Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T03:12:14.551Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Luxembourg, Helsinki and Beyond: Towards an Interpretation of Recent Turkey‐EU Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Ziya Öniş
Ziya Öniş*
Affiliation:
Koç University, Istanbul
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The European Union has undergone four successive rounds of enlargement since its inception in 1957. Currently, the EU finds itself in the midst of a new wave of enlargement, in the context of a simultaneous process of ‘deepening’ and ‘widening’. The enlargement process in progress, aims to incorporate the former communist countries on the eastern periphery of the Community. It is rather ironic, however, that Turkey, one of the earliest applicants for membership of the Community, is not included among the group of states, notably the four Visegrad countries (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia) which enjoy a serious prospect of being admitted into the Community in the near future. This constitutes a paradoxical development in the sense that the claims of these countries for full EU membership are very recent, dating back to their liberation from communist rule in the aftermath of the revolutions of 1989.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , October 2000 , pp. 463 - 483
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On the origins, dynamics and conjectures concerning the future course of the EU enlargement process, see Redmond, John and Rosenthal, Glenda G. (eds), The Expanding European Union. Past, Present and Future, Boulder, Colo. and London, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998.Google Scholar

2 The major conclusions of the Luxembourg Summit of December 1997 are presented in the European Commission’s Report, Agenda 2000: For a Stronger and Wider Union, Luxembourg, Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities, 1997.

3 On the nature of the European Union as a civilizational project and its perception of Turkey as the ‘other’ of Europe see Öni¸s, Ziya, ‘Turkey, Europe and Paradoxes of Identity: Perspectives on the International Context of Democratization’, Mediterranean Quarterly, 10:3 (Summer 1999), pp. 109–136 Google Scholar and Müftüler-Baç, Meltem, ‘The Never-Ending Story: Turkey and the European Union’, Middle Eastern Studies, 34:4 (1998), pp. 240–58.Google Scholar

4 On the outcome of the Helsinki Summit, see Keminski, Matthew, ‘EU Reaches Accord with Turkey: Ankara Accepts Offer to Apply for Membership’, Wall Street Journal, 13 12 1999;Google Scholar Kirzner, Stephen, ‘Turks Jubilant as Europeans Unlock Door’, New York Times, 13 12 1999;Google Scholar Peel, Quentin and Boulton, Leyla, ‘Little is Left to Chance in Turkey’s Bid for Europe’, Financial Times, 13 12 1999 Google Scholar. On the official text of the Helsinki Summit, see Presidency Conclusions, the Helsinki European Council, 10 and 11 December 1999.

5 The United States has also been concerned with Turkey’s human rights record in recent years. See the web page of the US Department of State, Turkey: Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1998, available at: http://www.state.gov (27 April 2000).

6 On the evolution of Turkey-EU relations, see Balkir, Canan, ‘The Customs Union and Beyond’, in Rittenberg, Libby (ed.), The Political Economy of Turkey in the Post-Soviet Era: Going West and Looking East?, Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press, 1998, pp. 51–78 Google Scholar and Kramer, Heinz, A Changing Turkey. The Challenge to Europe and the United States, Washington DC, Brookings Institute Press, 2000.Google Scholar For the text of the Ankara Agreement signed on 1 September 1963, see the web page of Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, available at: http://www.mfa.gov.tr (27 April 2000).

7 On the southern enlargement process of the EU, see Preston, Christopher, Enlargement and Integration in the European Union, London, Routledge, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On the contrasting fortunes of Greece and Spain incorporated into the European Union and Turkey excluded from the process in the post-1980 era, see Tayfur, Fatih, ‘Yunanistan ve Ispanya’nin Avrupalilasma Serüveni ve Türkiye: Iki Nikah ve Bir Cenaze’, in Eralp, Atila (ed.), Türkiye ve Avrupa, Ankara, Imge Kitabevi, 1997.Google Scholar

8 On the ambiguities and contradictions underlying the EU’s ‘foreign policy’, see Zielonka, Jan (ed.), Paradoxes of European Foreign Policy, The Hague and London, Kluwer Law International, 1998.Google Scholar

