WILL TURKEY BE IN THE ‘WINNERS’ CLUB’ OR THE ‘LOSERS’ PIT’ BY 2023?
Today’s Zaman
June 2 2009
Turkey
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 and its
citizens live in democracy, peace, freedom and prosperity. The EU
has achieved many stunning successes in its history.
It engineered the Single Market, moved the Lisbon 2010 competitiveness
agenda "a bit" forward. The Schengen agreement worked, 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 antagonizing Russia. The
track record leaves us with mixed feelings.
Yet, today this is not enough to justify the existence of the EU to
a different generation living in different times.
The fact is there are serious blockages in the EU system right now
and if these are not cleared and radically new structures are not
put in place instead of the current cosmetic changes under way,
then it is inevitable that the inner EU bickering will only become
more aggravated and ultimately irreparable. If this happens then no
one can expect the EU to have any real impact on the global system
anymore. It will be relegated to the status of a regional bloc.
What is in it for us?
Over the past few years EU entrance aspirations have lost ground and
speed in Turkey. This cannot be explained away by simply saying that
Brussels has not satisfied the Justice and Development Party’s (AK
Party) expectations, causing Ankara to draw back. In my opinion, it
is not that simple. We have better realized the strengths, weaknesses
and hypocrisies of the EU, which led us to reconsider the frantic
obsession for EU accession and adopt a foot-down, business-like
approach: "What is in it for us?" The public opinion polls also point
to such a cooling of emotions vis-a-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 get endorsed
and even if the Armenian "genocide" allegations were adopted the way
Brussels has thus far pushed for, we should not mislead ourselves into
believing that Turkish EU membership would be anywhere on the visible
horizon. The prospects could be different only if there was a dramatic
change of heart and international determination to push forward such
an accession under the stewardship of France, Germany and the UK.
Those who present this phenomenon 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
and 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 or 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.
If Turkey were to correctly analyze the global power shift, which
is putting the Asia-Pacific region to the forefront of economics
and geopolitics, and could position itself accordingly, it would
assure itself a rightful place on the "winners’ train" before even
the EU did. 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
internal fires and make the long overdue political and institutional
transformations necessary for this, then whether or not Turkey becomes
a full EU member won’t matter in the larger unified picture to appear
soon anyway.
The EU, if it will ever become a global power on a par with the US and
China, has to embrace Turkey to benefit from its valuable regional
outreach as well as other assets Turkey brings to the table. If
this will does not exist there is no point in wasting our energy
on EU accession games. Arguing that we need the EU to "anchor" our
fragile democracy and threatened modernization if necessary even as a
"privileged partner," I find, is humiliating and self-defeating.
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, which has become
so heavily dependent on outside energy resources and which is in a
constant state of internal battles between the "old and new Europe"?
We need to carefully calculate exactly what accession to the EU
means for us. Will it soak up our dynamism and burden us with social
security responsibilities for its aging 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 persons?
What about its empty coffers? Will there be any money left in
the EU’s lucrative cohesion and infrastructure funds? What are the
geopolitical implications? Will EU accession restrict our freedom in
foreign policy and tie us down when it comes to moves toward Russia,
Iran, the Caucasus, Central Asia, China and the Middle East? We have
to seriously debate these issues, ask tough questions and get definite
and satisfactory answers!
One overarching argument in favor 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 such good values are found only in those
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?
Given that never before have there been accession negotiations that
were so controversial among EU member states and so charged with
uncertainties and serious political and economic impediments as the
Turkish case, it is absolutely essential that both sides agree on an
imaginative, constructive problem-solving approach to bring about a
successful conclusion to this process — if this is the real intention.
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 be the primary goal — easier said than done.
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, the governments may not have any interest in keeping
the Turkish accession issue visible on the public agenda until such a
time that positive public perception of Turkey can be 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."
Looking at ourselves in the mirror
Yes, it is really time to shake ourselves. Time to see crystal clear
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 Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela 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 that 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, most European strategists argue, lies in the problems that a
less stable or more activist Turkey could create. Europe requires a
stable, modernizing and democratic Turkey to keep radical Islam from
Europe’s borders, they maintain. They say that the EU 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" could entail. In a certain sense, by
virtue of this thinking, what Europe needs from Turkey is that it be
contained, controlled and prudent.
Well, they will certainly act in their own self-interest. There is
nothing wrong with this, but the important thing is what we want. A
nation with a $750 billion economic powerbase, one of the largest and
most influential military forces in the world, a cultural hinterland
that we have become more aware of in recent years, never mind its
role at the crossroads of energy routes, a nation that is a unique
cornerstone in terms of its ability to synthesize western values and
Islam’s traditions, as well as the north and the south.
Perhaps it needs to be said aloud that such a nation, with an
imperial spine, cannot meekly consent to the capricious behavior of
the authorities in Brussels and some EU capitals, nor that Turkey
can be judged by the same "take it or leave it" criteria as countries
such as Malta, southern 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. Instead, let’s
demand to see the cards in their hands and 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 that is strong and "problem-free"
in relation to its neighbors, robust against dealing with the fallout
of the global depression and a power that can offer its neighbors
and its own people prosperity, peace and security. Do not worry —
the rest will simply follow.
Don’t judge Turkey based on how it looks today
More importantly, the EU leaders would be better off judging Turkey
on the basis of its potential economic and geo-strategic importance
from today to 2023 and what the future holds for Europe by then —
not on the narrow and short-term interests of today. 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
Central Asia. It is a "take it or leave it" deal for the EU, too.
Two terms of government may suffice to fundamentally change the face
(and the substance) of Turkey for better, while the EU will also be
going through changes and making difficult choices. One should recall
that the founding father of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk,
accomplished the bulk of his revolutionary modernizing vision for
the country in a period of just 15 years (1923-1938) between the two
destructive world wars and in great deprivation.
Consider what more can be achieved over the next two decades in the
era of rapid globalization. Thus, it is not 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 maximize the benefits of our strong association with the Middle
East, Russia, Central Asia, the United States and the Asia-Pacific
region as much as possible without being too 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 here can influence this direction
positively from where we are now.
* Mehmet Ogutcu is a Mulkiye, London School of Economics and Collège
d’Europe graduate, former Turkish diplomat and senior Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) staffer and currently a
major multinational corporation executive. He is also the author of
"Turkey’s 2023 Roadmap" (Etkilesim, 2008) and "Does Our Future Lie
with Rising Asia?" (Milliyet, 1998).