatic relationship with the Kanem Borno Empire in the Sub-Saharan West Africa and Central Africa in the 19th Century. In this context, the pres- ence of the Ottoman Empire in the North and South Africa kept European colonialism away from these regions. The Ottoman Empire detested colonialism greatly and for this reason dealt with the heads of various nations rather than with individuals and gave the nations reasonable level of autonomy to manage their political and economic affairs.

Another outstanding feature of the Ottoman rule is the insistence on the ideals of secularism in its political relations with the Balkans, Asia and Africa. It is remarkable to note that population of the Ottoman Empire was mixed linguistically, ethnically, culturally and also by religion. The majority of the populations of the European province were Christians of the orthodox church many of whom accepted the Ottoman rule because of its high value for religious secularism and also because its rule was less burdensome than Roman Catholic domination. In Asia provinces, the majority of the population was Muslim but there were also many Christians in the towns.

Similarly, there were also Greek Christians in Western Anatolia and substantial group of Christians in Syria and Egypt. In order to promote the culture of mutual coexistence, peace and secularism, the Ottoman Empire organized the people in the provinces and grouped them in tribes, villages and guilds and not along religious sects. The heads of the various religious communities in the provinces came together and constituted a class of middle men between the government and the people. Also, landowners and tribal chiefs acted in a similar way and came to be known as notables (a'yan). Based on an exclusive structure of secularism, the Ottoman Empire was prosperous and this prosperity was reflected in political and economic development of its African provinces.

However, the Ottoman Empire remained politically and economically stable throughout the early period of the 17th Century but began to decline in the late part of the century. The decline in the international status of the Ottoman Empire began with the Ottoman repulse at the second siege of Vienna in 1683. The Empire suffered a succession of military defeats at the hands of Austria and subsequently of Russia in the Russo-Turkish wars. Following the devastating impacts of these wars, the Ottoman Empire was weakened both economically and militarily leading to the gradual independence of its provinces. Greece became independent in 1832, Serbia, Romania and Montenegro in 1878. By 1885, the Ottoman territories in Europe were reduced to Macedonia, Albania and Thrace and all these except eastern Thrace were lost as a result of the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913.

The Ottoman Empire lost the political and economic control of North Africa; Algiers was taken by France in 1830 and Italy annexed Libya in 1912. Finally, the Ottoman political influence in Africa collapsed and become extinct with the defeat of the central powers and Germany in the World War I. In 1917-1918 when British military offensives began in Iraq and Syria, the Ottoman forces began to decline and by the time of the Armistice of Mdros in 1918 the Ottomans had lost all its territories but Anatolia.

In 1920 the Ottomans were compelled to sign the Treaty of Sevres by which they lost not only the Afro-Arab provinces but were Balkanized into small weak states that depended on the Europeans powers. With the partition of the Balkan territories, the Western powers introduced neo- colonialism as a bulwark against the reunification of the Ottoman territories and provinces, as well as provided the framework for the implementation of modernization reforms tailored after Western European political culture and values. With the ascendency of Western values over traditional Ottoman values, the Ottoman dynasty was abolished and the empire came to an end in 1922. A year later the Republic of Turkey was formed to replace the legacies of the Ottoman Empire.

However, based on the above analytical insight, the study will give a historical description of the traditional diplomatic relations between Africa and Turkey using analytical inferences drawn from the Ottoman Empire. It is in this context that the study explores the ideals of Neo-Ottomanism that provides the conceptual frameworks that influences the contemporary international interactions between Turkey and Africa. Accordingly, the study provides a more relevant context for the analysis of Turkey's foreign policy discourses and its relevance to the promotion of new patterns of diplomatic collaboration with Africa as well as the analysis of its political development benefits to both actors in the current globalized world order.

The Historical Analysis of the Diplomatic Relations between Africa and Turkey During the Period of Ottoman Empire and Dynasty.

The historical origin of the empire of Ottoman Turks began as a nomadic movement of a pastoral band of four hundred Turkish families about six centuries ago. These nomadic Turkish bands started their journey from the upper streams of the river Euphrates with an armed force consisted of four hundred and forty-four horsemen and their leader was named Ertoghrul meaning the "Eight-Hearted Man". Ertoghrul was a great warrior who according to oriented history chivalrously aids the weaker party against the strong armies in battle fields.

The victories recorded by Ertoghrul, gave the Turks absolute dominion over other races. This hegemonic military prowess of the Turks provided the structural framework for the establishment of an empire by Ertoghrul's son Osman Bey or Ottoman. Therefore, this section of the study seeks to identify and explore the basic institutional relations between the Ottoman Empire and the African states in order to understand the political and economic values of the Turks in relation to its traditional ties with Africa.