9 On the nature of the recent social democratic wave in Europe, its intellectual origins and its emphasis on ‘multicultural citizenship’, see Dyson, Kenneth, ‘Benign or Malevolent Leviathan? Social Democratic Governments in a Neo-Liberal Euro Area’, The Political Quarterly, 70:2 (1999), pp. 195–209;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Duncan, Kelly, ‘Multicultural Citizenship: The Limitations of Liberal Democracy’, The Political Quarterly, 71:1 (2000), pp. 31–40;Google Scholar Giddens, Anthony, The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1998 Google Scholar and Kymlicka, Will, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, New York, Oxford University Press, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Indeed, explicit references to multicultural citizenship appear in the political programmes of both German Social Democrats and the British Labour Party. See ‘the Basic Policy Programme of Social Democratic Party of Germany’ available at http://www.spd.de/english/politics/programme01.html and ‘Labour Party Policies’ concerning democracy and citizenship available at: http://www.labour.org.uk.

10 It is estimated that 3.2 million Turks live in Europe, a very large proportion of whom are based in Germany. Interesting research has been undertaken in recent years by the Research Centre for Studies on Turkey based in Essen, Germany under the direction of Faruk S¸en, concerning the economic activities of the Turkish population both in Germany and in Europe at large, research which has drawn attention to the rapid rise of entrepreneurial activity among these groups. For a number of publications concerning Turks in Europe, see the Centre’s web page available at: http://www.uni-essen.de/zft (27 April 2000).

11 Concerning overlapping identities and the complex nature of interaction between Turks in Germany and Turks in mainland Turkey, see the interesting article by Kevin Robbins, ‘Interrupting Identities: Turkey/Europe’ in Stuart Hall and Paul du Gay (eds), Questions of Cultural Identity, London and Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, Sage Publications, 1996, pp. 61–86.

12 For a good discussion of the citizenship issue which has played an important role in the German general elections of September 1999, tilting the balance in favour of the SPD, see ‘Who Should be German, Then?’, The Economist, 4 July 1998, p. 27 and ‘Turkish Germans’, The Economist, 9 January 1999, p. 15.

13 For an attempt to uncover the psychological bases of the Turco-Greek conf lict, see Volkan, Vamik D. and Itzkowitz, Norman, Turks and Greeks: Neighbours in Conflict, Huntingdon, The Eothen Press, 1994.Google Scholar

14 For a valuable analysis of the economic bases underlying the recent rapprochement between Turkey and Greece, see Theodore Coulumbis, ‘Greece and Turkey: Dawn of a New Era?’, paper presented at the International Relations Seminar, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey, 25 February 2000. Coulumbis argues that rapid economic development and growing possibilites for mutual economic gains from further interaction are exercising a positive influence over Turkey–Greece relations. For another useful analysis of the multiple influences at work underlying the recent Turkish–Greek rapprochement, see Gülden Ayman, S., ‘Springtime in the Aegean’, Private View, 8, 2000, pp. 56–60.Google Scholar

15 The Turkish Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association, TÜSIAD, is an interest association representing large-scale firms or conglomerates which play an important role in the Turkish economy. On the important role performed by businessmen in general and TÜSIAD in particular on the road from Luxembourg to Helsinki, particularly in terms of inf luencing the decisions of two key countries Germany and Greece, valuable information has been provided by TÜSIAD Chairman, Erkut Yücaogv lu, in an interview on the Turkish TV channel, Kanal D, 23 December 1999.

16 The United States has been critical of the EU’s decision in Luxembourg to exclude Turkey from candidate status right from the outset. See Stephen Kirzner, ‘US Pressing European Union to be More Friendly to Turkey’, New York Times, 5 January 1998. Indeed, the US has consistently pushed for Turkey’s candidacy throughout the period leading to the Helsinki Summit. President Clinton’s visit to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) meeting held in Istanbul during November 1999 represented the climax of such efforts. This visit was intended to persuade the European leaders to take a favourable decision in respect to Turkey. On the Clinton visit and the OSCE Summit, see Charles Babington, ‘Improve Rights Record, Clinton Urges’, Washington Post, 16 November 1999.

