Turkey’s accession to the European Union remains in limbo after the parliament voted to suspend the country’s bid for membership. The vote, which took place last week in Strasbourg, France returned with 370 voting in favour to suspend while 109 voted against and 143 abstained. The decision has sparked diplomatic tension as lawmakers accuse the country of political and social “backsliding” while the Turkish government have accused the European Union of biased and prejudice attitudes towards the country. Arguments aside, if this diplomatic volatility persists then this could influence a ripple effect of political, social and economic backsliding. The Turkey-European Union membership debate which goes back three decades represents an age-old paradox of global expansion and clash of cultures – the enlargement of the European Union into the Mediterranean basin, economic distribution and integration and the relationship between Europe and Islam (Arcuri 2013: 1). It is important to understand Turkey’s regional significance while also acknowledging the continued expectations and concerns of the European Union as an important international voice.
Contemporary international relations processes and discourses have a difficult but well intended task of fostering a dialogue rooted in development across its political, social and economic interests. However, the challenge lies, in what development literature identifies as the re-ordering of space that transforms old worlds into new worlds. While this is undoubtably a global initiative, it must begin in significant regional areas. Turkey made its first bid for EU membership back in 1987 but accession talks began in 2005 and the current Foreign Affairs Minister, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, calls it a strategic objective. Reasons for Turkey’s EU membership stem from its dynamic economy – mainly in extractive and manufacturing industries – and given its regional position, the EU could benefit from economic collaboration through international trade as the country is a gateway, even buffer, between the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa. Turkey’s regional role has also significantly contributed to EU foreign policy and security concerns (Arcuri 44: 2013). In fact, the EU parliament acknowledges Turkey’s position as an “anchor” to Europe (Uger 2010: 967) and while accession talks have remained on hold, the Union has continued to rely on Turkey to uphold the 2016 Migration Deal that has seen the country provide shelter to at least 3.5 million refugees escaping the Syrian conflict. However, the reluctance of the EU to accept membership stems from the necessity to ensure the union upholds its integrity in the acceptance of states who accept democratic tenets. In 2004, the European Union introduced an open-ended framework for accession negotiations (Uger 2010: 967). For the European Union, this framework was set up with the aim of ensuring a proper integration process, but its timing is never guaranteed in advance (Uger 2010: 967). Ultimately, it’s fundamentally designed for the purpose of advancing the coordination of mutual commitments in episodes of crisis and development initiatives (Uger 2010: 967). In order to monitor and determine the outcome of official membership, there is a criterion that dictates who is compatible based the EU’s values and agenda. Overall, to satisfy these requirements for membership, a nation must demonstrate the existence and commitment to democratic institutions and a functioning market economy. However, depending on a nation’s social and historical foundations which often influence policy relating to domestic interests, this can put stress on accession because while the open-ended framework portrays itself as flexible, it’s without guarantee of when or if membership is determined. This in turn can result in suboptimal outcomes with little incentive (Ugur 2010: 969). However, it should be noted that the EU’s vote last Wednesday is non-binding and doesn’t completely reject Turkey’s accession process. However, for Turkey to seek favour from the European Parliament, there requires a degree a reflection in what can be described as an erratic contrast between its domestic and international affairs
Current President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan came to power after the 2003 election. While the initial period of his leadership saw economic recovery and foreign policy that aimed to foster engagement with states of the former Ottoman Empire many political analysts contend that his leadership has been the cause of the nation’s backsliding in recent years. Dutch EU lawmaker, Kati Piri who favoured membership suspension argued that due to the nation’s current human rights record it has hindered its modernization process and shifted a democratic system to a more authoritarian rule making it incompatible to the EU’s values. Factors influencing the vote were issues relating to corruption, rule of law, suppression of media freedom and government opposition which has increased greatly since the failed coup of 2016. Furthermore, the need for “state responsibility” has also caused significant economic chaos (Cooper 2002: 117). While the government has increasingly suppressed opposition through media, privatization of industry has also declined making the state-owned industries echo economic characteristics and outcomes of a former Eastern bloc state. From observation, the political climate of Turkey, at least with its current government, is more ideological and doesn’t project clear political priorities. Yet, in response to last Wednesday’s decision, Ömer Çelik, a government spokesman labelled the outcome “disreputable” further asserting that the European Union is “under the influence of far-right ideology”. Furthermore, two weeks ahead of local elections, President Erdoğan expressed disdain of the EU decision with the nation’s Foreign ministry accusing the European Parliament of being “one-sided” and “non-objective”. Indeed, a major argument against Turkish membership is that the country is not European thus making their membership already redundant; a point which itself debates the very idea of Europe (Arcuri 2013: 37). However, the ideology of modern Turkey is itself grounded in nationalism and the present political rhetoric could be damaging and steer away from public opinion that had driven popular support.
