YOUNG APM
Ankara Politikalar Merkezi

THE (RE)RUN OF RIGHT-WING MOVEMENTS

7 February 2024
PAYLAŞ

*ZEYNEP DOĞA DEMİREL – APM INTERNSHIP, METU North Cyprus Campus Department of Political Science and International Relations

World politics is currently experiencing once again the rise of the far-right in different countries; Giorgia Meloni in Italy, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, Javier Milei in Argentina, Marine Le Pen in France, AfD (Alternative for Germany), all can be considered as examples of the far-right populist movements across the globe. The reasons for the rise of  right-wing movements stem mainly from two factors:

  • Firstly, high degree of globalisation and widespread proliferation of technology enabled movements of people and information quickly. This circulation further gave rise to migration, which is one of the main sources of insecurity. Whitehead (2023) indicated that the fundamental issue arises from the discomfort felt by citizens who fear they might lose their jobs and houses due to extensive immigration. This concern is heightened by economic stagnation and an unsettling degree of worldwide instability. Another scholar, Rodrik (2021) highlighted that globalization-induced disruptions, frequently influencing cultural and identity realms, have significantly contributed to the surge in backing for populist movements, especially those aligned with right-wing ideologies.

Another issue embedded in globalisation is the backlash it produced as a result of the gap between the rich and the poor, thus raising awareness challenging it. New technologies enabled the situational awareness of the marginalized people and encouraged solidarity among them. Before the globalization, for instance, the world was not much witnessing movements such as the LGBTQ+ issue since there was not diversity as such. This diversity, indeed, at  odds with the promises of right-wing ideology, which is authoritarian in nature, premised on anti-immigrant policies, and guided by traditional hierarchies (i.e.conservatism). As a response to the highly globalized world and its underlying causes, mainly migration, economic stagnation, increasing instability and uncertainty, and diversity of identities, right-wing movements gained further significance to protect the status quo.

  • The second reason is due to the lack of trust in democracies. Democracy and openness, despite their appeal, do not seem to benefit all the countries to the same extent, and people start to seek alternative surveillance methods. Toscano (2023) argues that amid widespread disillusionment, the extreme right is capitalizing, on a global scale, on the unfulfilled pledges of a reformed social democracy and the unsuccessful attempts of movements challenging the existing establishment.

With numerous supporters of progression losing faith in the feasibility of advancement, the control exercised by

and punitive tendencies emblematic of the far right hold great appeal to a confused and dissatisfied voting population. Anton Jager (2023), speaking to CNN, asserts that the resurgence of the far right has been facilitated by the ineffectiveness of established political parties. This failure has resulted in their incapacity to maintain their place, consequently leaving mainstream ideologies unable to staunchly defend their positions.

In conclusion, the rise of right-wing movements globally is fueled by a combination of factors: fears and insecurities stemming from globalization-induced disruptions, concerns about cultural and identity shifts, and a growing disillusionment with the effectiveness of established political systems and ideologies.

Against this background, the  current global landscape is now characterized by a multi-polar world order, the sources and directions of emerging threats remain ambiguous and

multifaceted. This uncertainty has prompted states to intensify their efforts to secure and entrench their geopolitical positions, often manifesting in the reinforcement of border controls and the implementation of stringent policies. Thus, it could be posited that there exists a direct correlation between escalating feelings of insecurity among states and a heightened inclination toward adopting assertive, right-wing policies. This putative linkage between heightened feelings of insecurity and the embrace of right-wing policies underscores the complex interplay between international ambiguities and domestic political dynamics. As states grapple with the complexities of a multi-polar world order and the surrounding blurred emerging threats, the pursuit of stringent border controls and assertive policies represent an attempt to reinforce national resilience and assert sovereignty in an increasingly unpredictable and contested global landscape.

References

Rodrik, D. (2021). Why does globalization fuel populism? Economics, culture, and the rise of right-wing populism.

Annual Review of Economics, 13, 133-170

Toscano, A. (2023, November 21). The rise of the far right is a global phenomenon. In These

Times. https://inthesetimes.com/article/global-far-right-meloni-milei-putin-bannon-orban

What’s behind the rise of the far right in Europe? Two experts explain. (2023, October 10).

CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2023/10/10/amanpour-anton-jager-liana-fix-far-right-

europe.cnn

Whitehead, A. (2023, November 28). The right wing is on the rise globally. The

Wire. https://thewire.in/world/the-right-wing-is-on-the-rise-globally

İlgili Yazılar

NATO’s Intervention in Libya (2011): A Success or Failure?

8 September 2022

Semanur Işıksoy*

 

I. Introduction

 

Humanitarian intervention basically means military intervention on the territory of a state to end large-scale human rights violations. It is possible to refer to many examples of humanitarian intervention experienced in the recent period.

 

This article will examine NATO’s military intervention in Libya in 2011. First, the process leading to military intervention in Libya will be briefly discussed, and then the success of this intervention will be evaluated in terms of its short-term and long-term consequences.

 

II. Towards Humanitarian Intervention in Libya

 

The popular uprisings, which began in Tunisia in 2010 and spread to Egypt termed by many analysts as the “Arab Spring” had also affected Libya and led to the start of protests in Benghazi on 15-16 February 2011 (Şentuna, 2019, pp. 225-226).

 

On February 17, 2011, security forces violently suppressed the large-scale civil demonstrations that started against the Libyan Leader Gaddafi’s government due to the public reform demand. Ultimately, the UNSC considered the situation as a threat to international peace & security which culminated in civilian casualties. Thus, the UNSC adopted resolutions 1970 and 1973 and prepared the grounds for military intervention against Libya (Şentuna,2019, p.215). By Resolution 1973, the Libyan airspace was declared a no-fly zone. This Resolution warned of an urgent ceasefire and an end to violence against civilians. Accordingto it if these were not ensured, the protection of civilians were to be provided by ‘taking all necessary measures’ (Sak, 2015, p.141). This intervention ended with the death of Gaddafi and the collapse of the regime (Behluli, 2017, p.76).

 

III. Consequences of the Intervention in Libya

 

a. Short-Term Outcomes

 

In terms of short-term success, this humanitarian intervention carried out by NATO in 2011 had stopped the brutal acts of the Gaddafi regime, such as killing civilians and torture. That is, the intervention provided protection for the residents of Benghazi in the short-term (Pattison, 2011, p.275). Therefore, it was successful in stopping the persecution of the Gaddafi regime against his own population (Behluli, 2017, p.73).

 

The most positive development for Libya was the arrival of a secular & moderate coalition government to power in 2012 with democratic elections, a major change after the protracted Gaddafi dictatorship (Behluli, 2017, p.70). However, despite this, the elected government had little authority throughout the country and there were many tribal and armed groups that need to be controlled (Karaoğlu, 2019, p.219).

 

b. Long-Term Outcomes

 

In terms of long-term success, although the Gaddafi government was overthrown as a result of the intervention, the Libyan society became polarised’ and thus internally divided. Additionally, the influence of radical groups such as ISIS and Ansar al-Sharia (Islamic radicalism) had increased as a result of a power vacuum that transpired at the end of NATO’s intervention. Hence, post-Gaddafi Libya has become a inflict ridden zone ruled by non-state actors and local armed groups. Moreover, human rights violations suffering had intensified in Libya, in addition to the prolongation of the civil war and the increase in the death toll. Along with these negative developments in Libya, weapons trafficking had also spread in Libya’s neighbors such as Mali (Kuperman, 2013). After the intervention, different armed groups emerged in the country and there was a serious problem in building peace as they came into conflict with each other to seize power (Sürücüoğlu, 2017, p.621).

 

In economic terms Libya’s economy, an oil-exporting country, was not healthy before the intervention because of the persistent authoritarian rule in the country and international embargoes, but after the intervention, oil production and export paused for a certain period of time. Additionally, unemployment had also increased (Güdekli, 2017, p.94).

 

Today, Libya cannot provide stability and security to its citizens, and violence is increasing in the region (Behluli, 2017, p.69). Therefore, this intervention without an exit strategy was a disaster for Libya for the long-term.

