EU-Turkey Relations by Dr. Deniz Altinbas
Kent University, BSIS, Brussels
19.1.2011
Today I would like to talk about Turkey in the foreign policy of the EU. I am not going to talk about the European approach to Turkey as it is already well known – especially here in Europe; but I will talk about the position of Turkey in its region, and from the Turkish point of view.
Turkey today is perceived as one of the region’s most sucessful countries. Although it is improving its relations with the east, such as Iran, Russia, Iraq, Syria; its relations with the EU is getting closer to a deadlock.
In my speech, I would like to focus on the new Turkish foreign policy focusing on Turkey’s complicated position as a “bridge” or as a “buffer” between the East and West, namely between the European Union and the Middle East.
It’s been almost 50 years Turkey is trying to be the part of the European integration process. While the EU has never shown its willingness to accept Turkey; to a great extent due to this behaviour, Turkey has been slow or insufficient to meet all the criteria. Today, there are a lot of official and non-official negative signals from the European part and the support for membership in Turkey fell from 80% to 30%. It has been a taboo to discuss alternatives to the EU membership since a few years ago. However today, as the EU lost its credibility in Turkey, there is a wide debate on alternatives.
It is very common that non-Turkish people ask Turkish people why they are so eager to become a EU member. They ask this question because first of all, it is obvious that European countries do not want to see Turkey as a member. Secondly, either they look from the west or from the east, Turkey seems as if it is doing very well alone without membership.
In the last few years, Turkish foreign policy has started to change. In my opinion it is to the advantage of Turkey. Besides, Turkey does not have any other chance than pursuing a multi-dimensional foreign policy due to its geopolitical location.
The Cold War era was an easy period for almost any country in the world, as the parties were clear and the cards were open. After the end of the Cold War, Turkey felt alone in the middle of an instable and problematic region. In the 1990s, Turkey had to add the Middle East topic to its foreign policy. The hesitancy of the Europeans towards Turkey also affected this foreign policy choice. In fact, as the Turks were the dominant power in the Middle East for long years under the Ottoman Empire, its non-involvement was an anomaly.
For decades, Turkey made a mistake by pursuing a one-sided foreign policy focusing and relying extremely on the EU project but ignoring other regions, even its neighbours.
It is true that Turkey is different than most of the Middle Eastern countries especially in the areas of economic and political culture. But as the biggest country in the region, it cannot stay indifferent to the events going on in the region. Due to its geopolitical location, Turkey has to deal with the strategic balances in its region, much more than the US and the EU. Since no other country has political role in such big and different geographies in the world – other than the US of course – Turkey has one of the most complicated foreign policy situations in the world.
Many times it is put forward that Turkey’s evident existence in the Middle East is the result of its deteriorating relationship with the EU. However, it will also be true to say that, it would be impossible for Turkey to remain indifferent towards the Middle East, even though there would not be any EU project. This “new” situation is sometimes referred to as “shift of axis” symbolising that Turkey is changing its direction. But this situation cannot be considered as a “shift”. Because this is the “normal” way for a country located in the middle of the strategic regions and now knows very well that it cannot trust to the west or the east alone anymore. So it is better to define this new situation as a “realist and pragmatist way to have all the alternatives in our hands” rather than axis shift.
Is Turkey really moving to the East? Yes it is. Economic ties have grown with its eastern neigbours very fast. While trade towards east doubled in the last ten years, the share of the EU fell below 50 percent.
But is it “that much” dangerous as the Europeans and Americans fear? I don’t think so. Such views appear to be simplistic. It is very important to note that, these new foreign policy areas do not constitute alternatives to the EU membership. Making the Turkish foreign policy more diverse does not mean discarding the membership goal completely. The other directions will not be substitutes but supplements to the EU project. Turkey, while continuning negotiations, can still constitute closer relations, it can sign cooperation agreements with Russia, Syria, Egypt, India, China, etc.
