The strategic implications of Turkey's integration in the European Union
... Since the US war in Iraq in 2003, many EU actors have considered Turkey as part of the unstable Levantine region in the Middle East. In terms of stability, Turkey's membership could be seen as either an asset or a liability to the EU (Barkey & Le Gloannec, 2005;Lippert, 2005a). ...
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.
... Since the US war in Iraq in 2003, many EU actors have considered Turkey as part of the unstable Levantine region in the Middle East. In terms of stability, Turkey's membership could be seen as either an asset or a liability to the EU (Barkey & Le Gloannec, 2005;Lippert, 2005a). ...
This chapter analyzes the relationship between the EU and Turkey from the perspective of the EU’s enlargement policy. It sets out to explain the extent to which Turkey represents a special and difficult case for EU enlargement policy and addresses the following aspects of the relationship. First, the overall concepts, motives, and criteria of EU enlargement are introduced. The second section deals with critical questions that Turkey poses for the EU in this respect. The third section outlines how specific features of the EU–Turkey relationship have played out from the onset and during accession negotiations. While no full or detailed account of the history of relations is given, the focus is on those issues that make Turkey a special and (almost) dead case of EU enlargement policy. Finally, a brief outlook on the future of bilateral relations is presented which shows the persistent ambivalences that characterize Brussels’ relationship with Ankara.
A team of Central Europe-based political geographers examines Turkey's bid for European Union (EU) membership, one of the most controversial issues confronting that country's and EU politics. The authors analyze Eurobarometer public opinion survey data on EU enlargement (and particularly Turkey's EU membership) across the 27 polities of the enlarged EU as well as in Turkey itself. The analysis of the data points to clear regional differences in support for Turkey's EU membership. Moreover, the authors' statistical analysis indicates two major components around which public perceptions of Turkey's EU membership coalesce. The first, identified as a "thick" component, based on the idea that EUrope embodies a specific cultural identity, opposes Turkish membership, whereas a second "thin" component, comprised of institutional-procedural norms, leaves the door open to Turkey. They argue that it is at the complex intersection of these two opposing views that Turkey's bid for EU membership should be located and eventually decided.
Turkey could not have a more vigorous advocate for its quest for European Union accession than the United States. Successive administrations in Washington have strongly asserted that Turkey is an intrinsic part of Europe, that historically and politically, Ankara has played a critical role in the defence of Europe against the Soviet Union and that now it is an indispensable country in bridging the civilisational divide. In the early 1970s, the United States decided to locate Turkey in Europe, bureaucratically speaking of course. Turkey, which used to be in the Near East bureau in the State Department and elsewhere in the bureaucracy, was transferred to the European divisions of the respective administrative agencies. Hence it is perhaps ironic that after arguing for decades that Turkey is a European country, the United States, through its Iraq invasion, has in one bold stroke managed to push Turkey back into the Middle East. Of course, other events, especially Turkish domestic politics, have also played a role in making this percep- tual move possible. Simply stated, as United States security concerns shifted east and away from Europe, it was only natural, though far from intentional, that Washington would take Ankara along with it. This article will analyse the impact of the United States' policies in the Middle East on European Union-Turkish relations. How has Washington's war on Iraq, its bras de fer with Iran, its pursuit of a democratisation agenda for the Middle East and its approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict helped shape EU views of Turkey's accession process? It should be stressed from the outset that there is no uniform answer to these questions as the EU is not a homogenous enterprise. In many instances, diverse stakeholders in each country may have reacted in different ways to these policy developments. The approach advanced here is anything but systematic: it starts out with a broad view of how US policies in the Middle East have affected Turkey. Only after that can an analysis of European reactions be attempted.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.