Turkey’s EU Bid and the Middle East

Since 9/11, international relations (IR) has become one of the sexiest subjects to study, with university courses worldwide massively oversubscribed and academic bookstores drowning in Dummies’ Guides to Unilateral Geostrategy. Damla Aras is indubitably one of IR’s sexiest practitioners.

 Currently completing her second PhD at King’s College in London, Aras is at the forefront of a new generation of international relations scholars, with particular expertise on the Middle East and southeast Europe. She has been interviewed on Al Jazeera as well as appearing on Turkish television stations NTV, Kanal A, TV8 and TRT and writing for mass circulation daily Milliyet ; Aras’s knowledge is so respected that she has even briefed the Turkish parliament on the delicate issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Yet, despite being a genuine star in the field of international relations, in person Aras is engagingly modest in addition to being seriously photogenic. When meeting up with her for this interview in London’s Tower Hill, she wore the international uniform of the student : blue jeans and a very cool sweatshirt. Aras was also philosophical about conducting this interview in Starbucks, a suitable venue for a discussion about some of the most pressing global issues of our time : Turkey’s entry to the European Union ; the Middle East crisis ; and all too briefly, this summer’s World Cup finals.

 Damla, let’s start with the big question that’s on everybody’s lips : will Turkey eventually join the EU ?

Well, I don’t think it’s totally up to Turkey. There are many different aspects to the situation. First of all, there are criteria that the European Union asks from all candidate countries which are merely technical — those concerning human rights, economic stability, etc. But there are also other issues that will make a difference for Turkey’s membership, such as history and culture, which have not been major concerns with other candidates, such as those from Eastern Europe

With most of the Eastern European candidates, Western Europe has historically had a relationship with at least some warmth, but Turkey as the Ottoman Empire has always been « the Other » of Europe. In terms of the situation at the moment, what Turkey needs to do in theory is meet the technical criteria, but what the Germans or Austrians or French really think about Turkey’s accession is another matter. It’s not only about politics and economics ; it’s a decision for the peoples of European countries as well. Whether Turkey can overcome all the historical prejudices against them remains to be seen.

That’s one issue. Then there is the matter of religion. Even though Turkey is a secular state, over 90 percent of its people are Muslims. Especially considering the recent history of the relationship between Islam and the West, this is not a small thing. As you know, Samuel Huntington’s « Clash of Civilizations » has become a big topic. Obviously Turkey’s secular identity has come a long way, but Islam still plays an important role in many people’s lives in Turkey. Even the leadership of the current ruling party, the Justice and Development Party, has a strong Muslim identity. Thus, how the West perceives Turkey is very important.

 If historically, culturally and religiously, Turkey has been defined as « the Other » of the West, is it now possible to overcome this perception and admit Turkey into the European Union ?

The decision-makers in Europe may see Turkey’s accession as a good opportunity to bridge the East-West gap, as Turkey gives a good example of how two cultures can live together. On the other hand, there are a lot of points of contention between Turkey and the EU.

For instance, Turkey’s approach to the Kurdish issue is very different to that of the European Union. Of course, Turkey wants to accommodate some EU demands to improve reconciliation between Turks and Kurds. However, there are limits to this. It’s the same with the Armenian issue. Recognition of the Armenian genocide in EU countries such as France — something which is hotly disputed in Turkey — both these issues will cause a lot of problems between Turkey and the European Union.

Then of course, you have the role of the military, which has been an important institution not just in modern Turkey, but historically in the Ottoman Empire, as well. Obviously the military plays a much greater role in Turkish society than is acceptable for a candidate country. But whether the EU limitations on the role of the military are feasible in the context of perceived internal and external threats, e.g. the conflict with the Kurdish separatist group the PKK, or threats stemming from Turkey’s geostrategic location is a big question mark.

The Turkish military would be more willing to give up its rights if the generals believed that after all the EU-inspired reforms, Turkey would be given membership. However, they believe that the EU has double standards towards Turkey and suspect that even after doing everything the EU wants, Turkey may not be granted with accession and they may have to deal with the chaos created by the EU demands such as an independent Kurdish state comprising the south-eastern part of Turkey.

Another important issue is Turkey’s relations with Greece and Greek Cyprus, especially now the latter is now a full member of the European Union. For Turkey to take the necessary steps to protect its own interests in Cyprus, yet at the same time not collide with Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration, is very difficult.

 So these are the potential risk areas. Can they be overcome ?

