Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "Turkey: Still a Bridge Between West and East? "

Although this year's EU annual report on Turkey's bid for EU membership was largely positive, it was met with little enthusiasm in Turkey, as talks have completely stalled in the past few months. Although the European Commission has been very supportive of Turkey's efforts and progress, Turkey is aware the EC cannot deliver without the backing of its constituents. In many EU member states opposition against Turkey's accession has risen steadily in the past few years. Germany and France in particular, are viscerally opposed to Turkey joining the club.

Although the membership question is much debated and Turkey's entry to the EU in the near future is an unli kely scenario in the present financial climate and due to individual members' objections, few would question the importance of Turkey as a regional player. In fact, Europe has an immutable interest in nurturing a West-facing, democratic Turkey, as it is an indispensible ally on issues of terrorism, energy security, migration, drugs and trade and investment. The latest compromise of offering Turkey a privileged membership has not been received well and Ankara feels that whenever it has met certain membership criteria, the bar is set higher. As a result, the EU-Turkey relationship has become shaky.

The US, by contrast, has been actively trying to strengthen its ties with Turkey since President Barack Obama took office almost nine months ago. Obama's decision to include Turkey on the itinerary of his first trip was a strategic move, as perceptions of the US in Turkey had hit an all-time-low during the Bush administration. As the US is now shifting its foreign policy eastwards, it regards Turkey as a key ally for furthering its interests in the region. Although Prime Minister Erdogan was receptive to Obama's rhetoric, the reality is that US favorability in Turkey has only risen from 12 to 14 percent since Obama took office, according to a Pew Global Attitudes Project. This shows that US will need a lot of public diplomacy in order to maximize the potential of its strategic partnership.

So where does this leave the transatlantic alliance? When President Obama encouraged his European counterparts to strengthen Turkish-European relationships by allowing Turkey to join the EU, he was heavily criticized by both German Chancellor Merkel and French President Sarkozy, as this was considered none of his business. Clearly, the US and Europe have gone separate ways in their approach to Turkey.

Since the appointment of Ahmet Davutoglu as the Turkish foreign minister in May, there has been talk of a new Turkish foreign policy. Key achievements include the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation, and the signing of over 40 bilateral agreements with Iraq, as part of a new partnership model. Turkey has also warmed its relationships with Syria, by openly speaking out against Israel's violations of human rights in the latest Gaza war. Where Turkey was in the past accused of an unwillingness to use its strategic position out of fear of harming its good relationship with one of its many neighbors, Turkey has now demonstrated that it is in fact willing to engage in the complicated dynamics of the region it finds itself in.

Although Turkey's proactive attitude could provide opportunities for greater cooperation between the transatlantic partners and Turkey, some fear that the aforementioned developments represent a shift from Turkey to the east, as a direct result of its fatigue with the EU. The Turkish-Iranian partnership is especially viewed with great suspicion and anxiety in Europe, whilst the cooling of relations with Israel has been deeply concerning to the US.

In this special analysis week our contributors will address the importance of Turkey as a regional player to Europe and the US. The key issue that will be addressed is the ‘alleged' foreign policy shift of Turkey, and its implications for Europe. Four articles will be devoted to this crucial issue with our contributors presenting conflicting views, thereby reflecting the complexity of the issue at stake. Other issues that will be attended to are US-Turkish relations, the Nabucco-pipeline project and public opinion in Europe.

We would like to invite you to make comments on these issues so we can establish how the US and Europe should approach Turkey in order to safeguard their interests in the region.

At the end of the week we will create a memo - an executive summary of the best policy recommendations made on our site. We encourage you to make use of this unique opportunity to get your voice heard in policy making on this issue of major importance to the transatlantic alliance.

By Stefanie Tetenburg, editorial team member at the Atlantic Community

Related Material From the Atlantic Community:

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

November 19, 2009

Member deleted

I like this comment! What's this?

Or, is Turkey of strategic importance to EU on an alternative energy supply route and network to EU, as well, that were contemplated, and probably still on the table, which would cause conflict of interests with Russia, and probably a difference of opinions on her strategic importance in that greater region ?

Some in the states complained about more energy resources are going to the east instead of going to the west.

This has to be worked out among EU, U.S., Russia and Turkey, primarily, so gathered.

November 19, 2009

Olaf Theiler

I like this comment! What's this?