Besides, some Europeans expect Turkey to become an energy hub. If it would be the case, then Turkey should have good relations with the countries which supply and consume oil and gas.
On the other hand, Turkey’s rise as a regional power can be also for the benefit of the EU as well. Foreign policy of the EU is not successful in the areas where Turkey’s role is obvious; such as the Middle East, the Caucasus and Central Asia.
It is paradoxical and ironic that, for some circles, the more Turkey loses its hopes in the EU and turns to the East, the more it is considered as a valuable actor in the EU. The reason may be the realisation among the European elite of Turkish regional potential power and its importance for the EU; but also may be result of the fear of losing Turkey to “dangerous” and “problematic” states such as Iran or Russia.
Many European and especially American commentators are concerned about the end of the candidate status of Turkey. If the EU says a “clear no” to Turkey or if Turkey loses its patience and leave the table, then the relations between the EU and Turkey will completely change to a more symmetric one, making them two equals. According to these analysts’ “scary” scenarios, after losing interest or hope for the EU membership, Turkey would approach to “other side”s regional powers such as Russia or Iran. If these powers would be in conflict with each other due to the clash of interests, it would be a major problem for international stability. However there is a worse scenario which includes a “cooperation” of these three regional powers. That would be a huge problem, leaving no space for any other power, in more than one region.
When we look at the other parts of the world for integration or closer cooperation, currently and still the best direction for Turkey seems to be Europe. I have to highlight that this does not mean that the best choice is “becoming an EU member”. European direction includes different relationship choices other than membership. Turkey has a tradition of progress, and even without the membership goal, though perhaps slower, it will continue to develop at any circumstances. Turkey is still in the process of improving its conditions, but this time it is not for the EU but rather for the benefit of itself. So, if Turkey doesn’t become an EU member this will not be a disaster for it. On the contrary, non-alignment attitude can help Turkey to become a more independent, major regional actor.
In the near future, developments suggest that the Turkish government will continue to pull away from Europe and the West, and instead pursue more extensive relationships with the countries of Middle East, Iran, Russia, and China.
It should also be noted that Iran and Russia do not believe, and do not support at the same time the Turkish accession. Many articles put forth that both Iran and Russia are looking forward to hearing a “no to Turkey” from the EU.
Now there are some questions to be answered for Europeans who feel insecure due to the axis shift in the Turkish foreign policy:
Firstly, will Turkey approach the “so-called dangerous” countries as an EU candidate state or will it do that as a “pissed off state” to Europe?
Secondly, is Turkey only moving away from Europe or is it at the same time moving away from the Western values and approaching to a Middle Eastern/Islamic/or Iranian way of life?
The “shift” – as it is perceived by some – is worrying many Europeans and Americans. It is because Turkey is getting closer with countries or groups which the West avoids – such as Syria, Iran, Sudan and Hamas. And this could sabotage Western foreign policy interests. Why? Because Turkey may play a role to help these regimes to surmount the feelings of isolation.. and support them – to some extent – against Western pressure. At this point, for some analysts or politicians, the foreign policy objectives of Turkey and the West break away. But it is the nature of the area: Turkey has an extremely instable neighbourhood.
On the other hand, it is also significant that this policy of building close ties with the Middle East is pursued by the AKP – the governing party; and it has an Islamist character. This is perceived by many in the West, and in Turkey as well, as a sign of moving away from the Western values.
However, as long as Turkey continues to remain secular and to develop further, particularly in terms of democracy and freedoms, the axis shift shouldn’t be perceived as a threat to the West. And if it remains in line with universal values such as freedoms and human rights, it should of course combine its European and Eastern features, and create its own – sui generis – foreign policy style.
When we come back to the questions to be answered for Europeans who feel insecure about Turkey, the third one is: Is this “shift” a volatile choice or is it a long-term policy? In other words, will Turkey lose her interest to its east if the EU accepts Turkey as a “full/real/normal member”?
