A newly released policy report on Turkey
by the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic
Academy in Washington caught my eye this week. The report
was dubbed, "Getting to Zero: Turkey, Its Neighbors and the West," and the
brief's analysis and policy recommendations unfortunately display a distinct
pro-Turkish bias which fails to recognize that Ankara's aggressive foreign and
security policy posture is increasingly at odds with core U.S. and European
interests.
Turkey has not only been working
hard to prevent tougher sanctions on its close regional partner Iran - see the
recent Turkey-Brazil nuclear deal with Tehran and its "no" vote at the UN Security Council -
but has also purposely used the flotilla incident to provoke Israel
into military action, while simultaneously boosting its own standing in the
Arab world. Turkish flags and portraits of Prime Minister Erdogan are now
ubiquitous in the Gaza Strip, where Turkey is being hailed by Hamas and
other Muslim extremist groups for daring to confront the Jewish state. Also,
tens of thousands of demonstrators have taken to the streets across major
Turkish cities in recent days, waving Hezbollah and Palestinian flags, while
chanting "Allah is Great" and "Down with Israel."
The entire report seems to be based
on the assumption that Turkey's
Islamist AKP government, at this moment, is already a constructive player in
the Middle East, which helps promote
"universal values" in the region. Well, for more information on the
Islamist/terrorist connections of the Turkish IHH "charity" that organized the
flotilla to break Israel's Gaza blockade see here, here, and here.
Several of the report's policy
recommendations, especially those aimed at the EU and U.S., are also
quite disconcerting. The EU partners, for example, are urged to "[c]onduct
relations with Turkey
according to the principle of pacta sunt servanda, a central pillar of
the European integration project." It is not necessary to remind the EU of the pacta
sunt servanda (Latin for "agreements must be kept") concept, which is of
course a fundamental principle of international law. After all, Brussels seems
fully committed to continuing its accession negotiations with Ankara (first
started in 2005) at all cost, despite growing evidence that Turkey's early,
limited progress on the road toward closer European integration has been undone
in recent years by the erratic and increasingly nationalist policies of Prime
Minister Erdogan's Islamist AKP government. To this day, Ankara
refuses to recognize Cyprus,
an existing EU member, as a sovereign state. If anything, pacta sunt
servanda can only refer to the notion that the EU negotiations with Turkey should continue (as an open-ended
process); it cannot and should not be used in an ill-advised attempt to force
the EU to eventually accept Ankara
regardless of the outcome of the accession talks. That commitment was never
made to the Turks.
As for the U.S., the report
recommends, inter alia, that Washington "[s]upport Turkey's EU membership
through quiet diplomacy by encouraging Turkey's reform efforts and indicating
to its European partners that the notion of ‘privileged partnership' lacks
credibility and undermines the letter and the spirit of the accession process."
For sure, if Washington wants to continue to
press for Turkish EU membership, it is certainly well-advised to do so
discreetly behind the scenes, not using the type of counter-productive megaphone diplomacy espoused by President Obama
(and previous U.S.
presidents for that matter). As key European leaders like French President
Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel have repeatedly emphasized, the decision
on Turkey's
potential EU accession will be taken by each of the 27-member states, not by
any outside party.
The report also makes a mistake by
dismissing outright the concept of a "privileged partnership." While Turkey and the EU are continuing their accession
talks, it is obviously far too early to tell what the endgame will be and
whether Turkey
will ever be ready - or still be willing - to join the EU in the future. It is
therefore only prudent and honest to start defining the parameters of a
"privileged partnership" (or whatever you want to call it) with countries such
as Turkey
as a viable, potential alternative to full EU membership. The concept could
also be used to structure relations with other strategically important
countries (Ukraine, Algeria, Morocco, etc.) that, for a variety
of reasons, are either unable or unwilling to join the EU.
The executive summary of the Turkey
report concludes with the following words: "As the policy recommendations ...
make clear, the report does not propose an uncritical appraisal of Turkish actions
but one which recognizes that contributions to American and European goals may
come in a new, and perhaps unfamiliar, guise."
Reading these words, I do not know
whether to laugh or cry.
Ulf Gartzke is a contributor to The Weekly Standard blog. This article first appeared on the Weekly Standard Online and is republished here with permission.
Related Materials:
- Hovsep Khurshudyan: New Turks Are Needed to Achieve a New Turkey
- Mustafa Kutlay: The Israeli Attack on Humanitarian Aid Ships: An EU Perspective
- 9
July 19, 2010
Jordan Brown, UCLA, Silver Contributor (33)
And is the EU really even considering full membership for Turkey anytime soon? It seems that the flotilla, refusing to recognize the Armenian Genocide, Cyrpus, and having a party like the AKP in power would all contributing to spooking by at least several of the EU member states.
I don't imagine that Mr. Gartzke is checking comments on Atlantic Community since his opinion is republished from the Weekly Standard. But maybe someone else with some insight could offer an answer to my question. I'm really just looking to be a little more enlightened on this whole subject of the EU and its relationship to Turkey.