This interview is conducted under the special rubric “Meet Global Partners” of the Eurasian Continent Research Association. Ms. Paeton Romero, intern at the CECPSR, Armenia, and student at Stonehill College, Class of 2029, interviews our distinguished member,  Professor Süha Atatüre, Head of the Department of Political Science and International Relations, and Advisor and Vice Rector at İstanbul Gedik University. Professor Atatüre also is an Advisory Board Member of the Eurasian Research on Modern China and Eurasia Conference.

1. What drove you to focus your research on China and the Eurasian Continent?

My interest in world order did not begin in a university classroom, but in a small town in Türkiye when I was eleven years old. Each evening, listening to the radio and reading the daily newspapers that arrived at our home, I began keeping a mental tally of nations—their geographical locations, capitals, heads of state, foreign ministers, and the crises they confronted. I cannot fully explain the origin of this early fascination with international affairs; I only know that it never left me. Decades later, in 1988, in the United States, that childhood curiosity transformed into an academic vocation and has continued throughout my university life. America became my principal field of study, culminating in my book The Political Structure of the United States, From Twelve Colonies to a World State. Yet studying America in isolation proved insufficient. To analyze the United States without understanding the rise of the People’s Republic of China and the geopolitical centrality of Eurasia is to leave the larger structure unexplained. My work, therefore, is not confined to a single country; it is driven by a deeper and enduring question: how world orders are formed, sustained, challenged, and transformed. This is what drove  me to focus on China and the Eurasian continent.  

2. As an active Academic Board member of the Eurasian Research on Modern China and Eurasia Conference, what is your experience in this conference, and why should others join? What makes this conference unique among so many international conferences around the world?

Over the years, I have participated in numerous academic conferences in the People’s Republic of China, the United States, various European countries, Afghanistan, and across the Middle East. In most cases, I observed a striking standardization in preparation, presentation formats, thematic framing, and institutional practice. This uniformity is understandable; in today’s global academic environment, alternative models are rarely conceivable. Our Eurasian Research on Modern China and Eurasia Conferences are not entirely exempt from this broader pattern. Yet there is a defining characteristic that reshapes the rationale behind such gatherings: consistency. Across the years, our conferences have maintained an intellectual coherence and thematic continuity that distinguish them from many others. Equally important is a second quality that reinforces this distinction—sincerity. The participants who attend do not simply deliver papers and depart; they become colleagues and, often, lasting academic friends. From these friendships emerge new conversations, new collaborations, and new ideas. It is this combination of consistency and sincerity that I value most deeply, for it transforms a conference from a procedural event into a living intellectual community.

Professor Süha Atatüre delivers the keynote address at the III Eurasian Research on Modern China and Eurasia Conference, hosted by the China‑Eurasia Council for Political and Strategic Research at the Russian‑Armenian University, December 3, 2021.

3.  Why did you decide to join the Eurasian Continent Research Association (ECRA)? What is your advice to other scholars? What can they find in this association?

This initiative is essentially an exchange—an effort to share knowledge and transform that sharing into productive outcomes. While knowledge can certainly be disseminated individually, for an academic it is particularly valuable to work collectively, examining the natural dynamics of a specific geography within the framework of one’s discipline. Producing scholarship together with colleagues in the group not only strengthens academic collaboration but also allows the values we advocate to be grounded in a solid scientific basis. This is the main reason why I decided to join.

For this reason, I would like to invite all interested academics to participate in this initiative in order to foster mutual benefit. Scholars who join the group will have the opportunity to examine and present specific topics in depth from multiple perspectives, taking into account the distinctive characteristics of the region. Producing knowledge together represents an important academic opportunity.

4.  How do you think the Armenian-Turkish relationship has evolved over the last several years? Why is it important to normalize the relationship between the two countries?

Although the Turkish and Armenian peoples have lived together for centuries—sharing both periods of harmony and episodes of profound tragedy—it is deeply regrettable that relations between the two states remain severed in the twenty-first century. While governments may instrumentalize historical experiences for political purposes, as has often been the case, it is widely recognized that there is no inherent hostility or enduring animosity between the two societies themselves.

