Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In the post-Cold War era, the re-definition of security has been one of the most popular research topics in the discipline of international relations. This new literature on security tackles with the interaction between the security culture and the specialists, who observe, define and analyze the security culture. The researchers of security studies not only push security culture to the scientific area by marking it as a significant research subject but also contribute to the definition/re-definition and production/reproduction processes of the security culture itself. Especially think-tanks and specialists working at these think-tanks contribute to the security culture with their analysis on regional conflict cases as well as on the global security. It is in this framework that think-tanks and the specialists at these think-tanks have political responsibility and influence in the making of the security culture.There is a shift from an extensive security understanding in the Cold War era to an approach that combines domestic politics and foreign policy; and from a territorial and state-centric viewpoint to an individual-centric one. This shift has been accompanied by the increasing role that think-tanks play in the formation of security culture evidenced quantitative and qualitative increases in think-tanks that operate in the field of security studies. This presentation aims to make a general assessment of the roles, impacts and contributions of the think-tanks and international relations specialists who work at these institutions in the formation and making of the security culture in Turkey. It aims to review the studies conducted by think-tanks and specialists on security and to understand their positioning towards the discourse of the security elites and the changes over time in their approaches towards national security issues.

Publication Type: Proceeding
Abstract: The volume and variety of ideas and accompanying policy research available to members of Congress and executive branch officials are enormous and have grown tremendously in the past thirty-five years. For all of the resources invested in the production of this work, there is remarkably little evidence of how it is used by policymakers to inspire, formulate, or improve the content of public policy (Shulock 1999, Rich and Weaver 1998, Whiteman 1985, 1995). It is well established that expertise can be influential in agenda-setting (Kingdon 1995, Baumgartner and Jones 1993) and that ideas can inform the direction of policy change (Derthick and Quirk 1985, Hall 1989, Campbell 2004). But how does that happen? And what are the differences between ideas and expertise – and among the types of expertise and ideas made available to policymakers?

In this paper, I examine how public policy think tanks package and present their ideas and research to inform – and influence – policymakers. I analyze, in particular, how the greatly expanded number of nonprofit think tanks have deliberately organized in ways to cater to demands from policymakers for supportive rather than original material. Aggressive marketing strategies have become dominant across the range of organizations involved in providing research in national policymaking (Rich 2004). And a tension has developed between the provision of ideas versus expertise by think tanks (Rich 2005).