The Historical Background of the Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire was founded by a band of Turkish tribe under Osman Bey in North-west Anatolia in 1299 at a time when the Seljuk rule in Turkey was coming to an end. By 1400, the Ottomans established their supremacy in Anatolia and even extended to the Byzantine territory in Eastern Europe. In 1402, the Ottomans made an attempt to take over Constantinople which stood as the last bastion of the Byzantine Empire.

Constantinople is a city strategic to the power politics of the Ottoman Empire for two basic reasons. Firstly, the capture of Constantinople would increase the international prestige and power status of the empire. Also, it would give the Ottoman's absolute control of East-West trade and increase its economic power potentials. Despite the high level military resistance put up by the Byzantines, Constantinople was captured by the Othmans in 1453 under the reign of Sultan Mehmed and the city was renamed Istanbul. Istanbul was turned into one of the wealthiest and most cultured city in Turkish history and also became the capital of Ottoman Europe (Salih, 2010: 95-103).

With the conquest of Constantinople, the Ottoman began to expand territorially from 1512 to 1520. The Ottoman Empire expanded under the reign of Sultan Selim I but reached its zenith under his son Sultan Suleyman who built on the conquest of his father. Sultan Suleyman developed great cities, military machines, culture and a famous empire.

However, during the 16th and 17th centuries, the Ottoman Empire was at the height of its power. Under the reign of Sultan Suleyman who passed away in 1566 Ottoman Empire became one of the most powerful states in the world. The empire stretched from southern borders of the Roman Empire on the outskirts of Vienna, Hungary, Slovakia and the Polish Lithuanian in the north to Yemen and Eritrea in the south. Also, it stretched from Algeria in the West to Azerbaijan in the east, controlling much of Southeast Europe, Western Asia and North Africa.

Having given a cursory insight into the history and origin of the Ottoman Empire, this study will now attempt to analyze the political and economic relations that existed between Turkey and Africa during the long era of the Ottoman Empire. The objective of the analysis is to provide the structural framework for the analysis of contemporary Turkey-African economic partnership and diplomatic relations.

Turkey-Africa Political Relations During the Ottoman Era

The political structures, values and institutions of the Ottoman Empire was based on the egalitarian political culture of dignity, fairness, justice, liberty and secularism and these features formed part of the values that guided its affairs with African states. In its political interaction with Africa, the Ottomans avoided any form of economic, cultural, social and political exploitation of African citizens. They never exploited Africans either in material and non-material ways and that was the reason why Turkish language, culture and religion were not imposed on Africans, unlike the British Empire that changed the language and culture of its subjects through colonialism.

Also, the political culture of justice and egalitarianism enshrined in the belief system of the Ottoman Empire was instrumental to the granting of legal status to slaves. The word "slave" from the perspectives of the Ottomans does not connote exploitation, humiliation and suppression of human dignity as was seen in the domestic and plantation slavery of Western European particularly of the British Empire and Portugal. In Ottoman states slaves including those from Africa were accorded certain rights and privileges.

The uniqueness of Ottoman political culture was seen in the constitution of its political class and structures. The political system structured on the ideals of benevolent monarchism with inbuilt checks and balances to avoid the emergence of exploitative or repressive authoritarian political class or actors. For this reason, the monarchical system was not based on the political values of aristocracy as was seen in the Roman Empire but was run by men of integrity chosen by merit and wholly loyal to the Sultan (Seracetin, 2009: 81-155). To this effect, the central function of the monarch was to guarantee justice directed at the protection of the poor and the helpless from corrupt officials, repressive acts of governance and corrupt magistracy. These unique culture and values of the Ottomans were bureaucratically transferred and encouraged in its African provinces to promote the values of justice and humanism.

To ensure the effective implementation of these unique values and political culture, the Ottomans established a central bureaucracy led by the Grand Vizier to govern the entire empire. Guided by the values of justice, the absolute powers of the monarch did not put the Sultan above the law but was rather designated as the custodian of a just and lawful government or political order, which the Ottoman Empire represented in its relations with the African provinces.

In this context, the monarch adopted various strategic methods of checking the political excesses of all officials in its provinces to ensure fair rule and good governance. These methods included the Sultan's personal involvement in administrative proceedings either indirectly through the use of spies or directly through the tour of all local governments in disguised personality (Seracettin, 2009: 90-95).

In addition to the above measures, the Ottomans enforced an anti corruption campaign, which involves a set of severe punishment meted out to corrupt officials who abused their political power to repress or exploit the common people. For this reason, the central bureaucracy of the monarch was always accessible to the public to seek redress for grievances against government officials. Therefore, the Ottoman political involvement in the day-to-day administration of its African states, through the central bureaucracy was limited. The states in Africa were given some measure of fiscal autonomy and political independence in the running of their domestic affairs without undue interference from the Ottomans.

