By: Cody Knapp
Turkey is, and has always been, an enigma. A successful democracy, geographically split between Asia and Europe, its people are neither European nor Arab in origin. Existing as an Islamic Empire for centuries, the central power in Turkey simultaneously ruled over the Arab world and played a significant role in European politics. With the establishment of the secular Turkish Republic following World War II, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk merely intensified the state’s connection to European culture and affairs, even adopting the Latin script for the Turkish language in order to facilitate the learning of European languages for Turkish speakers. From joining the major European communities such as the European Economic Community (the predecessor of the European Union), where it has been an associate member since 1964, to reconciling Western culture and ideas with Islam, Turkey has stayed true to its founder’s desire to create a steadfastly European state. Turkey was even a founding member of the Council of Europe in 1949. Thus, it would seem natural that full membership in the EU be extended to Turkey, yet despite its historic Western inclinations and close ties with Europe, Turkey has not been granted membership in Europe’s premier organization. After applying for full membership in the European Community in 1987, Turkey was forced to wait until 2004 for the EU to begin formal accession negotiations. Future accession remains uncertain, however, as many major EU governments, such as France and Germany, still oppose Turkish membership. This makes Turkish membership impossible, since unanimous approval of all existing member states is a prerequisite for EU membership. Why are major EU governments opposed to Turkish membership?
It is clear that eventual accession is in the favor of both parties. Turkey would gain international prestige, as well as a great deal of economic development aid. It could rely upon economic assistance during a crisis, much like Greece and Ireland currently are receiving, and the increased foreign investment that could be expected upon membership would further drive Turkey’s outstanding economic growth. The EU would have managed to include in its community a growing political and economic power in the region, an act that would certainly lend credence to the organization as Europe experiences a relative decline in influence in the near future. It would also represent an affirmation of the “European” values of tolerance and diversity, as Turkey would be the first Muslim-majority country to gain entry. This would certainly grant international respect for an organization that is often derided as a “Christians-only” club. As Europe struggles with its growing Muslim minority, this could only help soothe tensions and show respect for Europe’s increasingly diverse populace. Accession would also reinforce the embrace of Western, democratic values in Turkey, an important partner for the West in combating terrorism and promoting peace in the Middle East.
Despite the mutual positive outcomes associated with accession, there are many currently outstanding issues regarding Turkish accession. There is a push from some of the most influential states in the EU, namely Germany and France, to deny full membership to Turkey and instead relegate it to a “special partnership.” The benefits of such a partnership to Turkey are uncertain, as any potential benefits from this partnership seem to be already enjoyed due to Turkish membership in EU Customs Union and NATO. Many Turks would see this as a slight to their nation, and this would only exacerbate resentment among the Turkish populace towards Europe. In fact, much of the Turkish populace now holds negative opinions of the EU, due to its disrespectful treatment of Turkey throughout the membership negotiations.
From raising artificial barriers for entry to refusing to fully engage in formal talks for years, the EU’s treatment of the Turkish state has certainly lacked respect and honesty. Much of the public debate regarding accession has dealt with artificial barriers set up specifically to prevent Turkish entry, especially the European desire to force Turkish acknowledgement of responsibility for the Armenian genocide of the early 20th century before agreeing to approve accession. While Turkey should certainly acknowledge its role in the genocide, the European states have never been forced to own up to the crimes of colonialism, so there certainly appears to be a double standard with regard to entry. There has also been an undercurrent of racism and ethnic tension, with rising nationalism and anti-immigration sentiments in Europe leading some Europeans to treat Turks as being inherently lower class and undesirable members of the European community. Such sentiments are particularly salient in nations with large, unassimilated Muslim minorities, like Germany and France. In these countries, resistance to Turkish admittance often stems from fears of mass immigration that could result due to the EU’s internal free travel policies. In fact, nations with the highest rates of opposition to Turkish membership almost exclusively have either significant immigration issues or a history of enmity with the Ottoman Empire (Austria and Greece, both containing populaces that are overwhelmingly opposed to entry, fall into this latter category.
Over time, the prolonged negotiations and the negative attitude within the EU regarding Turkish accession have led to feelings of resentment within Turkey; in 2004, just prior to the decision to engage in formal accession negotiations, 58% of Turks held a favorable opinion of the EU, but by 2011 this number plummeted to 21%. In 2011, 52% of Turks supported their nation’s bid to join the EU, representing a significant decrease from the 68% in 2005. These changes in public levels of support are directly attributable to Turkish feelings of being slighted by a prejudiced Europe. The EU has done a disservice to itself and Turkey by refusing to set a real timetable or at least to definitively commit to Turkish membership.
What the situation needs now is an honest, public discussion of the pros and cons of Turkish accession. European governments need make the case for eventual membership to their respective populations, and the Turkish government needs to recognize that imminent membership may not be in its nation’s interest. In reality, imminent membership may not be in either party’s interests. With the EU’s recent expansions in 2004 and 2007, the union has become somewhat unwieldy. Stricken with the current Euro crisis, many feel that the EU has expanded too quickly already and needs to take time to consolidate. More than likely, the economic crisis will lead to even further cession of sovereign powers by member states and strengthening of the larger European government. In this time of transition, it will be important for internal reforms and adjustments to occur without the added pressure of new members potentially destabilizing the union.
Regarding Turkey specifically, outstanding geopolitical issues with respect to Greece and Cyprus must be solved before accession can be affirmed. The EU can’t have one member (Turkey) refusing to recognize and maintaining severed economic ties with another member (Cyprus), or aggressively disputing territory with yet another (Greece). While potential solutions to these two unremitting disputes are certainly within reach, other issues exist. In particular, Turkish foreign policy is not always aligned with European interests, a reflection of Turkey’s unique position in world affairs. Especially with respect to the Middle East, Turkey often has different interests and objectives than the EU that are reflected in its UN voting record and public statements. Turkish membership in the near-term would extremely complicate efforts to present a united front to the international community. Additionally, projected increases in population would give Turkey the largest number of delegates to the European Parliament by 2020, further exacerbating issues of unity and decreasing the influence of current members on community policy. Unity is a necessity as the European Union moves towards greater levels of integration and national subordination, and intense geopolitical disputes and stark foreign policy differences between members would undermine the larger goals of the community in the short-term.
There are many challenges involved with Turkish accession, but the European community should see the inclusion of Turkey as a unique opportunity for Europe to promote its values, to increase its relevance, and to promote positive solutions to persistent problems. As such, the public debate among European politicians needs to be reframed, moving from a discussion of whether Turkey should be admitted to focusing on the challenges associated with membership and ways to address them to ease the transition. A united commitment by all parties to eventual accession is necessary, but an open, honest discussion of all potential issues by the political elites in both the EU and Turkey is just as essential. Only through a positive, respectful approach can outstanding issues be carefully resolved, leading to a smoother, more beneficial transition. Accession is an outcome that is desirable not only for Europe, but also for the international community at large. However, due the prominence of both Turkey and the EU in world affairs and the challenges involved, the transition process must be even more careful and scrupulous than normal. This will require Turkey to wait a while longer for full membership in the EU; it’s just important that this wait have a foreseeable end.