Turkey is understandingly dissapointed with its progress towards EU integration, but it has practically no alternative to draw to. Neither Russia nor the Arab League States would be reliable partners for Turkey, even if they could offer the same amount of economic cooperation and profits as the EU, which they clearly can't. So sooner or later, Turkey will have to renew its attemps for EU membership or at least look for a institutionalized improvement of its relationship to the EU.
For the EU, it would be of paramount interest to solve some EU internal problems in order to signal its willingness to establish better relations with Turkey. This could help to balance the lost credit in Turkey and to find better ground for compromises in our future relationship. This is especially the case if the EU will remain adamant negative on the membership issue, which seems to be the case.
The most important problem here is the unification of Cyprus. A problem that the EU had created itself, unnessesarily, by inviting Cyprus without insisting on a solution as a perequesit. This is the most important homework the EU has to do itself. Without progress here, there will be no progress in the EU-Turkey relationship, and without this, there will be no progress in the NATO-EU relationship. A continuation of the doulbe blockage in both relationships is a loose-loose situation for all participiants, Turkey, the EU and NATO. A situation that can't go on and shouldn't go on indefinit. The first move on this has to be made inside the EU.

November 19, 2009

gesine palmer

I like this comment! What's this?

An important question will be the development towards Islamism inside Turkey: Istanbul and other cities are still in quite a Western shape - with many inhabitants wishing this to be kept alive. The West - EU and USA - have the greatest interest in keeping up a constant loyality to these forces within the Turkish population, as there are more conservative or even reactionary forces on the countryside. Liberal Muslims and secular people are in desparate need to good connections with the West (as are the liberal and secular forces in the Jewish state). Their attitude towards Israel is a delicate subject to be handled with great care by all actors in the region. It is all the more important as cultural habits are not too used to connect the notion of honour with the notion of self criticism as we are used to do in more or less Christian or Jewish cultures. I do not stress this in order to say that "we" are better or "they" are better, but in order to better understand where to act self-consciously and even self-assertive in order not to lose the respect of the other, and where to allow for criticism and to answer with self-criticism, and where to apply criticism and where to achiever more by dealing carefully with the other's sense of "losing their face." Europe cannot simply integrate Turkey in an unconditioned way. It needs to show a strong and clear human rights line: European cultures are democratic cultures. The common endeavour towards democracy and universal human rights must be stressed also as the thing connecting Israel and Europe. That there is an argument inside Israel and inside Turkey about how far these rights can be circumvened in situations of self-defense, might for some critical questions be the only common thing we have to state as a real common procedure distinguishing these states from others in the region, that have regimes not even interested in justifying their actions according to democratic rules. The common "mission" of everybody acting in the region from a Western point of viewa must be to moderate the more radical forces and to gain attractiveness for those who up to now feel rather attracted to Islamistic positions.This point, in my view, is vital and should be considered in all other things discussed.

November 19, 2009

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (508)

I like this comment! What's this?

Turkey's future is open. It has the opportunity to verify its's post-Ottoman, Kemalist trajectory should Europe be pushed into grudingly opening their eyes to a strategic necessity or it can choose to become a new pole of Islamism competing with Wahhabism of the Saudi strain or Shiism of Iranian flavor.

For the U.S. and for Europe, it is obvious that a Turkey within the "West" is better than watching it compete for status in the Middle East. Turkey can be a linchpin in a more multifaceted energy policy for Europe and can represent a bridge to the Middle East for the "West" provided it does not slide into a hard Islamist phase.

All that said, it is probably time for the U.S. to begin contingency planning for an eastward shifting Turkey. While pushing Europe to be willing to integrate Turkey is appropriate, it has to be assumed that this may fail due to recalcitrance on either or both of the European and Turkish sides.

The balance of power between Sunni and Shia has shifted since the 2003 Iraq War. With Turkey, perhaps, returning with focus to the region, the U.S. may need to recalibrate its relations across the board. Consequently, the U.S. must shore up its relations with current and potential allies in the Middle East. Notable among these is Israel, but, probably a serious examination of our long-term arrangements with Shiite Iraq and Iran needs to be considered and considered in tandem as opposed to seperately as seems often to be the case.

A bold, "Nixon goes to China" moment with Iran could reset the geopolitics of the Middle East and create new realities that shake up conventional thinking. This might even reorient Turkish calculations and make it more amenable to Western interests even absent a full throated endorsement by the Europeans.

November 20, 2009

Member deleted

I like this comment! What's this?

