Incompatibilities in Turkish and European Security Cultures Diminish Turkey's Prospects for EU Membership

Abstract

Turkey's heavy involvement in Middle Eastern politics following the end of the Cold War eroded its Western image in the eyes of most Europeans and strengthened the hands of those who have traditionally argued against Turkey's EU membership by referring to the unbridgeable inherent differences between the parties in terms of cultural, historical, religious, and geographical considerations.

Notes

1. M. Kibaroglu, ‘Security Implications of Turkey's March Toward European Union Membership’, in J.S. Joseph (ed.), Turkey and the European Union: Internal Dynamics and External Challenges (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, 2006), pp.178–90.

2. T. Diez, ‘Turkey, the European Union and Security Complexes Revisited’, Mediterranean Politics, Vol.10, No.2 (2005), pp.167–80.

3. G. Sorenson, ‘State Transformation and New Security Dilemmas’, in E. Aydinli and J.N. Rosenau (eds.), Globalization, Security and the Nation State (New York: SUNY Press, 2005), pp.81–97.

4. B. Buzan and T. Diez. ‘The European Union and Turkey’, Survival, Vol.41, No.1 (1999), pp.41–57; M. Kibaroglu, ‘The Generals’ Discontent’, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol.57, No.2 (2001), pp.28–30.

5. C.O. Meyer, ‘Convergence towards a European Strategic Culture? A Constructivist Framework of Explaining Changing Norms’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol.11, No.4 (2005), pp.523–49.

6. M. Webber, S. Croft, J. Howorth, T. Terriff and E. Krahmann, ‘The Governance of European Security’, Review of International Studies, Vol.30, No.1 (2004), pp.3–26; E. Krahmann, ‘Conceptualizing Security Governance’, Cooperation and Conflict, Vol.38, No.1 (2003), pp.5–26.

7. M.A. Smith and G. Timmins, ‘The EU, NATO and the Extension of Institutional Order in Europe’, World Affairs, Vol.163, No.2 (2000), pp.80–89.

8. B. Rumelili, ‘Constructing Identity and Relating to Difference: Understanding the EU's mode of Differentiation’, Review of International Studies, Vol.30, No.1 (2004), pp.27–47.

9. O. Waever, ‘Identity, Integration and Security’, Journal of International Affairs, Vol.48, No.2 (1995), pp.389–431.

10. J. Lindley-French, ‘European Defense: New Threats, New Missions and New Actors’, Military Technology, Vol.26, No.6 (2002), pp.10–14.

11. A. Missiroli, ‘Ploughshares into Swords? Europe for European Defense’, European Foreign Affairs Review, Vol.8, No.3 (2003), pp.5–33.

12. D. Levy and N. Sznaider, ‘Sovereignty Transformed: A Sociology of Human Rights’, British Journal of Sociology, Vol.57, No.4 (2006), pp.657–76.

13. M.M. Gunter, ‘Turkey's Floundering EU Candidacy and Its Kurdish Problem’, Middle East Policy, Vol.14, No.1 (2007), pp.117–23.

14. A. Buonfina, ‘Between Unity and Plurality: The Politicization and Securitization of the Discourse of Immigration in Europe’, New Political Science, Vol.26, No.1 (2004), pp.23–49.

15. M.A. Ruiz-Himenez and J.L. Torreblanca, European Public Opinion and Turkey's Accession: Making Sense of Arguments for and Against (Center for European Public Studies, EPIN Working Papers, No.16, May 2007), http://shop.ceps.eu/BookDetail.php?item_id=1494.

16. E.S. Hurd, ‘Negotiating Europe: The Politics of Religion and the Prospects of Turkish Accession’, Review of International Studies, Vol.32, No.3 (2006), pp.401–18.

17. N. Nugent, ‘The EU's Response to Turkey's Membership Application: Not Just a Weighing of Costs and Benefits’, European Integration, Vol.29, No.4 (2007), pp.484–5.

18. Ibid., pp.484–7.

19. N. Sarkozy, ‘Liberté, Fraternité and Modernité?’National Interest (July–August 2007), pp.14–15.

20. F.S. Berenskotter, ‘Mapping the Mind Gap: A Comparison of US and European Security Strategies’, Security Dialogue, Vol.36, No.1 (2005), pp.71–92.

21. L.M. McLaren, ‘Explaining Opposition to Turkish Membership of the EU’, European Union Politics, Vol.8, No.2 (2007), pp.256–8.

22. S. Cagaptay, Secularism and Foreign Policy in Turkey: New Elections, Troubling Trends (Policy Focus 67, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, April 2007), http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php?CID=268.

23. The text of the shared vision, ‘Is the West Losing Turkey?’, Economist, Vol.381, No.8500 (21 October 2006), pp.13–14, http://turkey.usembassy.gov/utils/eprintpage.html; ‘The Awkward Partners’, Economist, Vol.380, No.8497 (30 September 2006), pp.61–2.

24. ‘Kurt Sorunu Yabanci Kiskirtmasi’[The Kurdish Problem is Provoked by Outsiders], Milliyet, 24 (2007), available online at http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2007/03/24/guncel/agun.html (accessed 24 March 2007).

