Turkey-EU relations: from 2009 onwards

-
The relationship between Turkey and the EU existed way before to the extent that it can be traced with Turkey’s predecessor, the Ottoman Empire, though of course, the nature of the relationship has totally changed from alleged anonymity to positive engagement with the new Turkish Republic. The inclination of Turkey towards the west through the policies of westernization and secularization that Turkey followed since its inception, was materialized with the 1963 Ankara Agreement between the European Economic Community (EEC) and Turkey, to facilitate the accession membership of Turkey into the community. Fifty years has passed and the membership goal set out by the Ankara Agreement is still far from being a reality, this is still the case till today. To better understand the causes of this setback this paper attempts to analyse the relationship between Turkey and the EU since 2009 by taking the work of Eralp as a framework in its analysis,[1] in which Eralp emphasizes the importance of the time factor in the relationship between the two parties. This factor is, in turn, influenced by the factor of interaction which is crystalized by the temperament of the relations between Turkey and the EU. In other words, when the interaction between Turkey and the EU slows in term of time due to challenges that surface throughout the negotiations process the relations between the both parties is likely to diverge.[2] This paper argues, similar to Eralp, that governing with time processes (i.e. meeting the negotiation criteria) is at times heralded by events that slow down the governing of time processes due to  various events that took place between the period of 2009-2017 like which undermined any further progress towards the completion of the negotiations.
The cumulative stagnation in the relations since the opening of the accession talks made solving the problems even harder between both parties. Following setbacks in its relations with the EU, Turkey became more and more disenchanted and sceptical towards any near future membership and in turn moving this long-sought goal down the agenda of the Turkish authorities.[3] This pattern is still persistent till today even though recent talks to upgrade the Customs Union are being discussed. In regards to the EU, unilateral vetoes against opening accession chapters with Turkey began to be routinized which in turn show reluctance of influential member states to support Turkish membership.[4]
The Cyprus issue remain until today an issue with little hope of resolving it. Recently, however, in talks to upgrade the customs union between both parties, Turkey accepted to open its ports to Cypriot vessels with the condition that doing so Turkey does not declare the legitimacy of the Cypriot government. Yet, even under such concessions, it is unwise to make any predictions whether such move by Turkey would be welcomed by Cyprus in this regard, particularly when it vetoed the opening of the first chapter regarding the customs union in the accession negotiations in June 2006.[5]
Another major issue in front of Turkey is the fulfilment of the Copenhagen political criteria in the areas of democracy and human rights.[6] Even in the talks of upgrading the customs union, if Turkey seeks eventual accession into the EU membership, meeting the political criteria is inescapable. Though earlier periods saw increased reforms process in turkey, the period after 2010 saw a slow down in this process. Yet as Mütfüler-Baç makes it clear “The Turkish straying away from political reforms is partly related to the mixed messages coming from the EU”.[7]
Furthermore, stagnations between the two parties and also domestic events prevented the country from going any further towards fulfilling these criteria.[8] Despite of this, the Turkish government since the beginning of the accession negotiations has implemented most of the criteria set by the European Council, yet the Gezi events of 2013 and the Turkish government’s handling of the situation was a setback in its relations with the EU, especially when  in regards to chapter 22 which was meant to be opened in June 2013“Germany grounded its veto [to launch the chapter] inexplicitly on the Turkish government’s handling of the Gezi Park demonstrations”.[9]
However, the rambunctious handling of time by both parties in recent years is attributed to changing dynamics in both parties. Recent events in the EU forced it to pay attention inwards altering EU’s approach from neighboring countries from enlargement to fostering good relations with the new Neighborhood policy. [10] This caused a lack of commitment from the Turkish part in return in regards to fulfilling the accession criteria.[11]
From what preceded above, the relations between Turkey and the EU since 2009 were even more complicated than it has ever been before. Various events played important role (i.e. governing of time) in slowing down the process of governing with time. The temporality of the period between 2009 and 2016 could be argued to have diverged in terms of relations between both parties, with little hope that recent talks to upgrade the customs union would bring the both parties back again. However, as stated above, the customs union is only part of the relations between the both parties to help assisting the eventual accession membership of Turkey into the EU, yet the most vital issue that can lead to the achievement of this goal is not the customs union or its revision, but the fulfilment of the political criteria.