17 See in this context Rumford, Chris, ‘Turkey and European Enlargement: CrossBorder Projects and a Pre-Accession Strategy for Non-Members’, New Perspectives on Turkey, 19 (Fall 1998), pp. 71–96 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Kramer, Heinz, ‘Turkey–EU Customs Union Economic Integration and Political Turmoil’, Mediterranenan Politics, 1:1, 1996, pp. 60– 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 On the most recent set of economic reforms designed to reduce the structural budget deficit and the persistently high rates of inf lation in the Turkish economy, see OECD Economic Surveys, Turkey, 1998–1999, Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 1999. On the growing optimism concerning Turkey’s ability to undertake the reforms required in the favorable external context provided by the Helsinki Summit, see Öni¸s, Ziya, ‘The Turkish Economy at the Turn of a New Centruy: Critical and Comparative Perspectives’, in Abramowitz, Morton (ed.), Turkey’s Transformation and American Policy, Washington, DC, The Century Foundation, 2000, pp. 95–115.Google Scholar

19 On Günter Verheugen’s visit to Turkey during March 2000, see Stephen Kirzner, ‘EU Again Tells Turkey, It Must Be More Democratic’, New York Times, 11 March 2000.

20 For a critical examination of the ‘Kurdish problem’ in Turkey and for non-military solutions to the problem, see Kiri¸sçi, Kemal and Winrow, Gareth, The Kurdish Quesiton and Turkey: An Example of a Trans-state Ethnic Conflict, London, Frank Cass, 1997.Google Scholar

21 For a discussion of the strong state tradition and the official state ideology, see Heper, Metin and Keyman, Fuat, ‘Double-Faced State: Political Patronage and the Consolidation of Democracy in Turkey’, Middle Eastern Studies, 34:4, 1998, pp. 259–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The ‘Sèvres Syndrome’ has deep historical roots going back to the total collapse of the Ottoman Empire by the end of the First World War. The Turkish state faced a situation of near extinction following the Sèvres Treaty of 1920, whereby Asia Minor was partitioned among the victorious allies. The process was only to be reversed by the War of Independence during the early 1920s, leading to the creation of the modern Republic in 1923. On the ‘Sèvres Syndrome’, see Kemal Kiri¸sçi, ‘Turkish Foreign Policy and the EU’, paper presented at the Bogv aziçi University, Centre for European Studies Conference on ‘Turkey in the European Union: A Question of Image or Governance?’, 3 December 1999 and ‘Turkey’ in Stelios Starvidis, Theodore Couloumbis, Thanos Veremis and Neville Waites (eds), The Foreign Policies of the European Union’s Mediterranean States and Applicant Countries in the 1990s, London, Macmillan Press, 1998.

22 For a recent attempt to classify and characterize the different political parties in Turkey, see Ziya Öni¸s, ‘Neoliberal Globalization and the Democracy Paradox: Interpreting the Turkish General Elections of 1999’, Journal of International Affairs, 2000 (forthcoming).

23 Concerning the argument that a major constitutional change is needed in Turkey to accommodate the requirements of full EU membership, given the strong emphasis on ‘state sovereignty’ by the current constitutional order, see Bülent Sözer, ‘Some Remarks and Comments on the European Law with Particular Reference to the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey’, mimeographed, Bogv aziçi University, Istanbul.

24 On the imposition of diplomatic sanctions on Austria by the EU in response to the participation in government of the far-right Freedom Party under the leadership of Haider, see Konstantin Richter, ‘Austrian Response to EU Sanctions is more Muted than Mutinuous’, Wall Street Journal Europe, 7 April 2000. The basic thrust of the EU’s approach is that participation in a member government should be subject to specific rules which reflect the basic values of the EU. Nobody has asked, however, that the respective party should be outlawed and its leader put in gaol. Hence, one needs to exercise a certain degree of caution in making direct comparison with Turkey in this instance.

25 On the significance of a conducive international environment for democratic consolidation in newly-emerging democratic polities, see Whitehead, Laurence (ed.), The International Dimensions of Democratization: Europe and the Americas, New York, Oxford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar

26 TÜSIAD has published a number of studies on different aspects of democratization notably on legal and electoral reform in Turkey during the course of the 1990s. Among these the most important and controversial is Türkiye’de Demokratiklesme Perspektifleri, Istanbul, Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen’s Association, 1997.