Content uploaded by Ayse Betul Celik
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ayse Betul Celik on Jan 27, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Necessary But Not Sufficient: The Role of the EU in Resolving Turkey's Kurdish Question and the Greek-Turkish Conflicts
Abstract
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
... As proposed by Europeanisation, the reforms undertaken to align with the EU acquis in the rule of law have empowered the civil actors against the traditional state actors and institutions, namely military-bureaucratic elites, in the Turkey's administrative structure (For details of reform, see 2003,2004,2005,2010, and 2011 European Commission Progress Reports on Turkey). Turkish government has, therefore, gained power in the foreign policymaking over the militarybureaucratic elites (Çelik and Rumelili, 2006;Keyman and Öniş, 2007;Güney and Karatekillioğlu, 2005). As such, the empowered AK Party government became the main driving force behind the alteration of Turkey's Greece policy. ...
... The AK Party government supported the Annan Plan to solve Cyprus issue. The AK Party government agreed to bring the Aegean issue to the ICJ and initiated negotiations with Greece to solve the problems (Çelik and Rumelili, 2006;Oğuzlu, 2004, p. 108). As such, it acted as a facilitating institution in transforming Turkey's traditional Greece and Cyprus policy in accordance with the UN's resolutions and settlement plan supported by the EU to solve the Cyprus issue and Aegean problem. ...
... As such, it acted as a facilitating institution in transforming Turkey's traditional Greece and Cyprus policy in accordance with the UN's resolutions and settlement plan supported by the EU to solve the Cyprus issue and Aegean problem. In the AK Party government's foreign policy towards Greece, the EU played a determinant role not only by conditioning the settlement of the problems with Greece and the Cyprus issue for Turkey's accession into the EU but also by making promises to Turkey regarding the Turkey-EU relations and Aegean and Cyprus issues (Çelik and Rumelili, 2006;Kalkan, 2017). European leaders made several promises to Erdogan in his visits to European capitals during the 2002-2004 period (Oğuzlu, 2004;Kalkan, 2017). ...
This paper aims to examine Turkey’s foreign policy toward Greece in the post-1999 era. It argues that the direction and changes in Turkish foreign policy toward Greece are impacted by the Turkey-EU relations. To examine these arguments, this study raises the following questions: What are the changes in Turkey’s Greece policy after 1999? and what role has the EU played in these policy changes? This research utilizes Börzel and Risse’s three-step Europeanisation framework and the de-Europeanisation and counter-conduct concepts to evaluate the Europeanisation and de-Europeanisation of Turkey’s Greece policy. By doing so, it contributes to the Europeanisation and the growing de-Europeanisation literature in general and the literature on Turkish foreign policy towards Greece in specific.
... To illustrate, in our analysis of the 'totality of interaction', the volume does not offer an explicit focus on transnational or inter-societal relations. In this line, no chapter explicitly explores the impact of individual EU member states on EU-Turkey relations despite the great importance of the role of countries like Germany (Le Gloannec, 2006;Turhan, 2012Turhan, , 2016Turhan, , 2019Reiners & Tekin, 2020), Greece, and Cyprus (Güvenç, 1998;Öniş, 2001;Tsakonas, 2001;Çelik & Rumelili, 2006;Dokos et al., 2018) or of the public opinion in individual member states (Ruiz-Jimenez & Torreblanca, 2007). However, the positions and policies of individual member states are covered throughout the volume, for instance, in the chapters on liberal intergovernmentalism (Tsarouhas, Chapter 2), the European Council (Turhan & Wessels,Chapter 8), foreign policy (Torun, Chapter 13), and energy (Sartori,Chapter 15). ...
This chapter presents the rationale, objectives, and structure of this volume and introduces the reader to the new complexities that epitomize EU–Turkey relations. To this end, it provides a set of guiding questions for the volume, offers a systematic overview of the major milestones in the EU–Turkey relationship, and classifies the key determinants of these developments under three categories: multilateral frameworks and external crises, internal EU and Turkish domestic developments, and EU–Turkey bilateral processes. The chapter then introduces the three-dimensional approach of the volume that brings together the analytical lenses of (1) theories and concepts, (2) institutions, and (3) policies based on a comprehensive survey of both key primary sources and academic literature dealing with the relationship. In a final step, the chapter presents the ensuing fifteen contributions to the volume.