The analysis draws on new data from a national survey of think tank leaders who take different approaches to producing and promoting their work. I combine these findings with qualitative findings from 65 new interviews with those at research organizations and those that support them at private foundations and within government. A major portion of the paper explores the relationships between funders and researchers – and the effects of these relationships on how think tanks seek to promote ideas and expertise in American policymaking. The paper reveals a diversity of strategies for how ideas – and expertise – achieve traction in policymaking.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: I examine the controversies surrounding tank doctrines in the interwar period among the French, British, and German militaries. Given the ambiguity of political and military reality, a wide variety of interpretations could be drawn from the same set of empirical facts, allowing a multiplicity of opinions. The puzzle is how consensus came to be achieved on the utility of the tank in modern warfare, such that its value can now be seen as obvious and uncontroversial. I argue that this agreement depended upon the existence of a tightly-knit social community in which debates such as the utility of the tank were closely followed. In such a community, the terms of the debate including the issues on the agenda, the range of positions, and the conditions for a test tend to be agreed upon, as prerequisites for discussion. This agreement allowed the debate to be resolved by a definitive test ? in the case of the tank debates, the use of blitzkrieg tank tactics in the fall of France in 1940.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: International non-governmental think tanks advocating the stabilisation of fragile or war-torn states have flourished as one part of the state-building approach that has emerged as an important instrument in international politics since the 1990s. Their main aim has been to influence the course of international politics concerning interventions and peace-building projects. Founded in 1995, ICG is among the most well-known of these new agencies. It covers zones of conflict worldwide with currently 15 field offices. The Balkans – which are the example that will serve as a reference for the ideas brought forward in this paper – are covered from ICG’s Europe headquarters in Brussels as well as field offices in Kosovo and Serbia. Founded in 1999, ESI has become a competitor in field-based analysis and advocacy in the Balkans. Starting with analyses of the peace-building process in Bosnia, it currently focuses mainly on Turkey, Kosovo, questions of state-building by foreign powers in general, and EU enlargement. Both international think tanks have established themselves as widely recognized experts in their respective areas of expertise by providing information, recommending policies and criticising international politics.
I suggest that there are at least three main areas a critical research should scrutinize in order to shed some more light on the role that such international think tanks play (1) in international politics regarding the governance of (post-) conflict spaces, (2) in and for the post-conflict states concerned and (3) in IR as an academic discipline. The first area involves the interna-tional peace-building agents, states as well as international governmental and non-governmental organisations. To a certain degree, the think tanks’ reports seem to shape the international view of the societies which are the object of international actions, to boost cer-tain policy options adopted by the so-called international community in each case as well as across cases and to condemn others. Chapter 2 takes stock of and localises the international think tanks ICG and ESI against the background of contemporary international politics. This part is meant to detect their specific characteristics, working styles and possibilities to access power and to influence the course of international politics in post-conflict spaces. The second area of study concerns the effects that the work of international think tanks takes in post-conflict state-building. Chapter 3 outlines some observations with respect to the role of ICG and ESI post-conflict BiH in order to specify the impact that ICG and ESI had. The main question here is whether the think tanks mattered at all, and if so, how they were able to influ-ence the course of the international intervention in BiH. The third area of study comprises interdependencies between international think tanks and the scientific community. The think tanks operate at an interface between academic research and politics and are therefore highly interesting in view of the question – raised also as topic of this ISA convention – about the relation between politics, policy and scholarship. Drawing again on observations from the Bosnian case, in chapter 4 the paper outlines some basic problems regarding the repercussions of the scientific debate on international state-building advocates, the influences of the interna-tional agencies’ work on IR research, and the relative influence both groups had on the course of the international intervention in BiH.
Based on the ‘material’ gathered in the previous sections, chapter 5 sets out to explore possi-ble ways of theorising the role of international think tanks in post-conflict state-building. I suggest that there are three circulating perspectives: a liberal view, a critical interpretation and a political economy approach. In the case of BiH there are certain evidences for all three strands. In addition to briefly pointing out the perspectives’ main argumentative lines I pro-pose some conceptual starting points for additional analyses. The conclusion in chapter 6 sketches out further research tasks which go beyond the scope and possibilities of this paper. What all three perspectives have in common – apart from their many differences – is that they do not primarily focus on the post-conflict states concerned by international governance. Therefore, I propose to elaborate an alternative approach which focuses especially on state formation and stateness in post-conflict spaces.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper explores the underlying assumptions, leadership, aims and activities of the Princeton Project on National Security, a network of scholars and past and current public officials that has been working to produce an alternative (non-Bush doctrinal) national security strategy for the United States. The paper locates the major funding sources behind the Project in two major philanthropic foundations ? the German Marshall Fund of the US and the Ford Foundation ? both of which have long supported and fostered foreign and security policy research in universities, policy research institutes, and think tanks. The Project is large-scale, well funded, linked with scores of leading American scholars such as Anne-Marie Slaughter, G. John Ikenberry and Joseph Nye, as well as former state officials such as Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, Zbigniew Brzinski, James Woolsey, and James A. Baker III. Its study groups have investigated and reported upon all aspects of US national security ? including threat-assessment, democracy-promotion, and anti-Americanism. Its reports have been submitted to Condoleeza Rice.From a cursory examination of a sample of their voluminous documents and reports, it is clear that the PPNS, broadly-speaking, adheres a belief in American primacy and the necessities of American global leadership, robustly pursuing US core interests, aggressively conducting the war on terror and constructing alliances to that end, better long-term planning for nation-building and war-making, and pursuing public diplomacy strategies to convince ?anti-Americans? to be neutral or ?pro-US? where possible, without hindering the pursuit of non-negotiable US core interests. The ?golden age? of US foreign policy for the PPNS was 1945-52, the age of Truman during which the Cold War mindset was firmly established and the apparatus of American expansionism constructed. How is the Princeton Project to be evaluated? Are their ideas and ?alternative? national security strategy fundamentally different to that promulgated by President George W. Bush? If so, what are the main differences? Have the Project?s scholars become ?state intellectuals?? Are they in danger of becoming instruments of US state power? Or are they the ?only viable alternative? to a neo-conservative militarism that animates existing policy? In Gramscian terms, the PPNS appears to have become part of the US hegemonic project, albeit one that offers some criticisms and alternatives to preventive war and unilateralism. The Project appears to be a manifestation of the relative resurgence of realist liberal-internationalism, and of the elements of the US foreign policy establishment that are its main sponsors, in the wake of intense criticism ? from all quarters - of Bush?s illegal war on Iraq.