Interestingly, the Ottoman political presence and authority in Africa was overwhelming with vast territories spread across Africa, from the confines of Algeria to Somalia and the East African coast down to Tanzania; with all these territories giving political allegiance to the authority of the Sultan in Istanbul who was the Caliph of all Muslims worldwide. The Ottoman controlled African territories that recognized the imperial authority of the Sultan totaled no less than one third of Africa and covered a landmass of about 8 million Km2 (Burton, 1984:491). This implies that the Istanbul Sultan was seen as the supreme political and religious authority and the Africans willingly surrendered their political rights and fate to him. In this context, most of the territories in North Africa particularly or completely transferred their political authority to the Ottoman Empire. In 1517, the troops of the sultan took control of Egyptian territories in 1551; Libya became part of the Empire, while in 1574 Tunia became part of the Caliphs state. However, the sub-Saharan African territories never belonged to the empire in the way the North African states did.

However, along the Mediterranean, the key factor of African politics and history was the Ottoman's imperial political expansion into Egypt and the Maghreb (Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco). The hegemonic influence and control of African politics by the Ottomans altered the power configuration of the Mediterranean politics. In Egypt, the Ottoman defeated the Mamluk's in 1517 and established a direct rule and this changed the patterns of power politics in Egypt. The Mamluks of Egypt were a class of Turkish slaves who had ruled Egypt from 1250 until their defeat by the Ottomans in 1517and was allowed to continue in power under minimal Ottoman political supervision.

The Ottoman governor in Cairo was given the power to authoritatively allocate resources and collect revenues through the "timar" system introduced by the Ottomans. The governor pays certain percentage of the total tax revenue to the central treasury in Istanbul and was given the political right to use the rest for development of the province. Though direct rule was introduced, the governor had some measure of political authority in the allocation of state resources.

This implies that the direct Ottoman involvement in the day-to-day administration of the country through state bureaucracy was limited. So, the Ottomans made no attempt to limit the recruitment of new ?Mamluks? and even gave the governors some measure of political privilege to establish Mamluks households. But the existence of the Mamluks posed great challenge to Ottoman imperial rule in Egypt and was one of the key factors that contributed to the demiss and collapse of Ottoman rule.

The survival of the Mamluk system created potential opposition to Ottoman political authority in Egypt in two ways. Firstly, the Mamluks who had ruled Egypt before the imperial rule of the Ottomans tacitly created new strategies to oppose the Ottomans, so as to restore their glorious political past and prestige. On the other hand, the Sunni intellectual class, products of the famous Muslim University founded in 970 CE, provided a framework of religious laws that challenged the Islamic laws imposed by the Ottomans as well as the political authority of the Istanbul Sultan. This religious and political opposition resulted in disequilibrium in the balance of power in Cairo creating series of acts of open rebellion against Sultan Mustapha III and the invasion of Syria by Ali?s Mamluks in 1771. These revolutionary military activities of the Mamluks culminated in the factors that forestalled the collapse of Ottoman control in Egypt in the second half of 17th century.

In addition to Ottoman political influence in Egypt, the Ottoman Empire extended it political hegemony to the Maghreb states of Algeria, Tunisia and Libya between 1525 and 1830; the regency of Algeria was the principal center of Ottoman power in the Maghreb. Therefore, the Ottoman Empire established a military base in Algiers with about 2,000 Turkish troops and artillery as a strategic tactics to control the Mediterranean politics and water ways. This was necessary to repel the manifest and latent threats of European hegemonic influence in the region. Thus, Algiers became the base of military operations against Spain, Denmark, France and England. Similarly, in Tunis and Tripol, the Ottomans established military bases as a strategic defense mechanism to contain the growing powers of the European states whose interest was to colonize these African states in order to increase their political power and economic potentials and prestige necessary for its quest to control world politics and economy.

One remarkable influence of the Ottoman Empire in the advancement of African politics was the consistent military efforts to contain the threats of colonization of African states by the European powers. This was demonstrated in 1525 when with the military assistance of the Ottomans Algeria regained her political autonomy from Spain who attacked and took control of Algeria in 1519.

However, contrary to Ottomans political influence in North Africa, its imperial rule did not extend to Sub-Saharan Africa, but rather had diplomatic relations with Karem Borno Empire through the ratification of numerous Treaties. The Borno Empire was one of the great empire that existence in West and Central Africa from the 9th to 19th century A.D.

The Borno Empire entered into military alliance with the Ottoman Empire. The pur- pose of this alliance was to increase the military power capability of the Borno Empire. The Borno Empire imported muskets from the Ottomans, which was used to prosecute its wars. According to Ahmad Fartuwa, the Borno army under the command of idris Alooma used a lot of Turkish musketeers in their most serious battles and their role was instrumental to the capture of the strong fortress of Amsaka situated between Gamarghu and Mandara.