... To illustrate, in our analysis of the 'totality of interaction', the volume does not offer an explicit focus on transnational or inter-societal relations. In this line, no chapter explicitly explores the impact of individual EU member states on EU-Turkey relations despite the great importance of the role of countries like Germany (Le Gloannec, 2006;Turhan, 2012Turhan, , 2019, Greece, and Cyprus (Güvenç, 1998;Öniş, 2001;Tsakonas, 2001;Çelik & Rumelili, 2006;Dokos et al., 2018) or of the public opinion in individual member states (Ruiz-Jimenez & Torreblanca, 2007). However, the positions and policies of individual member states are covered throughout the volume, for instance, in the chapters on liberal intergovernmentalism (Tsarouhas,Chapter 2), the European Council (Turhan & Wessels,Chapter 8), foreign policy (Torun,Chapter 13), and energy (Sartori,Chapter 15). ...
This open access book explores the new complexities and ambiguities that epitomize EU-Turkey relations. With a strong focus on the developments in the last decade, the book provides full access to a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted relationship through three entry points: (1) Theories and Concepts, (2) Institutions, and (3) Policies. Part I brings together complementary and competing analytical approaches to study the evolution of EU-Turkey relations, ranging from traditional integration theories to novel concepts. Part II investigates the institutional machinery of EU-Turkey relations by analyzing the roles and perspectives of the European Council, the European Commission, and the European Parliament. Part III offers analyses of the policies most relevant for the relationship: enlargement policy, trade and macroeconomic policies, foreign and security policy, migration and asylum policies, and energy policy. In Part IV, the volume closes with a systematic survey of the conditions under which cooperative trends in EU-Turkey relations could be (re)invigorated. The systematic setup and the balanced combination of distinguished experts from EU- and Turkey-based institutions make this book a fundamental reading for students, researchers, lecturers, and practitioners of EU-Turkey relations, European integration and Turkish foreign policy.
Wulf Reiners is Senior Researcher and Head of the ‘Managing Global Governance’ (MGG) Program of the German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE).
Ebru Turhan is Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science and International Relations, Turkish-German University in Istanbul, Turkey.
... _ Insan Hakları Derneg˘ i/Human Rights Association). In terms of processes and dynamics of the conflict, Turkey's long-lasting EU membership process has affected the conflict because Turkey's EU membership is partly dependent on solving the Kurdish problem and demands on Turkey regarding human rights reforms and democratization have led to an increase in importance of the conflict for the current AKP government (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi-Justice and Development Party) (see C xelik andRumelili, 2006). ...
Societies in conflicts develop an ‘ethos of conflict’, a set of socially shared beliefs about the conflict. We argue that the ethos of conflict can be based on different representations of the conflict, and exploring such representations helps to analyze similarities and differences between and within conflict parties. We explored representations of the Kurdish conflict among 45 laypeople in a multi-ethnic city in Turkey based on comprehensive models of conflict analysis using an approach based on Q-methodology, which is suitable for uncovering socially shared viewpoints. Representations of conflict were conceptualized along three domains: causes and issues; relationships between the groups, processes and dynamics; and possible solutions. An integrated analysis across these domains revealed five qualitatively distinct viewpoints toward the conflict. The meaning of these viewpoints, their possible links to the ethos of conflict, differences and commonalities within and between conflict parties, the usefulness of our methodological approach to explore conflict viewpoints, and implications for conflict resolution are discussed.
Europeanization is deservedly one of the most popular yet most volatile buzzwords for Turkish politics and EU–Turkey relations. This chapter takes stock of the Europeanization literature and examines the EU–Turkey relationship by referring to particular mechanisms and variants of Europeanization. The main argument is that Europeanization is a versatile and complex process covering vast areas of policy, politics, and polity, intertwined with larger domestic, regional, and global processes, which is not limited to Turkey’s EU accession. The analysis refers to particular mechanisms and variants of Europeanization in four different phases between 1963 and early 2020: In the first period, ‘Europeanization as rapprochement’, Turkey’s age-old Westernization project was consolidated through Europeanization. In the second period, ‘Europeanization as democratic conditionality’, there has been strong interest in the impact of Europeanization on particular aspects of domestic issues through conditionality and the EU’s role as a ‘democratization anchor’. In the third period, ‘Europeanization as retrenchment’, and the fourth period, ‘Europeanization as denial’, ‘Europe’ was no longer the lingua franca in the Turkish political landscape, a trend that is also associated with a ‘de-Europeanization’ turn in the literature. This does not mean that ‘Europe’ completely disappeared from domestic policy orientations, political debates, and identity negotiations. Rather, Ankara used ‘Europe’ strategically to justify actions that were criticized by the EU.