References

Chislett, William, Turkey’s 10 years of EU accession negotiations: no end in sight,(Madrid: Elcano Royal Institute, 2015), <http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/web/rielcano_en/contenido?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/elcano/elcano_in/zonas_in/wp14-2015-chislett-turkeys-10-years-of-eu-accession-negotiations-no-end-in-sight>
Eralp, Atila, ‘The role of temporality and interaction in the Turkey-EU relationship’, New Perspectives on Turkey, 40 (2009), pp. 149-170
Müftüler-Baç, Meltem, ‘Turkey's ambivalent relations with the European Union: To Accede or not to Accede’, Uluslararası İlişkiler, 13 (2016), pp.89-103
Turhan, Ebru, ‘Turkey's EU accession process: do member states matter?’, Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 24 (2016), p.463-477



[1] Atila Eralp, ‘The role of temporality and interaction in the Turkey-EU relationship’, New Perspectives on Turkey, 40 (2009), pp. 149-170
[2] Eralp, p. 150
[3] Eralp, p. 164
[4] Ebru Turhan, ‘Turkey's EU accession process: do member states matter?’, Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 24 (2016), pp.463-477 (p.469)
[5] Turhan, p. 468
[6] Meltem Müftüler-Baç, ‘Turkey's ambivalent relations with the European Union: To Accede or not to Accede’, Uluslararası İlişkiler, 13 (2016), pp.89-103 (p.93)
[7] Müftüler-Baç, p.94
[8] William Chislett, Turkey’s 10 years of EU accession negotiations: no end in sight, (Madrid: Elcano Royal Institute, 2015), p. 8 < http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/web/rielcano_en/contenido?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/elcano/elcano_in/zonas_in/wp14-2015-chislett-turkeys-10-years-of-eu-accession-negotiations-no-end-in-sight>
[9] Turhan, p. 470 (parenthesis added)
[10] Müftüler-Baç, p.92
[11] Müftüler-Baç, p.97

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In what ways did the emergence of the British, French and German nation states during the nineteenth century shape attitudes to immigration?

-
The modern political system is made up of nation-states, each has its own understanding of the nation and citizenship that characterizes it from the rest. The state, or the nation-state, consist of citizens, as Aristotle puts it. However, both the ideas of the state and citizenship were under constant change throughout history due to changes the political structure, of the time, came through. During the times of Aristotle citizenship was associated with the polis , or the city-state, it was not until the eighteenth century that the idea of the nation emerged, and before that people were considered subjects and not citizens. It is interesting how the emergence of the nation-state was followed by the spread of immigration, specially that the Nineteenth century is regarded as the golden age of immigration. How did the emergence of the nation-state affect immigration? This paper will examine the nation-states of Britain, France and Germany in relation to immigration, it will begin by exa...
Read more

Surveillance and its discontents

-
Surveillance in the sense of gathering information about people existed throughout history, a simple example can be given from the Roman Empire when Caesar Augustus issued a decree for taking census throughout the empire, in order to maintain the functioning of the Empire and collect taxes (Claytor & Bagnall, 215;  Lyon, 1994, p. 22) . Therefore, since it’s an old social event, one wonders what’s the matter with surveillance today? Why so much attention is increasing in regards to surveillance since the last decade? Are there any differences between the surveillance since the times of the Roman Empire with surveillance today? And if so what are they? All these questions will be answered in this paper. It will begin by attempting to define what is surveillance, then it will examine the 2009 House of Lords Report (HOL) on this subject, then it will critically examine some of the issues raised in the report; particularly how surveillance shapes the relationship between the citiz...
Read more