Haberanaliz.net, Turkey
May 31 2009
Would Turkey be in the `winners’ club’ or `losers’ pit’ by 2023?
A `Devil’s Advocate’ perspective
If I could look into my crystal ball to predict who the winners and
losers of the global system would be by 2023 (the centenary year
marking the founding of the Turkish Republic), do not expect me to
give a rosy picture of the future for today’s 27-state European Union
(EU). The current recession will no doubt ease by the end of this
year, though the deep-seated systemic problems will remain, and
companies will begin taking on workers again, signalling the end of
the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
This setback may herald a new era in the global system fundamentally
altering the political and economic balance of power. The post-crisis
era also looks certain to shake the established institutions, rules
and players redefining a gradually emerging `new world order’ that is
likely to reduce the influence and power of super-majors such as the
US, Japan and the EU to the benefit of BRIC (Brazil, India and China)
nations..
Will tomorrow’s EU turn into `Euro-Disneyland’?
To maintain its current position let alone compete with others, the EU
needs to reconnect its priorities and interests with the current and
anticipated challenges faced by its people; demonstrate visibly the
21st century relevance of the concept of Europe to prevent a descent
into a ‘Euro-Disneyland’ and give the policy answers to these
challenges first and then let institutional change help deliver them,
rather than the other way round.
This is to say that, unless Europe takes surgical action soon its
further economic and political decline is almost inevitable. Without
comprehensive reform Continental Europe’s overprotected, overregulated
economies will continue to slow down and deteriorate. This does not
mean that Italy, Germany, France, the UK, and other now-prosperous
countries will become poor; on the contrary, their standard of living
will remain comfortable. It is the division between `old and new
Europe’ which will deepen. Europe’s political and economic clout could
become less relevant on the world scene.
The prospects could be even worse if internal and external pressures
on the EU continue, such as; the strain on the public health and
social security system from an ageing population, the ongoing erosion
of its international competitiveness in relation to China and India
(and other emerging `tigers’), the potential stasis of trans-Atlantic
dialogue with the United States, the threat of Russia and Ukraine not
being properly accommodated within the EU, and if the EU cannot pull
its various acts together to become a single voice on foreign,
security and energy policies.
Why did I become a Euro-sceptic?
I do not want to sound like a doomsday alarmist because there are also
positive developments to inspire optimism and the future can of course
take a better course if the right actions and approach are taken in a
timely manner. However, against the background highlighted above and
because of the poor treatment of Turkey by the EU over the past half a
century, I cannot help but be more euro-sceptic than euro-phile.
The longer one lives on this island, less than an hour’s ferry ride
from Calais to Dover the closer one veers to the viewpoint of the
‘euro-sceptics club’ We know that the British have never been terribly
willing members of the EU from the outset. There are no surprises why
British membership of the EU was vetoed several times during the
tenure of France’s President Charles de Gaulle. Long before the
British joined many Continental Europeans thought they were too
different to be constructive members of what was then the European
Economic Community. London has always preferred its American cousins
across the Atlantic and valued Commonwealth relations.
However, the Brits are honest. They do not hide their dislike of the
Continental Europeans’ approach to economy and life and generally
despise the federalist vision of Europe. But when it comes to
implementing the acquis communautaire, they are more effective than
the most fervent advocates of the `federal Europe’ dream. There is of
course no unanimity of opinion on Europe and New Labour, the Tories
and Liberal Democrats often take divergent paths. Yet, a doubting
stance lingers on and I have happily acquired this virus from my
British friends and colleagues..
Over the years I have come to empathise with the euro-sceptical
approach, particularly whilst working professionally as a Turkish
diplomat, OECD staffer and now multinational corporate executive with
EU institutions and politicians. My views have become stronger after
having closely observed the bureaucracy and inefficacy of the European
Commission squandering its annual ?¬133 billion budget, whilst
the European Parliament makes unfocused and inconsistent decisions
backed by uncapped salaries and fringe benefits. Good long-term
strategic decisions are rarely made and low performance levels plague
many policy initiatives. There is a general insensitivity and
arrogance towards other cultures and interests.