This comparative analysis considers the Turkish-Greek rapprochement and the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement processes with a three-dimensional approach. Although the deep-rooted conflicts between neither Greece and Turkey nor Armenia and Turkey were resolved via these processes, the bilateral relationships between the countries have significantly differed. This paper argues that two key main reasons lie behind this difference: the nature of the initiatives taken during the two processes and the influence of external actors on the course of the bilateral relations between Turkey and Greece, on the one hand, and Turkey and Armenia on the other hand.
The European Union (EU) has required accession states to adopt its acquis communitaire in internal security. Turkey has presented an important case because it has been seen both as a source of threat to the EU, in terms of the spread of organized crime and illegal drugs, and as a problematical candidate for accession. This article looks at the impact of the EU's accession process upon the internal security policies of Turkey, from its application for membership in 1987 to the present. It argues that the EU has exerted a substantial influence on Turkish policy, especially during the period when the prospect of accession was strongest. In spite of the paralysis in its accession negotiations, Turkey remains aligned with EU internal security policy because it has come to internalize the EU's security standards and share its fears of the domestic threats associated with organized crime and drug trafficking.
While the end of the Cold War challenged the classical understanding of national security in Europe, Turkey continued to follow a national security-centered and confrontational foreign policy during the 1990s due to its internal and external security problems. Although this created important differences in security understandings and policies between Turkey and the European Union (EU), Turkey continued to seek EU membership during the 1990s. The goal of this paper is to answer why Turkey was willing to join the EU in the 1990s despite its difficulty in balancing its relations with the EU with its security problems. The main conclusion of the paper is that Turkey’s eagerness to join the EU during the 1990s can be explained by both the perception of EU membership as the most appropriate and desired policy for Turkey and Turkey’s eagerness to ensure its political and security objectives.
This methodical analysis of Greece's strategy towards Turkey highlights important new findings about the role particular elements of a state's strategic culture play in explaining major and/or minor shifts in strategy. The book breaks new ground in exploring when and how states develop socialization strategies.
The Kurdish community in Turkey is one of the groups in favour of Turkey joining the EU. Since the Turkish state has denied and repressed the Kurdish language and identity, the Kurds hope that Turkey’s membership of the EU will reverse their long-lasting experience of oppression. However, it is doubtful if the EU will satisfy Kurdish demands for linguistic equality. The Kurdish issue needs a more comprehensive evaluation than that provided by EU declarations on linguistic minority rights, which are hostage to nation-state philosophy. One of the main themes of this chapter is the language policy of the nation-state project. Most projects that aim to build a national identity turn to language as a ‘homogeneity producing’ instrument. Any minority group that speaks a language other than the national (majority) one is usually perceived as a threat to the desired homogeneous national identity.
While the `security communities' literature has underscored the positive implications of collective identity for sustained peace and cooperation within the communities, it has overlooked the possible security implications of the discourses and practices of differentiation necessarily entailed in the construction of collective identity. Building on the case of Turkish-Greek relations, I argue that through these discourses and practices of differentiation, community-building can create and sustain discursive conditions conducive to conflict perpetuation, especially with and among states situated in liminal positions with respect to the community. Analyzing official and media discourse in Turkey and Greece between 1995 and 1999, I demonstrate, how by situating Turkey and Greece in different and also liminal/precarious positions with respect to `Europe', the community-building discourse of the EU reinforced and legitimized in the two states representations of their identities as different from and also as threatening to each other.