The editorial team seems to ignore one point of compass – the North. E.g. mention “Clearly, the US and Europe have gone separate ways in their approach to Turkey” gives an impression that Europe is the same as EU. However from my point of view Russia has become to one of the key players especially in energy game.

The EU’s new “southern corridor” – Nabucco as essential part of it – has been dubbed a version of U.S. “Silk Road Strategy” aimed to block Russia from gas fields around Caspian Sea and its connection to Iran. The South Pars natural gas field brings a new element to change original U.S. plan as it is a sign of a long-term energy alliance between Moscow and Tehran and with active participation of the EU. Turkey and Armenia may be join the project as transit countries. Naturally, this leaves Washington very few chances to lobby its energy projects in the region aimed at using Azerbaijan and Georgia as the so-called ‘Caucasus communication corridor’. More about background of this battle in my article “Is GUUAM dead?” http://arirusila.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/is-guuam-dead/

The European Union and Turkey gave fresh political impetus on 8thMay 2009 in Prague to the Nabucco pipeline project, although key Central Asian gas suppliers held off on pledging their support. During this events Turkey made clear they expected some progress on Turkey’s stalled EU membership talks. Earlier Turkey’s premier, in a rare visit to Brussels on January 19, tested Europe’s reaction, saying that he will review his support for Nabucco if the Energy Chapter of its EU accession talks is blocked. “If we are faced with a situation where the energy chapter is blocked, we would of course review our position,” he said.

The Russian backed South Stream pipeline will run from Russia directly to Bulgaria across the Black Sea. Russia is diversifying its gas supply routes so as not to depend on one transport hub. During Summer 2009 there was discussions if South Stream could pass Bulgaria. Russia however agreed on 6th August 2009 with Turkey about energy cooperation with South Stream and also development of Blue Stream pipeline between Russia and Turkey under Black Sea so South Stream has secured also an alternative route.

More same latest developments one may find from my article “The Nabucco-South Stream race intensifies” http://arirusila.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/the-nabucco-south-stream-...

Sure Turkey is rising more and more regional superpower; in ten years it is remarkable energy hub between Europe and suppliers like Russia, Iran, Iraq and Turkmenistan. The interesting question is what kind of innovation EU is making to avoid Turkey's EU membership. My guess is that an attractive “third way” is on planning table and it may be copied also to some other countries which for some reason are not coming to EU member states but are however important partners for cooperation.

November 20, 2009

Stefanie Jennifer Tetenburg, King's College London, Silver Contributor (58)

I like this comment! What's this?

Thank you all for your constructive comments.

Mr Teiler, thank you for reminding us of the EU's role in the Cyprus situation. How do you think the EU should approach the issue, considering Cyprus' veto power as an EU member? (a similar situation as the Slovenia-Croatia border dispute, where Slovenia is using its veto-power to resolve a bilateral dispute in its favour)

Mr Lawson, you state that "the U.S. must shore up its relations with current and potential allies in the Middle East", notably Israel. Considering Turkey's cooling of relations with Israel, do you not think that this could be problematic for the US-Turkish partnership? We will be publishing an article by Brian Katulis, a senior research fellow at the American Center for Progress, on US-Turkish relations on Monday, that you may find interesting.

Mr Rusila, what exactly do you mean with 'an attractive third way"? Ankara has made it clear that it is not interested in a strategic partnernship. Do you think such a partnership has to be made more attractive or do you envisage something else? We have also just published an article on the nabucco-pipeline project that may be of interest to you.

November 20, 2009

Member deleted

I like this comment! What's this?

To Mrs Tetenburg,

With an attractive third way I mean EU's unofficial offer related to sc privileged partnership. This could also be interasting alternative to some Balkan countries too. The content can be e.g free trade and free movement without EU's heavy bureaucracy and administration. The financial aid can be directed through developed partnership programs. I understand that this idea still is on planning desk and can also be implemented a decade or more when negotiations with Turkey will continue and continue and ...

November 20, 2009

Martina Warning, FU Berlin, (3)

I like this comment! What's this?

First of all I want to express my doubts whether the "bridge between West and East"-metaphor for Turkey is not somewhat outdated. Not least since Samuel Huntington stated that "a bridge [...] is an artificial creation connecting solid entities but is part of neither. When Turkey's leaders term their country a bridge, they euphemistically confirm that it is torn". It is therefore no wonder that the new Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu prefers to call Turkey a "central country"; with an optimal geopolitical location, therefore it should not be seen as a "bridge country which only connects two points".

