Suchergebnisse

During the Cold War, 'buffer' or 'bastion' seemed a popular metaphor to describe Turkey. After the Cold War, 'bridge,' (and, to some extent, the 'crossroad') metaphor started to dominate the Turkish foreign policy Discourse. This article traces the use of 'bridge' metaphor in this Discourse in the post-Cold War period by the Turkish foreign policy elite. It develops two arguments. First, the word bridge is a 'metaphor of vision' combining Turkey's perceived geographical exceptionalism with an identity and a role at the international level. As a 'metaphor of vision,' the employment of the word 'bridge' highlighted Turkey's liminality and justified some of its foreign policy actions to Eurasia and then to the Middle East. Second, because the bridge metaphor was used in different context to justify different foreign policy choices, its meaning has changed, illustrating that metaphors are not static constructs. It concludes by Saying that the continuous use of 'bridge' metaphor might reinforce Turkey's 'liminality,' placing Turkey in a less classifiable category than the regular 'othering' practices. Adapted from the source document.

In the recent past, there have been countless instances of arms transfers to countries with problematic human rights records, many of which have been cited in the reports of various advocacy groups. However, so far, the amount of research classifying these flows has been limited. This study examines the trends between 1999 and 2003 in arms transfer to countries with poor human rights records, as well as the reasons for continuation of these transfers. It puts forward two major arguments for these transfers to such countries. First, the national and international codes ostensibly "prohibiting" transfers to these countries are crafted in a way that eventually plays into the hands of the countries and manufacturers that want to transfer. Second, the end of the Cold War has turned the arms transfer market into a buyer's market more than ever. The declining domestic military spending experienced in most of the seller countries has forced arms manufacturers to pursue markets beyond their borders, sometimes even illegally and illicitly.