Journal of Modern Greek Studies 15.2 (1997) 395-398
Kevin Featherstone and Kostas Ifantis, editors. Greece in a Changing Europe. Between European Integration and Balkan Disintegration? Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. Distributed by St. Martin's Press. 1996. Pp. 282. $69.95 cloth.
It is one of the ironies of the current international order that whereas for some European states the end of the cold war has brought self-determination and freedom of action, for others it has unleashed great turbulence and dangers. Thus, Germany was reunited, the Baltic republics were restored to sovereignty, and all the nations of Eastern Europe are once again free to fashion their political destinies without outside dictation. On the other hand, for the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia the change proved fatal; for Czechoslovakia the end was peaceful but no less fatal, while Albania's regime continues to unravel.
For Greece the 1990s have been a time of slow but steady entry into Europe's process of integration, coupled with heightened anxiety and occasional diplomatic hyperventilation brought on by the spreading Balkan crisis and the continued confrontation with an unpredictable and ambitious Turkey. For the student of Greek foreign relations the primary areas of activity requiring systematic scrutiny are the country's role -- economic and diplomatic -- in the European Union (EU), its responses to the ongoing Balkan turbulence precipitated by the disintegration of Yugoslavia, relations with Yugoslav Macedonia and with Albania, and the decades-old dialogue with Ankara over Cyprus and Aegean problems. Although no longer the main focus of Greek foreign orientation, relations with the United States and the Atlantic alliance also bear watching, particularly since periodically Washington plays a critical role in Balkan affairs and also proclaims its determination to help the parties in the Cyprus dispute settle their problem. The unfolding scene of the concerns and actions of Greek foreign policy is not easy to follow from a distance, especially since economic relations with the EU involve complex and constantly shifting evidence, as is the case with the prospects for Greece's entry into the proposed European Monetary Union (EMU). It is therefore fortunate that, with increasing regularity, books such as Greece in a Changing Europe appear to bring the record up to date (almost!) and to give fresh food for thought.
This slender volume comprises ten essays of varying lengths and pretensions that originated as presentations at a conference held in June 1994 at the London School of Economics. In a wide-ranging introduction, coeditor Kevin Featherstone provides a comprehensive and highly readable overview of the issues addressed by the other authors and summarizes their conclusions. He addresses in particular three overarching themes: Greece's performance as an EU member, the impact of EU membership on Greek domestic and foreign policies, and Greek efforts to deal with the changing international environment. He finds that, although criticism of Greece's conduct within the EU has at times been unfair or exaggerated, in the 1980s and early 1990s the performance of the Greek economy was poor and the country's standing in Europe weakened. The record of Greek compliance with EU rules appears to be mixed, especially in view of the EU Commission's rather drastic reaction to the Greek trade embargo on Yugoslav Macedonia. Nevertheless, Featherstone concludes, EU membership represents for Greece "a strong modernizing and liberalizing force."
In an all too brief and undeveloped essay, James Pettifer maintains that Western Europeans and the "American oriented international media" misunderstand Greek political culture, particularly its "conservatism" and disdain for "modernist technocratic ideology," while the country's "heterogeneous ethnic composition" has been misperceived as "complete homogeneity," especially because of the powerful influence of the Orthodox Church. Pettifer blames Greek political elites for cultivating and uncorking the "nationalist genie," thus giving rise to irrational and dangerous public reactions to international developments, and for failing to appreciate the emergence of "new and legitimate Balkan nationalism." These are all important arguments. However, the author's references to an undefined political culture remain ambiguous and raise more questions than they attempt to answer.
The volume's first section ends with a short...
Drawing on interviews with Greek and Turkish policymakers and civil society leaders, this article analyzes how the context provided by Turkey's EU membership candidacy has facilitated and strengthened Greek–Turkish cooperation. I argue that Turkey's EU membership candidacy has empowered the domestic actors in favour of promoting Greek–Turkish cooperation, and allowed them to use the EU to legitimize their cooperative policies and activities. Thereby, since the Helsinki decisions, Greek–Turkish cooperation has gained an EU dimension, which has made a reversal in bilateral relations much less likely.
Identities in Question: Greek-Turkish Relations in a Period of Transformation?
- A Gundogdu
A. Gundogdu, 'Identities in Question: Greek-Turkish Relations in a Period of
Transformation?' (2001) 5