Playing Devil’s Advocate
My discussion with those opposed to Turkey’ accession to the EU on
whatever grounds, be it economic, religious, cultural, geographic or
political, usually begins with the statement that "actually, like you
we also do not look warmly on accession prospects, but for different
reasons". This serves as a cold shower and strong reminder that Turks
should not be taken for granted and are not clinging to the coat tails
of Europe. Then, I list the good reasons, without empty rhetoric, why
Turkey should not be interested in membership, so long as the Turkish
accession dossier is handled in the way it is currently is.
What has often been forgotten in Europe is that the level of support
as indicated by opinion polls and re-wording of the political party
manifestos regarding the EU is declining in Turkey. There is a large
and growing opposition inside Turkey to entry into the EU emanating
not only from ultra-nationalists, religious fanatics or hard-line
soldiers keen on sovereignty and suspicious of the `real’ intentions
of the EU. The unfairness and hypocrisy displayed on the Cyprus
settlement issue has further fuelled anti-accession sentiment in the
country.
At any rate, the feeling is that we do not have to prove that Turkey
is an essential part of this historical-geographical territory called
Europe. We have been living in this space for much longer than most
new EU members. We are proud to be Europeans, but at the same time
Caucasian, Middle Eastern, Mediterranean, and Balkan, none of other
Europeans have such a rich diversity and wide outreach.
There is no question that the EU is suffering from enlargement
fatigue. There is widespread concern, rightly or wrongly, that Romania
and Bulgaria may have been admitted prematurely. Even before the
current crisis commentators in Brussels were betting on Croatian
accession in 2011 (although that is looking increasingly problematic),
with accession for Turkey and the Western Balkans effectively kicked
into the long grass behind a fig-leaf of extended membership talks
with no momentum.
The EU has regrettably lost much of its reputational capital in the
eyes of most Turks on the street. To my great surprise, Turkish youth,
both well educated and self-confident, as well as strong nationalists
are more sceptical of the EU than the `old guard’. Sarkozy and Merkel
have not helped much by insisting on the so-called `privileged
partnership’ at the expense of undermining the basic tenets of the
`pacta sunt servanda’ (Latin for "agreements must be kept"). This is
not to say that Turks have done their bit of homework and met their
obligations, and that all the blame should be laid at the EU’s door.
EU’s pre-accession strategy has somewhat eroded motivations for
membership and triggered nationalistic reactions in Turkey. The
widening gap between unfulfilled expectations and the EU’s functioning
feeds public euro-scepticism. The EU’s unceasing demands for reform
and the evident reluctance to Turkish accession have further fuelled
mistrust, focusing the ‘EU debate’ on the cost of accession without
much in the way of economic benefits,whilst putting a `strait jacket’
on many areas of vital importance ` a perfect example of asymmetrical
relationship.
Communicating on the same wavelength
Frankly speaking, I take particular pleasure at airing contrarian
views on this issue and being part of the debate as to why Turkey
might be better off without full membership.
The real cost to the EU of Turkey’s non-accession needs to be visibly
highlighted. After all, there are already more than enough
unconditional pro-EU supporters in Turkey. Hence, what we need are
people who can act as qualified `Devil’s Advocate’ and show those
`Turkey-bashing’ souls that there is the other side to the coin and
Turkey cannot be pushed around at their pleasure.
Our objective in doing so of course is not to disparage the EU to the
point of leading people to think that there is `no real future for
Turkey in the EU; we should turn our face towards the east or the
north’, as some of my compatriots propose. Instead, our aim is to
inject a healthy dose of realism and scepticism into the generally
rosy vistas presented to us, as well as to encourage the development
of a balanced and acceptable `give and take’ approach for the
accession process.