Fourthly, is that all? Meaning, is that the last point of the Turkish shift? Or will it pursue further / radical policies such as pan-Turkism, pan-Islamism or nostalgic policies such as revival of the Ottoman Empire?
Turkey is recently blamed of pursuing a neo-Ottoman foreign policy very often, because it is trying to turn into an independent global player from a regional power.
Turkey’s geopolitical location, and its’ historical and cultural ties as well, is an asset for Turkey to be influential and active in the Middle East, Central Asia, Caucasus, Balkans and Black Sea. Therefore behaving in line with its geographical position brought about consideration that this “new foreign policy area” includes the Ottoman territories too.
It should be noted that Republic of Turkey never had and still does not have any imperial or expansionist policies, it does not have a policy of creating chaos in some countries to further its own interests as some states do. Turkey defends economic ties, cultural and political cooperations which can also include international organisations. It is not after creating tensions but peace, therefore the new foreign policy style of Turkey cannot be considered as a neo-ottoman one – at least for now. Furthermore, this peaceful character of Turkey makes it attractive and preferable for most of the neighbour states.
When we consider that the West is uneasy with that axis shift of Turkey, then how can they overcome this problem? First: what is the real-existing problem? West –both the US and the EU- is trying to keep Turkey “under” control. How can this be done in the best way?
US is insisting that this can be done by the EU membership. This insistency is creating –sometimes serious- tensions between Americans and Europeans. Because in this case, the US would not going to lose anything while the Europeans would have the big burden of accepting Turkey as a member.
For Europeans, in order to “keep Turks down”, they should be anchored to the West, should face with never ending troubles which would lead the membership to be put off. But I am not sure whether the EU has a Plan B or not, because do they know what happens do they have some alternative plans if the Turks leave the negotiation table?
Besides, does it help if the Europeans know the motive behind the Turkish axis shift? Which is the real reason?
It is not only the EU that made Turkey move to the east, nor is it the conservative government that made its choice as eastern world rather than the western one. The reason that caused Turkey to include the east to its foreign policy is the combination of all these realities. Trust to the EU has gone, the conservative government used Islamic elements and easily approached to the eastern world and finally the most important reason is the current global situation. States do not limit themselves with their neighbours, regions and backyards anymore but communicate with the whole world. That’s why Iran has warm relations with Latin America, China is cooperating closely with Africa, and it is considered as vital for European states to successfully approach to Brazil or India. So we should say it is not Turkey which has a shifted axis but the whole world.
The heated debate about Turkey’s “side” is not very meaningful. There isn’t any rule that each country should belong to a certain “side”. Sometimes there is pressure on Turkey to choose one of the sides. Turkey cannot and should not face a clear-cut choice between West and East, as it is already in the middle of the two parts. Turkey does not belong completely to the west but also it does not belong completely to the east. Turkey carries pieces from many civilisations, belonging to any but many of them, which has advantages and disadvantages at the same time.
Napoleon said that strategic position determines the faith of that state. Turkey’s geographical determinism makes a multi-dimensional policy necessary. Turkey is usually listed as one of the states whose “fate determines the survival and success of the surrounding region and ultimately the stability of the international system”. It is impossible and risky as well for Turkey to stay neutral during the groupings and conflicts. Turkey’s dilemma is how to find a way “to embrace the West without turning its back on the East”.
Today there isn’t any politician, any party left which explicitly puts the EU membership project to top of the list. What is being done today in Turkey is, staying unresponsive or indifferent to the EU, without removing it totally from the prospects. In other words, although the EU is not completely ignored, the priority is no longer membership.
In conclusion, in my opinion, when we look at from the Turkish side, the best choice for Turkey would be to continue its multi-dimensional foreign policy. With a goal of EU membership or not, it is better to stay on the European track - as long as it does not create conflict with the national interests of course - and try to remain active and powerful in other regions as well.
Thank you
To view the Presentation, please, click here (PPT)
| External Relations, Energy | The Caucasus and the Black Sea