Thus, the diplomatic alliance between the Ottoman Empire and the Borno Empire served two purposes. Firstly, it helped the two empires to guarantee the security of life and property of merchants, pilgrims and other travellers passing through the Saharan trade routes and the alliance resulted in the supply of military did, troops, war equipments and ammunition to assist the Borno Empire in the Jihad against non-Muslims.

However, one remarkable impact of the Ottoman Empire in Africa was the introduction of the ideals of pluralism into the political culture of African states. Political pluralism is one of the most important features of Ottoman civilization which denote an adequate model of power distribution in all the provinces of the empire pluralism as a guiding principle of the Ottomans permit the peaceful coexistence of different interests, culture, lifestyles and religion in the empire unlike the European model of totalitarianism or particularism.

The Turkish political pluralism acknowledged the university of interests in Africa and considers it imperative that African states accommodate their differences by engaging in dialogue or good-faith negotiation. In general, the Ottomans in line with its political pluralism allowed the North African states some degree of self government. The Mamluks of Egypt were given some degree of autonomy in the governance of Egypt (Bernad, 1966: 166-168).

Finally, the hegemony of Ottoman influence and power in African politics began to decline tremendously when Napoleon invaded Egypt in 1798; Egypt broke away from Ottoman rule. The Napoleon military attack revealed the military superiority of the Europeans and the potential weakness of the Ottoman military capacity. This led to series of political and military reforms in the Ottoman Empire. Ottoman reform brought an increased measure of centralization. The provinces were no longer feudal grants held by military "Pashas" but administrative districts governed by the central government. The traditional model of Turkish army was abolished and replaced with a new European style military force.

The tensions caused by the "Tanzimat reforms" provoked criticism and the emergence of revolutionary group of young Turks that carried out a military revolt in 1908, which led to the overthrow of Sultan Abdulhamid II and the introduction of a new constitution in Turkey. The military revolutions led to the control of the empire by a group known as the "committee of urban and progress" that began to introduce more radical political reforms that resulted in the collapse of the empire.

The Conceptual Thrust of Turkey-Africa Political Relations in the New World Order.

Prior to 2002, the policy-makers of new modern Turkey promoted a closer integration with Western capitalist states and actors. Turkey was seen as a steadfast ally of the West, a perennial junior partner to the United States and a country that was more or less going to go along with what other ac- tors tell it to do (Sozen. 2010:103-123). This pro Western approach of Turkish foreign policy shunned the possibility of trusty diplomatic relations with Africa states because Africa fell outside of the Euro-centric imperatives of the policy-makers approach.

However, the Kemalist approach has provoked both concern and interest to Turkish policy makers who sought to assert the country's foreign policy objective from the hegemonic influence of Western actors. It was the 2002 electoral victory of the Justice and Development Party (AdaletveKalki-maPrtsi) that brought about policy assertiveness and diplomatic sovereignty in Turkey's foreign relations with its neighbours and African states. However since the AKP'S rise to power in 2002, Turkey has emerged as a regional great power, a global actor and a new economic player in Africa.

Therefore, this section will analyze the conceptual principles and assumptions that influences or guides Turkey's economic interest and diplomatic relations in Africa. The theoretical essence is to give a discursive insight into Turkey's new international identity and its proactive foreign policy towards Africa. The analysis will focus on Turkey's concept of strategic Depth, the discursive strategies of 'bridge' and 'axis' foreign policy posture and strategic concept of education diplomacy. The focus of this study on these three vital aspects of Turkish foreign policy objective will enable us give a cursory analysis of the changing roles of Turkey in African politics and the wider implications of such models its economic relations with African states in this modern era of globalization. Therefore, the broad principles that shape Turkey's foreign policy threshold and perceptions include the following:

The Concept of Strategic Depth.

The current foreign policy of Turkey is considerably based on the concept of Strategic Depth postulated by Ahmet Davutoglu. This concept emphasizes the need to deepen politico-economic and diplomatic relations with Turkey's neighbours (Lewis, 2012: II). Its conceptual objective is to strengthen Turkey's international identity, diplomatic sovereignty, common understanding and security with the neighbouring zones. This is desirable because it provides a radical departure from the traditional Eurocentric foreign policy thrust of kemalist approach which alienated its neighbours as well as the African states from the core values of Turkish foreign policy.

Therefore, the primary essence of Davutoglu Strategic Depth is to reposition Turkey as a regional great power and a dominant economic actor in the Middle East, the Balkans, and Caucasia and to a larger extent in North, South and sub-Saharan Africa. This approach is used extensively:

To develop Turkey's soft power diplomacy. This provides the structural framework for the enhancement of its diplomatic, economic, cultural and political relations. The soft power diplomacy is strategically framed to secure peaceful relations with its neighbours based on common mutual understanding (Onis, 2011:50).