As Turkey’s opponents argue, it is true that the eventual accession
will considerably change the future outlook of both Turkey and the
EU. Surely, the EU with Turkey as a member will look quite different
from anything its founding fathers ever envisaged. The Union will face
the challenge of fundamentally re-defining itself, progressively
changing from an entity largely concerned with economic and social
redistribution via its agricultural, cohesion and structural funds
into a global actor that invests more on competitiveness,
infrastructure, research and development, poverty reduction, military
capability, and border protection. Admittedly, this process will not
be easy politically since there will be strong opposition from
domestic sectors, adversely affected, in nearly every country
including in Turkey.
Hence, whether Turkish accession will be for better or worse in the
final analysis depends very much on how both sides will agree to
interact from the outset towards a commonly perceived vision.
Let’s not devalue the EU’s achievements
To be fair, we should be thankful for the idealism and faith shown by
the European Union’s founders. No doubt, the EU is the biggest
political union and largest economic market in the world, whose
citizens live in democracy, peace, freedom and prosperity. The EU has
achieved many stunning successes in its history. It has engineered
the Single Market and moved the Lisbon 2010 competitiveness agenda
forward a little. The Schengen agreement is working, and Brussels is
currently leading the way with the global climate change agenda. The
EU of course is committed to creating a single area of freedom,
justice, and security. It is also trying to achieve energy supply
security, though at a snail’s pace, without antagonising Russia.
Yet, today these are not enough to justify the existence of the EU to
a different generation living in different times. The track record
leaves us with mixed feelings.
Germany and France are no longer the powerful locomotives of the
EU. They are also disillusioned with the Eurozone, the weakness of the
EU institutions, the referendum failures of both the European
constitution and the Lisbon treaty. They tend to become more
nationalist and selfish than European after realising that the EU
flying on autopilot, run by its bureaucrats and inefficient processes
has become less relevant to their goals and people.
The fact is there are serious blockages in the EU system right now and
if these are not cleared and, if radical new structures are not put in
place instead of the current cosmetic changes, then it is inevitable
that inner EU bickering will only become more aggravated and
ultimately irreparable. If this happens then no one would expect the
EU to have any real impact anymore on the global system. It will be
relegated to a regional bloc status.
What is in it for us?
Over the past few years the EU entrance aspiration has lost ground and
speed in Turkey. This cannot be explained away by simply saying that
Brussels has not satisfied the ruling Justice and Development Party
(AKP)’s expectations causing Ankara to draw back. In my opinion, it is
not that simple. We have a better understanding now of the strengths,
weaknesses and hypocrisies of the EU, which has had the positive
effect of ending our once frantic obsession for EU accession and adopt
more of a foot-down approach, based around ‘what is in it for us?’ The
public opinion polls also point to such a cooling of emotions
vis-Ã -vis the EU.
Under the current conditions, even if the Cyprus problem were to be
solved¦ the European Commission’s annual reports were to present
evidence of a perfectly clean record on Turkey’s progress¦ all 35
of the accession chapters were to open at the same time and achieve
endorsement¦furthermore, even if the Armenian `genocide’
allegations were adopted in the way Brussels has pushed for¦we
should not mislead ourselves into believing that Turkish EU membership
is anywhere on the visible horizon. The prospects could only be
different if there is a dramatic change of heart and combined effort
to push forward the accession under the stewardship of France, Germany
and the UK.
Those who present this accession phenomenon in a starkly
black-and-white fashion as "what, are you also opposed to EU
accession? Isn’t the EU the natural destination for our country’s
historical vocation? If we don’t enter the EU we will become nothing
but lunch for the wolves, stuck in the vicious cycle of nationalism,
religious fanaticism in the Middle East!" should not be given a
sympathetic ear either.
The current strategy of the EU machinery appears to be based on the
no-longer-functioning and no-longer-credible `carrot and stick’
approach, trying to hold Turkey at bay and evade as long as possible a
firm decision through drawn-out accession talks. This is completely in
line with how the country has always been treated ` this needs to
fundamentally change.