A bridge appears as something passive, which the new Turkey is not, and in my opinion should not be. And many, especially "Western" circles also seem to see the bridge as only a "one-way street" of transporting their interests. By bringing issues such as Gaza to the international agenda, Turkey does not show that it isn't "a bridge between West and East" anymore, but, if a bridge at all, then simply a bridge that functions in both directions.

November 24, 2009

Burak Balkis

I like this comment! What's this?

Turkey has still long way to progress on human rights and political freedom. While complaining for not entering EU, Turkey has no progress and any intention to improve on these items.
Just imagine a EU country where entire opposition media and press is being punished as they do not write pro-government articles. Just imagine a prime minister communicating with other PMs (i.e Israel , Davos incident) as if they are working under his cabinet. Just imagine a Obama loudly shouting Pelosi to shut off the voice of house representatives - don't laugh , this is what just happened in Turkey previous week. Again just imagine a government recording all official and personal telephone communications of entire political leaders, military commanders, university professors, press leaders etc just to trying to figure out one item to get them into prison so that they can do whatever they want without any democratic opposition. No judge approvals were issues for these recordings. And PM is announcing press even he is being recorded instead of telling who is behind that. As of today, any call in Turkey can be tracked, recorded and used against to you if you oppose to government.

While EU and USA is trying to figure out if Turkey is residing on East or West, Turks themselves are divided in country for the first time since the declaration of Turkish Republic. This is due to concerns of ending secular and democratic government. As of today, Turkish army is the only un-democratic organization on earth trying to protect secular democratic system in Turkey.

How about EU? EU is unfair in its relation with Turkey. Their acceptation of Cyprus without resolving the issues is the indication of they are still not mature enough to manage that unity in foreign relations. Many EU citizens are willing to live on an isolated world with scare of Islam and EU has no intention to educate their public to make them realize they cannot develop EU shutting down the doors to other belief and religions. One thing to remind, there has never been an Islamic Crusade in history.

In my opinion, EU is just a facilitator for bigger European countries such as UK, GER and FRA to help them compete with Russia, US and China in global arena. Can you imagine Greece to tell anything on their term within EU in global arena? Or Cyprus, or Slovenia or Portugal etc.. They are just there to support UK, GER, FRA to make them sound stronger. This is the reality of union. And in return, economically small EU countries have lost their national prides their ancestors fought for, had increased taxes and lost their individual reputations in political arena.

And this is what makes US policies different than EU. US need to deals with UK, GER and FRA separately. There is no unique EU decision on any global item. Especially, selection of an ineligible EU PM in the shadows of FRA and GM PMs and giving EU Foreign ministry to Brits was a total fiasco and showing how deep is the problem in EU. New EU PM is totally against of Turkey's attendace to union and foreign minister if pro-Turkish activist. This will only bring one thing on table - delay in Turkey's joining to EU (assuming after all articles are cleared off) and Turkey's strong opposition to NATO-EU coordination in return.

November 25, 2009

laurelle atkinson

I like this comment! What's this?

for the global application of the geopolitical progression of the state system, currently underway internationally
shouldn't Turkey cohere within the Middle Eastern framework?
how else does the world determine causal application of nuclear energy to
1. mitigate global climate change
2. systemise security for general sustainabilty
ie realise and apply defence industry regulation and border respect in terms of systemic accord
3. determine the framework for streamlining data on industrial levels - the geo-terrestrial co-ordination of pollution levels as per global stats - specifics involve forestry practices, production levels, demographics etc. currently there's a surfeit of non-aligned data
4. progress geopolitical accord within the international state system
5. empower UN resolutions via systemic application and determinations
ie ongoing power from within as well as above for for general sustainabiltiy

especially when you consider the current impass with Iran
well, Iran is a state of the Middle Eastern region, isn't it?
and so's Turkey
so how does the EU effectively interact within the world you know, it's causal global application occur, as per ASEAN and the Americas (US) without geopolitical streamlining?
and how does that eventuate when the Middle East is more often than not a 'theatre of war' etc. .. resulting from military geostragic rationale instead of open and progressively constructive dialogue?

well, think of the geopolitical dynamics: external geopolitical forces augur internal accord, one way or another eventually - trade wise, weather wise -- all that, amounting to a powerful stabilising force within the MIddle East
I reckon
Turkey, come on!