This prolonged abnormality in bilateral relations is neither sustainable nor beneficial. The recent transformation in relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan—shifting from entrenched hostility toward cautious normalization—creates a significant diplomatic opening. This evolving regional climate offers a facilitating opportunity for the normalization of relations between Armenia and Türkiye.

In particular, Türkiye should seize this moment without delay. By taking a decisive step toward reconciliation, it should promote regional stability and unlock substantial economic and social benefits. The restoration of diplomatic ties, the reopening of borders, expanded trade, and the introduction of visa-free travel would foster the free movement of people and ideas, strengthening mutual trust and intersocietal engagement.

By taking this step towards peace, Türkiye will ensure the free movement of people through economic and social ties and visa-free travel between the two countries. This is my wish and I hope that this will not be far off.

5.  What do you think will continue to help the normalization process?

If time is used patiently and purposefully in pursuit of clearly defined goals, it will eventually produce tangible results. The business community, although important, is closely intertwined with political authority and therefore can only assume a meaningful role at a later stage of the normalization process.

In contrast, I see academics as the most critical actors in initiating and sustaining normalization. Academic initiatives matter not only for the production and dissemination of ideas, but also as visible indicators of intellectual mobilization. Universities, research centers, and scholarly networks can create spaces for dialogue that are less constrained by immediate political calculations.

Such academic engagement has strong potential to mobilize civil society in both countries. Conferences, joint research projects, student exchanges, and public discussions can gradually reshape perceptions and foster trust. When academic collaboration and civil society initiatives begin to converge, they send an important and constructive signal to political authorities.

In response to your question, therefore, I would emphasize the importance of building close and sustained relationships among academics and civil society actors. These networks can serve as the foundational infrastructure upon which formal political normalization may eventually be built. Like academics, civil society volunteers are able to walk in this path hand by hand. That is what I believe.

6.  You and Mher Sahakyan are friends and colleagues for several years working together on conferences and book projects. Can this relationship stand a role model for other Armenians and Turks showing that cooperation between two nations is possible? Tell us more about this very unique Armenian-Turkish friendship and how it happened.

That is a wonderful question, and it takes me back many years. I believe it was at a conference in Vienna where I first met Mher. I had arrived early in the morning, as is my habit. The garden was almost empty. Across from me sat a well-dressed gentleman in a tie. I took a seat beside him, and we began to talk. I vividly remember the sense of warmth I felt when I learned that he was Armenian.

Armenians were not strangers to me. In 1966, when I was living in Üsküdar, our upstairs neighbor was an Armenian family. Their three children were constantly in our home; we grew up together almost like siblings. Perhaps that early experience shaped my perception permanently. To this day, in my correspondence, I refer to Mher as my brother.

Yet our friendship is not sustained by sentiment alone. It rests on shared intellectual and moral convictions. I do not believe religion should determine politics, nor do I think nationalism is a constructive instrument for building peace. In my view, the traditional concept of “national interest” must gradually give way to a broader understanding of “global interest,” where optimal outcomes are pursued not at the expense of others but through cooperation. These are precisely the points where Mher and I intersect intellectually.

Our collaboration—through conferences, joint publications, and sustained dialogue—demonstrates something simple yet powerful: cooperation is possible when individuals approach one another without prejudice and without the burden of inherited hostility.

Can this serve as a model? I believe it can. Especially if we expand this spirit beyond academia and consciously include civil society actors, why should it not become a model? Personal relationships built on trust, intellectual honesty, and shared ethical principles can precede and even inspire political normalization. If friendship between two individuals can endure and flourish, there is no structural reason why cooperation between two societies cannot do the same.

Professor Süha Atatüre (center) hosts Dr. Mher Sahakyan (left) and Dr. Bin Ma (right) at Gedik University, Istanbul, Türkiye, 2019.

7.  In your chapter  “The US and China as main powers in the Multipolar World Order 2.0 A case study, Turkey and the Middle East” from China and Eurasian Powers in a Multipolar World Order 2.0, how is the shift from the post-1991 unipolar order to a multipolar world order 2.0 shaped by US policy after the Gulf War, Russia’s actions in Ukraine, and China’s strategy, and what does it mean for institutions like the United Nations( UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)?