To reposition Turkey as a normative power with innate ability to spread Turkish values and norms as well as to shape or influence the will and perceptions of other actors in regional and global politics(Whitman, 2011:5).

To promote the strategic tenets of geo-politics. This allows Turkey to construct new forms of international interactions based on the narrative values of geography, history and culture. Thus, critical geopolitics offers insights into how history and culture shape Turkey's politico-economic relations with African states.

However, the above mentioned core values of Davotoglu Strategic Depth shape Turkey's diplomatic interactions with African states and influences the political boundaries of inclusion and exclusion inherent in foreign policy articulation. Turkey applies the zero-problem aspects of the Strategic Depth in its relations with African states in order to promote regional peace and security as well as to act as a mediator in regional disputes.

In line with the principles of Strategic Depth, Turkey diplomatically responded to the violent political crises in Libya by condemning the Gadaffi regime for its use of maximum force on the protesters. At the same time, Turkey offered to act as a mediator, intending to provide a framework for the peaceful transfer of power without the use of naked force and violence. On this note, Davutoglu affirms that "Turkey as a centre of attention and inspiration in the region with its successful democratic and economic performance and active foreign policy, it would be appropriate for Turkey to play a fundamental role in managing the change and transition winds blowing in North Africa" (Lewis, 2012; 21).

Davutoglu's diplomatic assertions reflect the qualitative shift in Turkey's foreign policy posture towards Africa. Thus, Turkey has become a source of inspiration for democratic change and practices for multireligions African states. The repositioning of the Egyptian army as 'guardians' of the revolution was reminiscent of the role played by the military in turkey during the second half of the Twentieth Century and its involvement in Turkish domestic politics. The essence of adopting such Turkish model was for the military to act as a vanguard to protect democracy from Islamic fundamentalists and secure peaceful and mutual understanding in Africa based on the values of secularism and coexistence.

The Concept of Bridge and Axis Strategic Posture

The advent of AKP marked an explicit expansion in Turkey's foreign policy posture and practice by embarking on a broad programme of strategic proactive engagement with its neighbours in North Africa while maintaining its commitment of cooperation with Western international actors (Lewis, 2012; 15). In this context, two distinct foreign policy discourses define Turkey's external relations with African states, particularly the 'bridge' and 'axis' strategic options.

Yanik (2009;533) argues that the 'bridge' strategic policy option is a cognitive tool that help the reasoning of the rulers and the ruled, which has become the most prevailing image of Turkey's relations with Africa that has been produced and reproduced overtime. The origin of this foreign policy strategy could be traced back to the times of the Ottoman Empire and is still relevant in Turkish-African politico-economic relations in this modern era of globalization. In this context, the Ottoman Empire was construed as a bridge between Africa and the Oriental East. Hence, the 'bridge' option is one of the most relevant legacies of Turkish Ottoman past.

The reintroduction of the 'bridge' strategic policy option in this contemporary era of Turkey-Africa relations emphasizes the cosmopolitan character of the Ottoman Empire that legitimates present and future international engagement with Africa. This has often been referred to as 'Neo-Ottamanism'. The concept of Neo-Ottomanism re-echoes the importance of shared culture and common history as strategic instruments for promoting diplomatic and trade relations with its African neighbours and other countries in the region. Sozen (2010;108) argues that Neo-Otomanism is not an imperialistic strategic for domination of African states but a rational foreign policy vision that encompasses a conciliatory turn of African states towards Turkey's cultural and historical heritage which has been ignored by Kemalist approach. This implies that there is something Ottoman about the current friendly and trade relations between Turkey and Africa.

Bowley (2005) insists that the bridge metaphor positions Turkey as an interlocutor and interpreter between Europe and the Arab world. This way, Sozen (2010:110) argues that Turkey has transformed itself from being a wing state during the Cold War to becoming a pivotal state in the post Cold War era. Thus, in its post Cold War relations with Africa, Turkey is gradually positioning itself as a bridge between Christianity and Islam as well as a buffer against Islamic fundamentalism. This role reveals the potentials of Turkey as an international actor in African politics.

In Africa, Turkey seeks to establish mutual and friendly relations between Muslims and Christians by providing institutional structures for dialogue, coexistence and interfaith interactions. These institutions include the Turkish Ufuk Dialogue Foundation, which through conferences, seminars, media panels and visitations encourage and appeal to African Muslims and Christians to recognize right and not force as the foundation of socio-political life. Thus, relationships between the two dominant religions should be based on mutual respect and understanding instead of hostility, conflict or pursuit of personal and political interest. Therefore, the Turkish bridge metaphor in African interfaith relations provides the institutional mechanism for the establishment of durable peace necessary for the political and economic development of African states.