Well, I think it’s a very, very long process, and each step is a potential risk to strain relations between Turkey and the European Union.

So to summarize, there are historical, cultural and religious aspects to Turkey’s accession, and also there are institutions that are perceived as vital in Turkish domestic politics that conflict with some EU demands. The Armenian and Kurdish issues, Europe’s attitude towards the PKK, and also Turkey’s foreign policy, especially the problems with Greece and the Greek Cypriots : each of these will pop up one by one, and the pressure coming from EU countries to lessen the military’s influence over foreign policy decisions looks to be a very hard pill to swallow.

 Since 2002, the Turkish government has taken unprecedented steps towards social liberalization. Restrictions on freedom of expression have been lifted and broadcasts of Kurdish language programs by private TV channels are no longer prohibited. However, the case of Orhan Pamuk shows that the judiciary still apply fairly conservative interpretations of concepts such as « national security. » Is this likely to change ?

Change in Turkey is a must and it is inevitable, but you need to understand one thing : these interpretations have not come out of nowhere. They have emerged out of the history and geography of Turkey. If you look at what is going on currently in the Middle East, you can understand why Turkey fears the possible emergence of a Kurdish state and resents the Armenian claims on eastern Turkey.

You only have to look at the 1920 Treaty of Sevres, the treaty that dismantled Turkey’s predecessor state, the Ottoman Empire, to see why this is the case. According to this treaty, in the eastern part of Anatolia, an Armenian state would be established and in southeast Anatolia an independent Kurdish state was to be created. In Turkey, there is something called « Sevres Paranoia, » but it’s difficult to say how much is constructed threat perception and how much is based on facts. Some part of this perceived threat may be called as conspiracy theory, but there is also possibility that there may be truth in it. If you look at the reshaping of the Middle East in 1900s and the Western strategies in the region, it seems nothing is that impossible. Especially if you look at what is going on in northern Iraq, it’s the emergence of a free Kurdish state. Gradually we could witness the creation of an internationally-recognized Kurdish state in the north of what was Iraq.

In the 1990s, Jalal Talabani, a prominent Iraqi Kurdish leader who is now president of Iraq, was making references to the Treaty of Sevres and how the Kurds’ right to establish an independent country was taken from them. Also, many people believe that the president of the Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq, Masud Barzani, is influential in the southeastern part of Turkey.

To some, this might be paranoia. But given the historical context of division in 1919-1920, then it is inevitable that in the psyche of the nation and of Turkish decision-makers, the perception of threat is shaped with all these concepts and notions. And current affairs seem to show similar phenomena influencing decision-making. If you look at the state of the world then you can see examples of why Turkish politicians might be cautious. A large number of countries now recognize the Armenian genocide ; it is clear that internationally, Turkish Cypriot interests are not valued as much as those of the Greek Cypriots. Therefore it is not surprising that Turkish security policies are moulded by this perception that Turkish interests are under threat.

Now, as to what happened to Orhan Pamuk, he’s not the only one. If you look at Hrant Dink, the editor of Agos, an Armenian-language newspaper in Turkey, criminal charges were also filed against him for « denigrating the Turkish state. » This no doubt must change. These are basic freedoms of people which in the West are commonly accepted and used by everyone, whereas in Turkey this is not settled. But having said that rather than just reactionarily blaming Turkey, one should try and understand why this type of paranoia is emerging. Obviously the European Union accession process will force Turkey to change, as will the influence of globalization, which is inevitably affecting attitudes towards basic freedoms in Turkey as well.

I think that every country must be evaluated within their own context and circumstances. Just like human beings, the psychology of the state must be understood and necessary steps must be taken accordingly to obtain a constructive result.

 Support for EU membership in Turkey has declined somewhat in recent months, though still around 60 percent of people in Turkey support accession. Why is this ?

As I mentioned above, because most Turks believe at both decision-making and ground levels that double-standards are being applied by the EU towards their application for full membership. If Turkey could meet European Union accession demands knowing that in the end there will be membership of the EU, there would be no problems. However, this is patently not the case. In the eye of the Turk, the goalposts keep shifting — the more Turkey gives, the more the EU asks. And at the end of this process, Turkey is not guaranteed to be a member.

Don’t forget that in the first World War, the Ottoman Empire fought against the French, the Italians and the British, but they also fought against those same forces during the Turkish War of Independence. So when Turks see the EU making controversial policy demands, they don’t see it as a human rights or political issue, but they have suspicions that these demands are part of an agenda with its aim as the total destruction of the Turkish state. Turkish people feel that in the worst case scenario, their country might be divided and membership not obtained.