 

IV. Conclusion

In sum, procceding from the Libyan case, it could be argued that although interventions are generally more successful in stopping immediate killing, they are not designed to bring success in the long run. The end-result of  the intervention in Libya was a catalyst for preventing mass killings or helpful in protecting civilians in the first instance , but it subjected civilians to an almost constant state of conflict. Therefore, without a proper and well-thought design, interventions may prove more harmful than beneficial.

 

References

Behluli, M 2017, ‘Uluslararası müdahalelerin etkinliği: Libya ve Kosava için karşılaştırmalı bir analiz’, PhD thesis, İstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi, İstanbul.

 

Güdekli, D 2017, ‘Uluslararası Hukuk Bağlamında İnsani Müdahale: NATO’nun Libya Müdahalesi’, PhD thesis, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.

 

Karaoğlu, AO 2019, ‘Libya’ya Askeri Müdahale ve Uluslararası Hukukta Yeniden İnşa Sorumluluğu’, İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), pp.199-224.

 

Kuperman, AJ 2013, ‘Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene’, International Security.

 

Pattison, J 2011, ‘The ethics of humanitarian intervention in Libya’, Ethics & International Affairs, 25(3), pp.271-277.

 

Sak, Y 2015, ‘Uluslararası Hukukta İnsancıl müdahale ve Libya Örneği: Suriye’de Yaşanan ya da Yaşanacaklar için Dersler’, Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 11(44), pp.121-153.

 

Sürücüoğlu, O 2017, ‘Koruma Sorumluluğu: Darfur Krizi ve Libya Müdahalesi Çerçevesinde Bir Değerlendirme’, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(4), pp.603-628.

 

Şentuna, T 2019, ‘Libya Askeri Müdahalesinin Uluslararası Hukuka Uygunluğu ve Koruma Sorumluluğu Kavramı Çerçevesinde Meşruiyeti’, The Turkish Yearbook of International Relations, 50, pp.215-239.

 

*Semanur Işıksoy is a senior student at Hacettepe University, Department of International Relations. She is also doing a minor in the Department of Psychology. She is generally interested in International Law, European Union, International Security Studies, International Relations Theories and Foreign Policy.

CLOSER LOOK AT HUNTINGTON’S “THE CLASH of CIVILIZATIONS “: THE CASE OF ISRAEL-PALESTINE WAR

1 February 2024

*ZEYNEP DOĞA DEMİREL – APM STAJYERİ, ODTÜ Kuzey Kıbrıs Kampüsü Siyaset Bilimi ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Bölümü

Samuel Huntington once stated that the main source of conflict in our ‘new world’ will not stem from ideological or economic reasons. Instead, the sources of conflicts and clashes will be based on religious and cultural reasons. According to Huntington that idea was the dominant view of the new world, especially after the Cold War. That said, the following question arises: what if we adapt this view to the current conflicts? And if so, how?

To understand ‘civilizations’, one must understand the meaning of it. In its simplest definition, civilization refers to large-scale entities with a collective form of identification. Civilizations include multiple human beings and social groupings. Also, it combines these social groupings and multiple societies. Therefore, it can be stated that civilizations differ from tribal, ethnic, and kinship groups. Through time, human beings have had multiple civilizations. For

example, Sumerian civilization, Hittites civilization, Hellenistic civilization, Egyptian civilization, Christian civilization, Islamic civilization, and so on.

Civilizations are not only large-scale entities, but also, tend not to disappear through time.

To begin with, a central element of the Islamic civilization is the religion of Islam. Varying widely in practice and societies, each of the branches and sects of the Islamic religion today espouses monotheism. In some respects, the Islamic religion could be viewed as a reform movement arising from monotheistic Judaism and Christianity (Hirst, 2020). On the other hand, the ancient Israelite civilization was the first monotheistic religion and civilization that proclaimed and promulgated the conception of a universal and transcendent God who created the universe and

imposed His will and Law upon it, claimed to rule over all the nations, and had designated the people of Israel as His chosen people (Eisenstadt, 1992). Therefore, the Middle East region have both of these different civilizations with similar aspirations of monotheism. Are they in a clash? The simple answer could be a Yes.