Finally, the advent of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) marked an explicit shift in Turkish foreign policy and practice which captures the national interest of African states. Though the AKP embarked on a broad programme of proactive politico- economic engagement with its African neighbours yet it still maintains its collaboration with Western European actors. Despite its cooperation with the West, Zarkol (2011;30) argues that Turkey's strategic engagement with Africa has been fostered by the ontologically insecure relationship of Turkey with Europe and United States of America, which was one of the key ingredients used by Turkey to forge a 'modern sense of self' in its relations with African nations.

The Concept of Education Diplomacy

Education has become a crucial aspect of Turkey soft power politics in Africa. This positions Turkey not only as the centre of academic research but also as a multifaceted hub that holds stake in the knowledge and technology industry of Africa. Hence, Turkey's deepening of educational links in Africa enables Turkey to project its national interest, history, language and culture in Africa which provides the institutional frameworks to promote closer social, cultural, political and economic relations with African states.

However, the introduction of education diplomacy establishes Turkey as the centre of an autonomous axis in Africa and no longer an appendix to the Western axis in its diplomatic relations with African states. It legitimates Turkey's new status as an axis state in African politics as well as a source of inspiration for the construction of new international identity of Africa based on Turkish culture and values. Initially, education was not recognized as an instrument of diplomacy by Turkey. Its foreign mission officials were hesitant to support Turkish international colleges which rely on student school fees as an important source of its financing while its teachers enthusiastically work for small salary (Gulen, 2011:88).

Nonetheless, in this era of globalization, education has provided another vector for channeling Turkey's new international identity in Africa. Turkish political leaders especially Turgut Ozal, Suleyman Demirel, Mustafa Kalemli and Hikmet Cetin have made this strategy so popular as a foreign policy tool for cultural translatability of Turkish values to African scholars, students and institutions. The impact of such popular educational products has come to reinforce the exceptionalism and liminality of Turkey's new international identity in Africa.

The establishment of Turkish schools and educational institutions in Africa has become a key factor that drives Turkey's cultural diplomacy in Africa as well as a tool for that strategically repositions Turkey as "heroes" of knowledge and research. Therefore, the heroic entrance of Turkey into the African educational system is intended to increase the African literacy rate which stood at 62.6% in 2010 against Turkey's literacy rate of 94.1% (UNESCO, 2010). In pursuance of this strategic foreign policy objective, the Turkish government through the instrumentality of Non-governmental organization established Turkish schools in many African states.

However, this aspect of Turkey's foreign policy is inspired and based on Fethullah Gulen's philosophical thought of using schools as instrument for promoting peace, drive down ignorance and education in the world. Through Fethullah Gulen's Hizmet Movement, Turkey has established over 1000 schools in 140 countries. These Turkish Gulen schools not only contribute to the promotion of regional peace but also serve as a window of opportunity for the flow of Turkish culture, language, investments and values into Africa. Thus, Rizanur Meral affirms that the strategic rationale behind the establishment of Turkish schools in Africa is to raise Turkey's foreign policy prospects, accelerate the volume of Turkish foreign trade and increase economic collaboration with African states.

Therefore, in line with its strategies foreign policy option for sub Sahara African states, Turkey established Turkish Gulen schools in Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, Benin Republic etc with the sole aim of promoting peaceful coexistence, interfaith relations and high quality education standards necessary for the development of sub Saharan African states. For this reason, the first Turkish university in Africa, known as Nigerian Turkish Nile University was established in 2009 to promote academic excellence, high standard research initiatives and technology transfer. Other schools are also instituted across Africa while constructions of new schools are apparently under way in the few remaining African countries. Finally, to boost the tenets of its educational diplomacy in Africa, Turkey, granted two thousand undergraduate scholarships to Africans to study in Turkish Universities. These scholarships grants are aimed at reducing the illiteracy rate which has been the major source of underdevelopment and rising poverty in Africa.

The Political Context of Contemporary Turkey-Africa Relations

Turkey's political and diplomatic relations with Africa offers one of the most qualitative transformations in Turkey's international identity under A KP. This new political interaction with Africa serves as an attempt by AKP to redefine the perception that Turkeys place in international politics is to serve as a traditional bridge between Asia and Europe because of its strategic geo-graphical location.

Thus, the geographic, cultural and historic depth of Turkey's international identity justifies its proactive political relations with African states. This new foreign policy thrust projects Turkey as a source of inspiration for the democratization process of the multi-religious political systems in Africa.

On this note, Robert Kaplan maintains that "Turkey is an exemplar of Islamic democracy that can serve as a role model for these newly liberated states, especially as its democracy evolved from a hybrid regime with generals and politicians sharing power" (Kaplan, 2011). This implies that Turkey's secular and democratic form of governance provides the structural dynamics for the political development of African states with diverse religious values and belief system. For this reason, Erdogan affirms that Islam and democratic values are not contradictory variables but complementary variables that provide Islamic African societies with the structural capacity to promote the values of democracy and good governance. Hurriyet Daily News, 15 September 2011).