Turkey, despite its geographical location and historical and cultural origins, has long demonstrated an initiative to seek engagement and collaboration with the EU not as a way to mimic Europe but to align themselves to the region because the relationship ensures a commitment to development and diplomatic progress on both sides. When Turkey emerged as a new nation-state after the first world war and collapse of the Ottoman Empire, their transformation possessed a significant westernizing element to it (Cooper 2002: 116). Kemalism, relating to the ideas of modern Turkey’s founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, advocate a secular liberal political framework which was inspired by the European model and viewed with what enables a nation to build and progress – evident through its privatization initiatives established in the second half of the 20th century (Cooper 2002: 122). Domestic economic needs aside, in 2011, one study which sought to determine the factors that influence public support for Turkish EU membership, showed that religion and ethnic identity were less of an influence compared to economic and partisan interests (Carkoglu and Kentman 2011: 375). A follow up article published just Monday by the Israeli-based outlet, the Jerusalem Post, state that the Turkish government argue that if membership talks remain stalled, then this would push away investment in the region therefore risk further “backsliding” if the economy lacks the means to prove competitive and profitable for development. The suspension is more a cause of anxiety rather than indignation as observers view the likely damage of this liminal diplomacy as the outcome hinders efforts of the member states of the EU to effectively engage on a diplomatic level that can question basic EU principle. The rise of more nationalist-based politics across Europe has caused much diplomatic tension in recent years with debate centred on migration evolving from the refugee crisis from the Middle East and religion and culture and its impact on integration. France and Germany had previously opposed as far back as 2007 but the Greek administration of Cyprus had also expressed opposition. This hindrance occurs at a period where, despite much ill going on across the region, this should be taken as an important opportunity to realize commonality rather than conflict. Turkey is often understood, even misunderstood, through a 20th century Western Europe historical lens that is akin to an excerpt from Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978). While the right-leaning may argue that certain cultural characteristics make Turkey a “stranger” to Europe, this is far from the real story which is that Turkey has never been disengaged from its neighbour.
It is important to note that the Union’s decision regarding Turkish membership was conducted as “non-binding” vote. There is much to be gained from bilateral relations between Turkey and the European Union as the former’s contributions as both a regional and diplomatic power is evident throughout its history thus demonstrating the values shared and promoted by the Union; particularly in relation to the Syrian conflict and refugee crisis. However, this recent decision of the European Union is not one driven by prejudice but reticence to give membership to a country that currently doesn’t meet the criteria. While Turkey needs to reaffirm in ideology and practice its reform path in ensuring its development, the EU must remain observant and monitor the country’s commitment to economic expansion and social development if they are genuine to resuming accession talks. Both parties need to remind themselves that this issue shouldn’t be appropriated from chosen historical triumphs and traumas as the process of Turkey- EU is part of a complex narrative that shows how and why the world shifts. This is not about the glory of empires but acknowledging that the cooperation of stable nations relies on diplomatic engagement and economic responsibility. While the European Union strives to protect the integrity of its institution built on state democracy and global economic development, it is important to note that Turkey’s inherent objective is not influenced by a need to impose but to become a fully recognised part of a vital international collective intent on promoting and sustaining cooperation and security politically, economically and socially. It doesn’t have to be a story with a predictably cynical conclusion.