A lot of people perceive Turkey as an economically backward country. However, since 2002, growth rates have been consistently impressive — comparable to China’s, only from a much higher base.

There’s no doubt about it, especially lately, Turkey has been quite successful economically, especially compared with past. The fight with inflation has been especially notable. Economic policies have generally been much more successful. However, in terms of unemployment there is still a big problem, and the improvement in the economy does not reflect in the pockets of the average person. The numbers are impressive, but they don’t translate that well at ground level. They have not made a lot of difference to most people. The real success will be when all these achievements are felt by the general population.

 What can Turkey bring to the EU ?

A huge market ; a young population, especially compared to that of the EU ; a cheaper market not just in terms of wages but economic inputs generally ; a gateway to Central Asia and the Middle East. Turkey is a place where everything from energy pipelines to peoples and cultures meet. Turkey can help better relations between Europe and the Middle East, and it can be a good channel between the European Union and Central Asia.

 How would you describe the new generation in Turkey ? Are their desires the same as young people everywhere, or do they have more specific goals ?

It’s like everywhere : young people want better jobs, education, lives. Especially in big cities such as Istanbul and Ankara, the aspirations of people are exactly the same as in the U.K. And really cultural hegemony is everywhere, so whatever is trendy in the West — from « Desperate Housewives » to MTV, from music to movies - everything is the same in Turkey too.

Having said that, in my opinion, the climate in Turkey is more socially conservative ; people’s values are a mixture of Middle Eastern and Western ones.

 « The Clash of Civilizations » or « End of History » ?

Both of them are American constructs. They do not reflect the ideas of others. What Fukuyama and Huntington say may be valid for the United States and its aspirations, not the rest of the world. These theses should be considered as good brainstorming sessions, not as universal rules. To take the « The Clash of Civilizations » or « The End of History » as the Bible of international relations is rather mistaken. Both are good for brain gymnastics, but that’s all.

Every civilization has their own value system and something to contribute to the world. A country or one civilization declaring the end of history or prophesizing that there will be a clash of civilizations...the latter concept is really harmful. It has become a motto which everyone uses as it has received global acclaim. Today, China and India are rising powers. In international relations, every empire has a start, a peak and an end. Whether it’s going to be today, tomorrow or 100 years later doesn’t matter, all of them have an end.

 Let’s move on to current geostrategic questions. Turkey surprisingly refused a lucrative U.S. offer of $30 billion for cooperation in Iraq. Would the Turkish people support a military strike against Iran, or are they in favor of a diplomatic solution ?

Of course, Turkey would favor a diplomatic solution. Both Iran and Iraq are Turkey’s neighbors, and starting from the late 1990s, there has been a significant improvement in relations between Turkey and these countries. They have mutual concerns, such as security, prevention of the emergence of Kurdish states and so on, so I don’t think that U.S. designs on the Middle East overlap with Turkey’s in this case.

Most decision-makers in Turkey do not approve of Iran’s nuclear program, unless it is used for civilian purposes. However they do not perceive a direct threat coming from Iran either. And also a conflict with Iran will further destabilize the Middle East. So, neither decision-makers nor ordinary people agree on the U.S. designs on Iraq or Iran.

In the very unlikely event of military action, there might be limited use of air bases like Incirlik. During the Iraq war, Turkey refused deployment of 62,000 U.S. troops in Turkey. However, during the early stages of the operation, Incirlik airbase was still used by the United States forces. There was a limited use, but not in the way that the US wanted.

 Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has been very enthusiastic about deepening economic and diplomatic relations to the Western Balkans countries such as Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Is this trend likely to continue ?

Yes, of course. Turkey has always wanted to develop better relations with surrounding countries, Iran, Iraq, Syria and with other countries as well. Just like the Middle East, Turkey has a historic bond with the Balkans. At every opportunity, such as the crises in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 1990s, Turkey actively participated and played an important role in finding workable solutions. So in the region, it is for the interests of no one to clash, rather to improve bilateral relations in the interests of everyone.

 Finally, Turkey was knocked out by Switzerland and will not be at this year’s World Cup finals. Who will you be supporting instead ?

I have no idea ! I don’t know anything about the World Cup. If it was something like fashion or girlie stuff, maybe. But football ? Yuck !