Since the beginning of interstate relations, different types of world orders have emerged at different historical moments. From a historical and academic perspective, it is possible to identify four major “expansions” of the world, each of which produced a new type of state. Through the interactions among these states, new world orders were subsequently established.

The first expansion occurred in the 1490s, with the Age of Discovery. This period ultimately generated colonialism, strengthened the absolutist state, and laid the foundations of a new international order structured around European power.

The second expansion took place in the 1890s, when industrialization and global competition intensified imperialism and consolidated the nation-state as the dominant political form. This transformation produced another configuration of world order shaped by imperial rivalries and the institutionalization of modern state sovereignty.

The third expansion emerged in the 1990s with globalization. This period created the possibility of transforming the nation-state into a democratic state and establishing a global order based on democratic values. However, this transformation did not fully materialize. As a result, the anticipated democratic global order did not emerge. Instead, the world has continued to operate largely within the institutional and political framework of the nation-state, even in an era characterized by globalization.

For this reason, we still live in a global age governed by institutions that were largely created within the logic of the nation-state order. The fundamental values of the nation-state matured through the institutions designed to sustain that order. Organizations such as the United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and World Trade Organization are examples of institutions that helped stabilize and reproduce the nation-state system. In this sense, they functioned as conservative structural actors that preserved the existing international order.

Today, the central question is how this structure might evolve. Two possible paths I think. The first is a transformation in the nature of the nation-state itself, leading toward the emergence of democratic states and the creation of new institutions capable of supporting a genuinely global democratic order. The second possibility is the restructuring of existing international institutions so that they gradually incorporate global and democratic characteristics, thereby indirectly transforming the nation-state.

In my view, progress toward either outcome may depend largely on the role of two major actors: the European Union and the People’s Republic of China. If these actors can engage on the basis of shared or compatible values, they may contribute to shaping a new framework for global governance. Such a transformation would certainly be complex and difficult. Nevertheless, it may represent the most consistent approach for addressing the challenges posed by other major powers capable of shaping the future international order. 

Professor Süha Atatüre holds the book China and Eurasian Powers in a Multipolar World Order 2.0, in which he authored the chapter “The US and China as Main Powers in the Multipolar World Order 2.0: A Case Study of Turkey and the Middle East.”

8.  How do you evaluate the growing strategic relationship between Türkiye and China in the context of an emerging multipolar world order? What challenges or opportunities define their cooperation?

The greatest foreign policy challenge Türkiye faces regarding the People’s Republic of China does not, in fact, stem from China itself, but from Türkiye’s own structural positioning within the international system.

Türkiye is a long-standing member of NATO and maintains close strategic relations with the United States. At the same time, it seeks to cultivate strong political and economic ties with China. Managing this dual orientation is extraordinarily complex. While Ankara may view this balancing act as pragmatic multi-vector diplomacy, Beijing approaches it with caution.

From China’s perspective, the central question concerns strategic reliability: In the event of a serious global crisis—particularly one involving the United States—how would Türkiye position itself? There is a perception in Beijing that Ankara has not articulated a sufficiently clear or autonomous strategic doctrine. This uncertainty generates hesitation.

The ambiguity is also visible in economic relations. Türkiye expresses a strong desire to deepen economic cooperation with China, yet it simultaneously expects large-scale Chinese investment as a precondition for meaningful engagement. Meanwhile, structural asymmetries in trade persist. The proposed integration between the Belt and Road Initiative and Türkiye’s Middle Corridor Project has therefore remained largely declaratory, with implementation progressing slowly and unevenly.

In short, significant opportunities exist in infrastructure connectivity, trade diversification, and regional logistics. However, Beijing appears to be signaling that deeper strategic cooperation requires greater clarity of alignment. Türkiye, for its part, cannot simply “choose a side” without undermining its Western commitments, yet it has also struggled to present a convincing third path—one that is distinct from both Washington and NATO while remaining credible to China.

The challenge, therefore, is not China itself, but Türkiye’s difficulty in defining and communicating a coherent grand strategy within an increasingly polarized global order.

Interview conducted by Paeton Romero, intern at the CECPSR, Armenia, and student at Stonehill College, Class of 2029.

For more information about the Eurasian Continent Research Association, please visit the Association’s official page

Eurasian Continent Research Association