25. F. Moustakis and R. Chaudhuri. ‘Turkish–Kurdish Relations and the European Union: An Unprecedented Shift in the Kemalist Paradigm?’, Mediterranean Quarterly, Vol.16, No.4 (2005), pp.77–89.

26. See http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/424073.asp ‘‘AB'den Turkiye'ye Dayanisma Mesaji (The support message from EU to Turkey).

27. R. Cakir, Turkiye'nin Kurt Sorunu[Turkey's Kurdish Problem] (Istanbul: Metis Yayinlari, 2004), pp.13–48.

28. M. Kibaroglu, ‘Turkey Says No’, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol.59, No.4 (2003), pp.22–5; ‘America between the Turks and Kurds’, Economist, Vol.381, No.8508 (16 December 2006), pp.43–4; S. Sachs, ‘U.S. Tells Turks It Won't Fight Kurds’, The New York Times, Vol.154, No.53092 (1 December 2005), p.A10; B. Park, ‘Iraq's Kurds and Turkey: Challenges for US Policy’, Parameters: US Army War College, Vol.34, No.3 (2004), pp.18–30.

29. M. Kibaroglu, ‘Clash of Interest over Northern Iraq Drives Turkish–Israeli Alliance to a Crossroads’, The Middle East Journal, Vol.59, No.2 (2005), pp.246–64.

30. D. Phillips, ‘A Plan for Iraq's Kurds’, Wall Street Journal, 10 June 2004.

31. George Marshall Fund, http://www.transatlantictrends.org/doc/2006_TT_Key%20Findings%20FINAL.pdf.

32. G. Avci, ‘Turkey's Slow EU Candidacy: Insurmountable Hurdles to Membership or Simple Euro-Skepticism’, in A. Carkoglu and B. Rubin (eds.), Turkey and the European Union, Domestic Politics, Economic Integration and International Dynamics (London: Frank Cass, 2005), pp.149–70.

33. P.A. Furia and R.E. Lucas, ‘Determinants of Arab Public Opinion on Foreign Relations’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol.50, No.3 (2006), pp.585–605.

34. T.K. Evered ‘Regionalism in the Middle East and the Case of Turkey’, Geographical Review, Vol.95, No.3 (2005), pp.463–77.

35. H.T. Oguzlu, ‘Soft Power in Turkish Foreign Policy’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol.61, No.1 (2007), pp.81–97.

36. M. Kibaroglu, ‘Turkey's Concerns About the State-Building Efforts in Iraq’, Iranian Journal of International Affairs, Vol.18, No.4 (2005), pp.443–54.

37. M. Slackman, ‘Chaos in Iraq Sends Shockwaves across Middle East and Elevates Iran's Influence’, New York Times, Vol.155, No.53503 (27 February 2006), p.A9.

38. ‘Iran, United States Quarrel over Gas Deal with Turkey’, The Journal of Turkish Weekly, http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=46907.

39. A. Kibaroglu and O. Unver, ‘An Institutional Framework for Facilitating Cooperation in the Euphrates–Tigris River Basin’, International Negotiation: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Vol.5, No.2 (2000), pp.311–30

40. M. Altunisik, ‘The Turkish Model and Democratization in the Middle East’, Arab Studies Quarterly, Vol.27, No.1–2 (2005), pp.45–63.

41. Z. Onis, ‘Turkey's Encounters with the New Europe: Multiple Transformations, Inherent Dilemmas and the Challenges Ahead’, Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans, Vol.8, No.3 (2006), pp.279–98.

42. K. Kirisci, Turkey's Foreign Policy in Turbulent Times (Chaillot Paper, Institute for Security Studies, September 2006), http://www.iss-eu.org/chaillot/chai92.pdf.

43. Z. Dagi, ‘Orta Doğu perspektifinden Turkiye'nin Avrupa entegrasyonu: Otekilestirme asiliyor mu?’, Demokrasi Platformu, Vol.1, No.4 (2005), pp.97–113.

44. The decision of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister as well as the Chairman of the AKP (which has ruled as the single-party government since November 2002), to designate Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul as the only candidate for the next President of the Republic of Turkey attracted severe criticism and strong opposition from the segments of society who were particularly sensitive about the secular characteristic of the regime. To them, Gul was not the person to take over the Presidency, which signified, among other things, Atatürk's secular principles and reforms. The opposition party, the People's Republican Party (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi – CHP) took the matter to the Constitutional Court on the grounds that the voting was carried out without a two-thirds majority of the members and that the vote should be nullified. Amid this debate, a declaration was published just before midnight on 27 April 2007 on the official website of the Turkish General Staff (www.tsk.mil.tr) addressing directly and indirectly many practices and policy implementations of the AKP government and reminding them of the resolve of the Turkish Armed Forces to act, if need be, as the guardian of Atatürk's secular principles for the effective administration of the state. Many believe that the purpose of the declaration was to affect the vote to be held at the Constitutional Court. The Court's decision, which came only a few days later, was in parallel with the expectations of the opposition party and the General Staff. For a scholarly study on the role of the military in Turkish politics, see I. Toksoz, ‘Security Dilemmas and Threat Perceptions: Turkey at the Crossroads’ (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 2007).