Abstract
Armağan Emre Çakır, ed., Fifty Years of EU–Turkey Relations: A Sisyphean Story, Routledge: Abingdon, 2010; 192 pp.; 9780415579636, £85.00 (hbk)
Reviewed by: James Edward Miller, Georgetown University, USA
Turkey in Europe? With the European Union facing the most difficult crisis of its existence, the idea of Turkey joining the EU appears risible. European leaders are trying to save the common currency and to retain a Europe of 27, rather than bringing a large, populous, economically dynamic and culturally diverse new member state into its ranks. Still, it is likely that at some point in the next few decades both Turkey and Europe are going to have to formalize their uneasy relationship. Economic and political criteria, the usual measuring sticks for membership in ‘Europe’, mixed with a variety of social and cultural issues, make a satisfactory solution difficult. Fifty Years of EU–Turkey Relations is a welcome reminder of the multiple and complex factors involved in the search for a satisfactory compromise.
Editor A.E. Çakır has put together a set of well written and informative essays from European and Turkish experts on the European Union. Çakır’s essay reminds us that Turkey’s bid for EU membership has taken place in the context of its existing rivalries with various European states, including, but not limited to, Greece and Cyprus. Tefvik Nas examines the rapid changes in the nature of Turkey’s economy and its economic policy that have facilitated that nation’s current economic boom. In an extremely interesting paper, Pinar Bilgin underlines the difficulties that European security conceptions created for the Turks, who, in the face of a direct Soviet threat and a Kurdish insurrection, have followed a more traditional approach to defending their society. Two largely reinforcing essays look at the question of elite and public views of Turkey’s bid of EU membership. Together they underline the depth of European elite and popular resistance to Turkish membership. After an essay placing Turkey’s EU policies in the perspective of its domestic politics, Thomas Dietz concludes with some comments on the ethical issues involved in the long delay in an EU decision on Turkey and European motivations.
As Çakır admits, one of the major unifying themes of the volume is the authors’ agreement that the EU should admit Turkey, and, thus, the papers focus on the EU’s responsibility for the failure to bring the Turkish accession to a successful conclusion. The stress on European motivations, however, underlines some of the more defensible reasons for keeping Turkey out. If you believe, as this reviewer does, that Turkey belongs in the EU, it is useful to be reminded that prejudice and fear are not the sole causes of European belligerence. Turkey has more than once pulled away from its embrace of the European experiment. Even today, its attitude of studied ambivalence underlines the degree to which the Erdogan government, having used EU issues to strengthen its internal position, has baulked at the sorts of concessions needed to meet Europe’s bottom line for membership. Europe has been successful in laying down the rules for a long list of applications. In Turkey it may have met its match. Successive Turkish governments have tended to regard EU membership as something they can negotiate on terms of relative equality. With the possible exception of Turgut Özal, concerns about Turkish sovereignty have trumped the attractions of EU membership among both Kemalist and Islamic elites.
Despite the suggestion of its title, Fifty Years of EU–Turkey Relations is not history. The social scientists who wrote this volume have tended to pick and choose a few agreed upon (usually public) events as the basis of their analysis. Context and continuity are not strong points of the volume. Sadly, the process of European integration, despite its enormous importance and length, has yet to become the focus of a critical mass of historians. A historical analysis of the complex Turkey–EU relationship, carefully studied from archival sources and set in the context of its chronological development, is badly needed if we are to understand why the Turks are not (and may not be) in Europe. Until then, we will require more books like this one to bridge the gap.