According to Huntington, following the conclusion of the Cold War, global politics shifted away from its Western-centric focus. Instead, it pivoted towards the interplay between the West and non-Western civilizations, as well as interactions among various non-Western civilizations becoming the central focal point. Indeed, the 7th. October Hamas attacks fostered this interplay between the West and non-Western civilizations. Israel, along with its primary supporters – the

U.S., the U.K., and France – align themselves with the ‘Western’ civilization. Conversely, Hamas, Iran, and Palestine position themselves within the realm of non-Western entities. Huntington highlighted six points emphasizing why civilizations will clash. These points highlight the importance of  distinctions between civilizations, undergirded by their unique historical, linguistic, cultural, traditional, and religious features, which have frequently been at the center of long and bloody wars throughout history. At the same time, as the West is experiencing a certain degree of decline in its power, non-Western civilizations are making a comeback to the center stage and trying to reshape the world to fit their goals and ideals. Indeed, Hamas, as anon-state actor, perfectly corresponds to this framework, illustrating its ambition to display the resilience of the Palestinian people, aspire to form a state in its own model, and survive within the context of non-Western spheres to achieve these goals and ideals.

Huntington further indicates that as individuals identify themselves based on ethnic or religious factors, they tend to sharply perceive a division between “us” and “them” cutting across diverse ethnic or religious backgrounds.

Variances in culture and religion contribute to disagreements on policy matters, spanning from human rights and immigration to trade, commerce, and environmental concerns. Palestinian nationalism, Islamism, anti-Zionism, and anti-Semitism are the primary pillars of Hamas culture. However, the overarching Zionist ideology of Israel is opposed to and at odds with one another. Indeed, Huntington highlighted that Western concept such as individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, liberty, the rule of law, democracy, free markets, and the separation of church and state form a fundamental part of Western societies. However, these ideas might not hold the same significance or relevance in other civilizations like Islamic, Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, Buddhist, Orthodox etc. cultures. The divergence lies in differing value systems and beliefs across cultures, where these Western ideals may not align with or carry the same weight in non-Western societies. In that regard, the following question comes up: Hypothetically , if a state identical to the Middle Eastern culture and religion, aligned with Hamas vision, were to be established in the “Holy Lands” in 1948 rather than Israel, could it still had been engaged in significant conflicts like the ones that occurred in 1948–1949, 1967, 1973, and now? Would the ensuing conflicts have occurred again? Hence, it can be inferred that Huntington’s assertion about differences in culture and religion leading to disputes in policy matters might seem to hold.

In conclusion, the underlying reasons for the Israel-Hamas war are not solely ideological or economic, but entail religious and cultural differences. These two civilizations’ conflict due to the differences arising from the fact that Israel is Western-oriented and thus has a culture that adopts and blends Western values in the Middle East region, while Hamas is on the non-western side residing within a certain brand of Islamic civilization that has adopted eastern values. Due to the clash of religion and culture, one might argue the Middle East region is now witnessing scenes that smack of clash of civilizations. In conclusion, taking my cue from Huntington’s thesis,

“The central axis of world politics in the future is likely to be, in Kishore Mahbubani’s phrase, the conflict between “the West and the Rest” and the responses of non-Western civilizations to Western power and values”.

(Huntington, 2020).

REFERENCES

Eisenstadt, S. N. (1992). Jewish civilization: The Jewish historical experience in a comparative perspective.

Suny Press.

Huntington, S. P. (2020). The clash of civilizations?. In The New

Social Theory Reader (pp. 305-313). Routledge.

Kris Hirst (2020). Islamic Civilization: Timeline and Definition. ThoughtCo.

https://www.thoughtco.com/islamic-civilization-timeline-and-definition-171390

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

@2025 – Ankara Politikalar Merkezi

Yayın Politikamız:
Ankara Politikalar Merkezi üyelerinin veya web sayfamızda yazıları çıkan APM üyesi olmayan kişilerin, APM web sayfasında yayınlanan yazılarında veya APM üyelerinin diğer mecralarda açıkladıkları görüşleri şahsi görüşleri olup Ankara Politikalar Merkezini bağlamaz. APM adına, yalnızca Yönetim Kurulu veya Yönetim Kurulu tarafından yetkilendirilmiş Yönetim Kurulu üyeleri açıklama yapabilir, APM’yi bağlayan açıklama veya görüşleri ifade edebilir.