If Turkey were to correctly analyze the global power shift, which is
putting Asia-Pacific at the forefront of economics and geopolitic and
could position itself accordingly, it would assure itself a rightful
place on the ‘winners’ train’ even before the EU could. If the EU
fails to shake itself into action to play a central role on the world
stage and, if it doesn’t quell the flames of its own internal fires
and make the long overdue political and institutional transformations
for this, then whether or not Turkey becomes a full EU member won’t
matter in the larger unified picture..
To become a global power on a par with the US and China, the EU has to
embrace Turkey. If this will does not exist there is no point in
wasting our energy on EU accession games.
Turkey to become a precious asset and the EU a `strait-jacket’?
So why is it that Turkey should want to join an ageing EU, whose
competitiveness and world standing are fast eroding, and which is so
heavily dependent on outside energy resources and in a constant state
of internal battles between the ‘old’ and `new’ Europe?
We need to carefully weigh what accession to the EU means for us. Will
it soak up our dynamism and burden us with social security
responsibilities for its ageing and less-than-entrepreneurial
populations?
Will we be able to benefit from common agricultural policy subsidies
as Spain, France, Ireland, Italy and Greece did for decades to reach
their current level of development? How long will we wait for full
participation in decision-making processes and for free movement of
people?
What about its empty coffers ` will there be any money left in the
EU’s lucrative cohesion and infrastructure funds? What are the
geo-political implications – will the EU accession restrict our
freedom in foreign policy and tie us down when it comes to moves
towards Russia, Iran, the Caucasus, Central Asia, China, and the
Middle East?
We have to seriously debate these issues and ask tough
questions. Before consuming more of our national energies we need to
get definite and satisfactory answers!
One overarching argument in favour of Turkey’s accession is to embed
Western values and standards in our lives ` this is a great
aspiration, but can we really say that the only worthwhile values
reside in 27 countries in the world? Are our own values and
institutions, which await re-discovery, and which have been developed
over thousands of years of social and political experience really less
valuable or less worthy of consideration?
How should negotiations be conducted?
This is the first time that accession negotiations have been so
controversial amongst EU member state. Negotiations regarding Turkey’s
accession have so many uncertainties and serious political and
economic impediments, making it absolutely essential that both sides
should agree on an imaginative, constructive problem-solving approach
to produce a successful conclusion of this process.
The discussions in Brussels clearly indicated that accession
negotiations would not be on the basis of a `business-as-usual’
mandate with an emphasis on the acquis communautaire and Turkey’s
ability to effectively apply it at the moment of entry into the
EU. The attainment of European standards with respect to
democratization and liberalization, as well as changing not only
certain practices and legislation, but also the public and official
mindsets on both sides would need to be the primary goal.
It goes without saying that the process begun by Europe’s leaders in
Brussels will have to be completed by the politicians of the future `
probably during the lifetime of at least two new governments in each
country. Given the high degree of domestic controversy that the
Turkish dossier causes, governments may not have any interest in
keeping the Turkish accession issue visible on the public agenda until
such a time that a positive public perception of Turkey is
generated. Most EU leaders would prefer to put the issue on the
backburner by leaving the concrete task of preparing and conducting
the negotiations mainly to the European Commission.
Redefining the Turco-EU roadmap
Yes, it is really time to shake ourselves. Time to identify clearly
who we are and what our national interests are and to place these on
the scale and re-assess their relative weights. Time has come to
clarify what our relations with the EU should be from our viewpoint
and not as dictated by Brussels.
Pay no attention to the calls for `privileged partnership’, put out
there by the likes of Sarkozy and Merkel. They do not even merit a
response. These are, after all, nothing but political stances,
displayed by those who have perfected the art of playing to the
tribunes ` opinions which can go as quickly as they come.