Turkey's political system provides a unique democratic system that lay emphasis on the importance of blending Islamic political learning with secular democratic model. This synthesis of Islamic and democratic values is a model for African states to emulate in order to stimulate the growth of its political systems. Mamdouh Shaheen in his assessment of the relevance of Turkey's democratic values in the development of African nations points out that "we want a model similar to that found in Turkey. Egypt as a country needs to protect democracy from the Islamists" (Lewis, 2012:20). Drawing inference from Shaheen's comparative assessment, the Turkish Model of democracy has become a proactive political model that has influenced political activities in North Africa, holding down the urge to use violence as an instrument of political change.

Throughout history, Turkey has been a source of inspiration for viable political development for African nations; while Africa had been theatre of colonialism because to its enormous natural resources. But the presence of Ottoman Empire in North and South Africa kept European colonialism away from these African regions. The Ottoman Empire prevented the colonial expansion of Spain in North Africa and the penetration of Portuguese colonialism in East Africa. Following the political consequences of World War II, the Turkish war of independence turned out to be a catalyst that sparked off nationalism and the demand for self determination in Africa especially North Africa. Therefore, Turkey has been supporting African countries which gained independence from Western colonization to strengthen the foundation and values of freedom, dignity and sovereignty.

For the express purpose of increasing in strength the virtues of freedom and the ideals of political sovereignty, Turkey estab- lished new embassies in Africa in order to quicken the political development of newly independent African countries. Turkey opened its first official mission in Lagos in 1956 and recognized all newly independent African countries. Subsequently, after 2005, Turkey increased its political presence and decided to build up more embassies in Africa. In 2010, Turkey opened new embassies in Cameroon, Mali, Ghana, Uganda, Angola and Madagascar; while in 2011 more embassies were set up in Zambia, Mozambique, Mauritania, Zimbabwe, Somali, Gambia and South Sudan; and in 2012 Turkey established more embassies in Niger, Namibia, Burkina faso and Gabon. With the creation of these new embassies, Turkey has over thirty-four embassies in Africa. Likewise, many African countries are opening up more embassies in Ankara. These African countries include Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, Gambia, Ethiopia, Angola, Kenya, Cameroon, Zimbabwe, Democratic Republic of Congo etc.

With the establishment of these new embassies in Africa, Turkey's political relations with Africa gained new momentums. This stems from Turkey's new international identity as an axis in African politics and as an active player in the resolution of domestic political crisis in Africa. In this context, Turkey contributes immensely to the United Nations peacekeeping operations in Africa in order to ensure the development of peace and political stability in the region. Turkey provides personnel and funds to six of the existing eight United Nations peacekeeping missions in Africa (Ministry of Foreign Affairs Turkey. 2013).

Turkey and Egypt co-chaired the UN International Donor's Conference for Development and Reconstruction of Darfur in 2010. During the conference, Turkey made a pledge of 70 million US Dollars for the Re-construction of Sudan. In Somalia, Turkey led an international aid campaign to assist Somalia in the resolution of its political crisis. Turkey drew the world's attention to the deepening political crisis in Somalia by hosting the United Nations Istanbul Somalia Conference in 2010 to solicit international support for the Djibouti Peace Process. The Istanbul Declaration adopted during the conference constitutes a roadmap for the peaceful settlement of the Somalia conflict.

Also, Turkey played a fundamental role in managing the violent political change and transition process in North African during the Arab spring. As part of its Zero-problems policy with neighbours, Turkey offered to act as a mediator in the political uprising in North Africa. In the Libyan political conflict, Turkey responded by condemning Gaddafi's regime for his use of maximum force on the protesters. At the same time Ankara, offered to act as a mediator to offer a framework for the peaceful transfer of power while rejecting the planned airstrikes on Libya by the Allied Forces because of its perceived devastating effects on the civilian (Lewis, 2012:22).

However, because of its perceived interest in the development of peace and political stability in Africa as well as deepening institutional relations, Turkey was confirmed a strategic partner for the African region and in 2005 was accorded an observer status in African Union. Turkey's ambassador to Addis Ababa was accredited to the African Union, also Turkey's embassy in Abuja was accredited to the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) while its embassy in Dar-es-salam was accredited to the East African Community (EAC) thereby increasing the velocity of regional integration which is necessary in assisting the African Union in its goal of creating a political union in Africa. This new form of diplomatic collaboration marks a new development in the history of Turkey-Africa relations.

