Turkish Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2, Summer 2004, pp.43–78 ISSN 1468-3849 print/ISSN 1743-9663 online DOI: 10.1080/1468384042000228594 © 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd. Decisionmaking Process Matters: Lessons Learned from Two Turkish Foreign Policy Cases 1 ESRA ÇUHADAR-GÜRKAYNAK and B İ [ I do t ] NNUR ÖZKEÇECI-TANER * Taylor & Francis Ltd FTUR5203.sgm 10.1080/1468384042000228594 Turkish Studies 1468-3849 (print)/0000-0000 (online) Original Article 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd 5 2 000000Summer 2004 BinnurÖzkeçeci-Taner Global Affairs InstitueMaxwell School of Syracuse University346 Eggers HallSyracuseNY 13244USA bozkecec@maxwell.syr.edu This article suggests that the nature of the decision unit and the decisionmaking rules influence the foreign policy decisionmaking process. This is especially the case in “complex” foreign policy decisions. We discuss two such cases from the Turkish context—the decision to intervene militar- ily in Cyprus in 1974 and the decision to accept the EU candidacy offer during the Helsinki Summit in 1999—by applying the “decision-units” framework. Our findings from the comparison of these two cases offer important lessons for Turkish foreign policy decision making especially under coalition decision units. It has been suggested that Turkish foreign policymaking (TFP) has tradi- tionally revolved around two main systemic factors: 1. maintenance of the nation’s independence and achievement of security and 2. preservation of the status quo, the country’s modernist, secularist, national regime. 2 This foreign policy evolved from a combination of standard strategic considerations and the constraints that Turkish leaders have faced during and after the Cold War. In fact, most studies on TFP have paid significant attention to Turkey’s geo-strategic location, the role of international systemic factors and the like, leaving not only the domestic determinants, but also the decisionmaking process components of foreign policymaking under- studied. Even though we recognize that there are an increasing number of studies that focus on the role of certain domestic factors in TFP, 3 such as the military 4 and public opinion, 5 the same cannot be argued for system- atic examination of the decisionmaking processes in Turkish foreign policy. 6 For instance, although there is a lively debate concerning leader * Authors’ names appear in alphabetical order.