Home >> Europe >> European Union

     Email   Print 

Turkey: Europe's Dilemma?

Teymur Huseyinov - 5/4/2005

Until a few years ago most Western analysts regarded Turkey as a gray zone, a hopeless country drowning in the mud of its outdated political system and faced with a real danger of being cast into the fold of radical Islam. As I recall those times, I remember an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former US National Security Advisor and grandee of contemporary strategic thought, who stated that one of the unluckiest routes Turkey could follow would be to gain an image of an anti-European Middle Eastern country, or at least of a state rejected and totally disheartened by Europe. The argument followed that Turkey's need for Europe was in absolute terms more than the latter's need for the former. Because, Brzezinski argued, Europe was a successful and modern society that could thrive without Turkey, while Turkey had little chance of modernizing and reaching a desired developmental level without tying itself to Europe.



Another point that drove attention at that time was about Turkey's overreliance on the United States. Many political analysts, especially in the United States, warned that being a NATO member did not mean that one could automatically rely on, above all, America's help at all times. It was therefore indispensable that Turkey become EU member in order to guarantee its future security. However, they advised, for this it needed to continue its efforts at proving that it was moving towards the goal of establishing a modern "European state". The core of the whole debate was that NATO could tie Europe to the USA for one more generation to come, but the dynamics of future Trans-Atlantic relations were uncertain.



Obviously, the direction and tone of the debate is more positive--now that Turkey has been granted a date for the start of accession negotiations set for October of the current year. Was it still true that Turkey is going to be the sole beneficiary of this prospective partnership with the EU? Are not there any points of convergence and mutual benefit? What first has to be born in mind is that Turkey's final place in the EU has mostly to do with strategic and security factors. The two major contributions Turkey could make to the EU in these areas would be as follows: By becoming the full member of the Union it would give the best answer to the instigating arguments of the sorts of "civilization clashes" founded on religious antagonisms. Accepting a Muslim country would alleviate concerns that the EU is a Christian club and demonstrate the compatibility of Islam with liberal democracy, while serving as a brilliant example for the whole Muslim world. Next, it is the opportunity and advantage that Turkey--as a geopolitical and geoeconomic pivot--would give Europe to become much more influential in the Middle East, and post-Soviet Caucasus and Central Asia, considering historical, cultural and religious ties and geographical proximity.



Adding to Turkey's attraction is the fact that its economy and population, with an average age of 26.5, are growing fast, unlike those of many ageing EU members. It would be a valuable member considering its military strength and effective foreign policy. Perhaps most important, EU membership would strengthen the record-breaking democratic and human rights reforms that Turkey has already made. In this area, Prime Minister Erdogan's administration has achieved more in the past two years than virtually all the preceding Turkish political parties during the whole previous decade. Indeed, we have lately witnessed an impressive pace of convergence in Turkey towards EU standards, owing to political consolidation that has greatly weakened ideological and bureaucratic dogmas.



For all the misgivings of the European public--expressed most vocally in France, Austria and from the German opposition party, Christian Democrats, headed by the outspoken and opinionated Angela Merkel--the stance of Europe's business elite seems solidly in favor of starting the membership process. Hence, it did not come out as a major surprise when the French co-president of the French-Turkish business council, Louis Scweitzer, spoke in favor of full membership. Behind such an enthusiasm of the European business is Turkey's strong economic growth of the past three years in addition to the government's modernization programs that are laying the basis for important trade and investment opportunities.



The lure of eventual EU membership has been a powerful force for reform. It has pushed the Turkish government towards a radical restructuring of public services and the banking system and led to the improvement of administrative methods, some of them intact for over 80 years. Ankara has stuck diligently to tight public spending, brought the military budget under civilian control, cut away at a massive and inefficient bureaucratic machine, and learned to rely on an independent central bank for the management of monetary policy. More to the point, the recent report released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which put strong emphasis on Turkey's increasing dynamism, and potential is encouraging in this regard. Boosted by such crucial factors as falling inflation and interest rates, improving consumer confidence and spending, plus a stable lira, the OECD 2004 GDP growth projection of 10% for Turkey was nearly achieved.



The Turkish economy is more intertwined with Europe than at any previous point in modern history. It already is in a customs union with the EU and conducts more than half of its trade with it. Foreign investment flows--which demonstrate a clear European domination--also bear witness to this. A case in point is Turkish eurobonds, currently among the attractive, if not the most attractive, in the emerging markets that are being devoured by the European investment funds, some of them known for their traditionally strict conservatism and risk-aversion.



In view of the prominence given to energy security and the diversification of energy resources and routes in the EU agenda in recent years, Turkey could become an important element in the regional picture. This is where it could exploit the advantages of its geographic location acting as a conduit for export pipelines for the transit of Caspian and potentially Iranian and northern Iraqi oil and gas riches to Europe.



Yet one problem that sticks in pundits' minds and bothers the EU decision-makers is whether Turkey, a country with such a long record of economic crises and instability--a legacy of its archaic institutional structure--can absorb the challenges of European integration. The signals seem to be positive from most directions, ranging from thin tanks to investment banks, for which the critical determinant is whether Turkey will maintain its present growth rates. There is a strong case to be made that the 'EU anchor' will remain the key determining factor in this regard, as it would greatly enhance institutional convergence that would further reduce political instability, create policy predictability and push for more political and economic freedoms.



Clearly it is believed and understood in Turkish as well as in many European diplomatic circles that strategic alliance with the United States is a priority with regards to security concerns of a certain country, within the framework of the current realities of the international system. Nevertheless, this concern alone may not serve as a prospect for building a solid basis for the state and society from the perspective of achieving modernity, prosperity and enhancing a stable democratic future. It goes without doubt to say that a country neighboring Europe is more likely to pursue and cherish democracy and moderation while being a member of the EU rather than continuing to grudgingly function outside of it. If a country surrounded with mostly unstable states and alternative political, economic, societal and religious models would be rejected from the progressive European club it would be advised not to expect it to pursue democratic means of conduct in its domestic and foreign policy decision-making. When viewed from this perspective it should not be that hard to foresee the real possibility of radicalization of Turkish society where such contending models could push it to different orbits. This would create a situation extremely undesirable for Europe and essentially for the whole liberal Western community.



Europe should not choose the strategy of global confrontation with forces of radical ideologies concentrated so close to its borders that could cause all kinds of havoc for it. Opportunity for peace and order presents itself to successive generations in the form of problems and predicaments. The dilemma of our time was perhaps best described by the philosopher Immanuel Kant, who in his essay "Perpetual Peace" wrote that mankind was destined for perpetual peace. It would come about either by human prudence and foresight or by a series of catastrophes that leave no other choice. History has given Europe a chance to demonstrate to the whole world that primacy should be given to partnership and cooperation rather than solely to use of a gun for fostering democracy and free-market values abroad. Therefore, the EU, which aspires to become a global power center--above all as an imperative of its own strategic interests--should think hard on this opportunity and welcome Turkey in when the time comes.