This new diplomatic advancement reinforces Turkey's foreign policy quest of pursuing a peaceful, realistic and consistent policy in Africa guided by the principle of 'peace at home and peace abroad' postulated by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. In line with this principle, Turkey conducts its foreign policy in a way to foster the maintenance of security and stability in its region and beyond, based on the tradition of reconciling modernity with cultural identity.

Conclusion

Turkey has a long history of political relations with Africa and consistently opposed the extension of Western European colonialism into Africa, particularly North Africa. Therefore, this study sought out to appraise and examine the political relations that have subsisted in the history of Turkey-Africa interactions from the years of the Ottoman Empire to contemporary period of globalization. In the course of the research, the study undertook an assessment of the challenges, values and benefits of Turkey's interest and involvement in African politics. Similarly, the paper carried out a clear-cut examination of the conceptual thrust of Turkey's foreign policy relations as well as the broadening scope of its educational diplomacy in Africa.

Nevertheless, the study uncovered that the Ottoman Empire had a very affable political contact with Africa. Such relationship was not built on the tenets of colonialism but allowed Africans some measure of freedom and liberty in the use and practice of their indigenous language, customs, values, culture and religion without any form of modification or change. These unique values of Ottoman political patterns produced the Turkish model of pluralism and secularism which were shared with its African provinces and reinstated in its relations with modern African nation-states. The Ottoman legacy of secularism strengthened Turkey's contemporary international identity and posture as an axis of peace, coexistence and collaboration connecting Christianity and Islam towards mutual political interaction and development of democratic values. Such values help to reinforce the quest for the institutionalization of democratic values and culture in multiethnic cum religious states in Africa which provides the structural platform for the economic and political development of developing countries.

Conversely, the Ottoman Empire fostered migration of professionals and political activities in order to stimulate bilateral treaties and diplomatic exchanges in Africa which became the catalyst that build up modern Turkey-Africa political engagement and collaboration. These political interactions was fortified in the 1998 African Action Plan intended to advance Turkey's diplomatic and cultural relations with Africa and Africans as well as to prop up technology advancement, scientific cooperation and bilateral agreements. But the major factors holding back Turkish diplomatic initiatives in Sub Saharan Africa and other Africa countries is the age long image of poverty, war, terrorism, disease and misery stereotyped by neo-colonialism to weaken the will of Africans to develop as well as a bulwark against potential political collaboration. These scenarios insidiously inhibit the pace of Turkish political relations in Africa. Therefore, from the above analysis, this study inferred that if the Turkey-Africa political relations is strategically and objectively managed, the political power of Turkey and Africa will not only increase but will also reposition them to play active role in world politics.

References

References

Akcay, Engin. 2012. Bir Dis Politika Enstrumani Olarak Turk Dis Yardimlari, Turgut Ozal Universitesi Yayinlari: Ankara.

Bernard Lewis. 1966. The Arabs in History, New York, Harper and Row Publishers.

Davutoglu Ahmet. 2010. "Turkish Vision of Regional and Global Order: Theoretical Background and political Implementation", Political Reflection, June - July - August.

Gulen. F. 2011. Essays, Perspectives and Opinions: Fethullah Gulen, Tughra Books, and Clifton.

Hazar Numan. 2000. "The Future of Turkish- African Relations", Dis Politika, Vol.25, No. 3-4.

Inalcik Halil and Donald Quataert. 1994. An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire 1300 - 1914, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan. R. 2011. "Arab Democracy and the Return of the Mediterranean World", The Washington Post, 27 February.

Lewis. A. 2012. International Identity: A Discursive Study of Ankara's Post-2002 Foreign Policy, GNG of Set Metabaacilik, Gaziantep.

Onis. Z. 2011. "Multiple Faces of the New Turkish Foreign Policy; Underlying Dynamics and Critique", Insight Turkey, Vol.13, No.1.

Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2013) www.mpa.gov/tr

Salih Gulen. 2010. The Ottoman Sultans; Mighty Guests of the Throne, New York, Blue Dome press.

Seracettin Sahin. 2009. The Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts: Thirteen Centuries of Glory from the ummayads to the Ottoman, New York, Blue Dome Press.

Schleifer Yigal. 2011. "Turkey and Its Neighbours", ABC Radio National, Real Vision, 5 October.

Sozen. A. 2010. A Paradigm Shift in Turkish Foreign Policy: Transition and Challenges, Turkish Studies, 11.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics. 2010. "Adult and Youth Literacy; Global Trends in Gender Party", UIS Fact Sheet, No.2.

Whiteman R.G. 2011. 'Norms, Power and Europe: A New Agenda for the Study of the EU and International Relations', in Richard. G. Whiteman (Ed) Normative Power Europe: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives, Palgrave Macmillan's Hampshire.

Zarakol. A. 2011. After Defeat: How the East Learned to Live with the West, Cambridge University Press, New York.