Turkey’s case for serious consideration by the EU has often rested on
broader strategic and political issues, rather than civilization-based
factors. The real post-Cold War strategic significance of Turkey to
Europe lies in the problems that a less stable or more activist Turkey
could create. Europe requires a stable, modernizing and democratic
Turkey to help keep radical Islam from Europe’s borders. It needs a
Turkey that is cautious in its regional policies toward the Caucasus,
the Balkans and the Middle East and, which seeks to avoid
confrontation with Moscow and Tehran. The point is not so much what
Turkey offers to Europe as what its `loss to Europe’ could entail. In
a certain sense, what Europe needs from Turkey is that it is
contained, controlled and prudent.
Well, EU states will certainly act in self-interest. There is nothing
wrong with this, but the important thing is what we, Turkey, want. A
nation with a 750 billion dollar economic powerbase, with one of the
largest and most influential military forces in the world and a
cultural hinterland which we have become more aware of in recent
years, never mind its role as the crossroads of energy flows and
civilisations cannot be ignored. We are unique cornerstone in our
ability to synthesize the western values and Islam’s traditions
between the north and the south.
Perhaps it needs to be said out loud that such a nation with an
imperial history cannot meekly consent to the capricious behaviour of
the authorities in Brussels and in some EU capitals, nor that Turkey
can be judged by the same ‘take it or leave it’ criteria applied to
countries like Malta, South Cyprus, or Bulgaria.
Otherwise, no one can say just where this `open-ended’ process is
going to drag us to and in fact this whole process will continue
forever soaking up our national energy like a sponge. For now though,
let us leave these accession talks to continue at technical
levels. Let’s embrace the same approach they are taking. Let’s not
destroy what we have so far achieved on this front, but let’s demand
to see the cards in their hand and to protect our own national
interests as jealously as they guard theirs.
In the meantime, we should focus firmly on being not a `paper tiger’,
but a real `regional power’ to be reckoned with economically,
militarily and democratically – one which is strong and `problem-free’
in relation to its neighbours, robust against dealing with the fallout
of the global depression, and a power, which can offer its neighbours
and its own people prosperity, peace, and security. Do not worry ` the
rest will simply follow.
Judge Turkey for its potential and not on an historically biased or
current clouded view
More importantly, EU leaders would be better to judge Turkey on the
basis of its potential economic and geostrategic importance from today
to 2023 and what the future holds for Europe by then – not on the
narrow and short-term interests of today or yesterday. With Turkey the
EU will not only achieve an immensely richer cultural diversity, but
also considerable manufacturing capacity, entrepreneurship, and better
foreign/security policy outreach to the key regions of the world,
i.e. Russia, the Balkans, the Middle East, the Caucasus and the
Central Asia. It is a `take it or leave it’ deal for the EU, too.
The two terms of government may suffice to fundamentally change the
face (and the substance) of Turkey for the better, while the EU will
also be going through changes and making difficult choices. One should
recall that the founding father of modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk
accomplished the bulk of his revolutionary modernising vision for the
country in a period of around 15 years (1923-1938), between the two
destructive world wars and in a radically greater state of economic
deprivation. Consider what more can be achieved over the next two
decades in the era of rapid globalisation. Then, it is not a
science-fiction to predict that both Turkey and the EU will be starkly
different from what they are today and it is in their hands to shape
the common future starting now, rather than speculating on the fears
to come.
Let’s maximise the benefits of our strong association with the Middle
East, Russia, Central Asia, the United States and Asia-Pacific as much
as possible without being too much obsessed or blinded about belonging
to one club. When we arrive at 2023, will we look back at ourselves
and the EU asking "did we make the right decisions and take the right
steps at the right time?"
Hopefully, the debate I am presenting can influence this direction
positively from where we are now.
About the author
Mehmet Ã-Ä?ütçü ; is Mulkiye, London
School of Economics and College d’Europe graduate, a former Turkish
diplomat, senior Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) staffer, and currently major multinational
corporation executive, based in London. He is also the author of
`Turkey’s 2023 Roadmap’ (Etkilesim, 2008) and `Does our future lay
with Rising Asia?’ (Milliyet, 1998).
44171
http://www.haberanaliz.net/detay.asp?hid=