November 26, 2009

David Foster, Henry Jackson Society, Silver Contributor (39)

I like this comment! What's this?

Shortly after the Spanish President, Zapatero, called for an Alliance of Civilizations, which is an idea that different communities can contribute to coexist beyond the barriers of cultures, religions and languages. Mr. Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, jumped to the opportunity of cosponsoring that programme. However it seems the people who want that project to succeed forgot an important issue that Turkey needs to resolve, an issue that Turkey needs to understand due to its importance: improving minority rights. So far the Turkish government claims there are only three minorities those stated in the Lausanne Treaty, despite the treaty only describing them as non-Moslems rather than narrowing down to individual nationalities: Armenians, Greeks and Jews. Yet Turkey is a land full of ethnicities and cultures: Kurds, Alevis, Zaza, Laz, Assyrians, Balkans, Romani, Circassians, Arabs, etc.etc.

The two main problems are that there is no recognition or protection. Although ethnic Armenians may set up schools, they have numerous restrictions. At schools, Armenians are described as murderers and traitors during World War I and not allow the right to recognize the Turkish brutality on Armenians during that period. As with ethnic Armenians, ethnic Greeks may also set up schools but also with restrictions, and the Greek language is mocked in text books. The Assyrian community has no recognition of their language or culture which hinders their further education since the Turkish Ministry of Education not recognizing Syriac schools, a similar situation with the Laz community. Alevis pay the religious taxes that go to build Sunni mosques and pay for Sunni imams but have no public funds to build their cemevis. Although non-Moslems are not required to take Islam as their religion class, the only Moslem religion taught in public schools is Sunni Islam. The government has still not considered the Alevi Community’s request to turn the Madimak Hotel in Sivas as a Remembrance Museum. The Jewish community has been offended when government authorises demonstrations against Israel that demonise Jews or a demonstration of school teachers admiring Adolf Hitler. Text books, generalizations have been made to ridicule Romani, Armenians and Greeks, as well as highlighting that the Turkish nationality and Islam are better than any other nationality or religion. The Kurdish community still sees rights as a priority. According to Hurriyet Newspaper, ethnic Kurds want more rights rather than more money. Intimidation from Turkification policies and social discrimination affect all minorities in Turkey. Despite that Turkish laws guarantee that all citizens will be treated equally, there are no laws protecting minorities. These examples are just a small fraction of the situation today.

Only now has the current government been bringing this issue to light, for example the support of the Kurdish Initiative or the recognition of the Istanbul Pogrom against ethnic Armenians and Greeks as a fascist act, opening a Kurdish TV channel and Kurdish language being taught in schools in some provinces. However these improvements do not reach the obligations of what the cosponsor of the Alliance of Civilizations must address to other nations. How can the Cosponsor of the Alliance of Civilizations set an example to other nations of how different cultures may coexist when it is carrying out policies that only give guarantees to one ethnicity and one religion? What Turkey must do is provide safety to its minorities and guarantee that they may also take part in society, politics, education and any other part of the state. By carrying out such programme would prove that a peaceful coexistence is possible.

November 30, 2009

Anita Issagholyan, NYU MSGA, (8)

I like this comment! What's this?

The Turkish acceptance into the European Union is more nuanced than we are lead to believe. First and foremost, it should be corrected in the aforementioned, that the Turkish-Armenian question has not yet be reconciled. The Protocols were signed on October 10th but have not yet been ratified by both country's parliaments. And many believe, especially civil society on behalf of both parties, that they will not be ratified anytime soon.

The reason for this is because peace and reconciliation can not be achieved when distant and corrupt politicians sign a piece of paper acting for millions of their constituents living in poverty.

What is not addressed in the Protocols are intrinsic relationship building processes within the community of both countries as well as their diaspora. The Armenian genocide happened, has been forgotten by some, and its people are still feeling the repercussions in their ethnic homeland. The recognition of the genocide in one point of contention as a few commenters have mentioned.

The land dispute and long-lasting war in Nagorno-Karabakh is another issue which is not addressed in the Protocols. How can Turkey push forward to be apart of the European Union and a collective European identity, when it has not yet settled the inaccuracies and a history of genocide that haunts its historic identity?

RSS

Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

November 19, 2009 | 12 comments | Print | E-Mail Your Opinion

Turkey: Still a Bridge Between West and East?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Poll

Should NATO intervene in Syria?