Had he been living today and commenting on Turkey’s accession to the European Union, Karl Marx would probably have recited his works on the “Eastern Question” and posit an argument based on dialectic materialism; haves, have-nots, the bourgeoisie trying to suppress the proletariat on both sides of the fence, irreconcilable differences between classes, etc. His influential disciple V.I. Lenin would have reformulated his thesis on imperialism and argue that Turkey’s EU bid is an association between the rich classes of Europe and Turkey and is essentially the last gasp of imperialism in both entities.
It is not my intention, however, to approach Turkey’s culminating crisis with the EU from a Marxist-Leninist perspective. I am a liberal by conviction, although I believe Marxism has its merits as a frame of analysis. Yet there is more relevance between Turkey’s relations with the EU and the famous maxim by Groucho Marx, the American comedian: “I refuse to join a club that would have me as a member.”
Turkey’s Changing Attitudes Toward the EU
Despite great opposition from most Europeans and their statesmen, Turks had been quite adamant about joining the EU until recently. Opinion polls had never dropped below the high 60 percents and Turkish people were hopeful about their country’s prospects when accession negotiations formally began last year. They wanted to become a member to a club that would not have them as a member.
Turkey is now realizing that its chances of joining the EU club are dwindling. The Union is telling Turkey to open its airports and seaports to Greek Cypriot vessels without the EU side making any overtures to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Last week, while visiting Armenia, French President Jacques Chirac explicitly stated that Turkey had to recognize the alleged Armenian genocide before it could join the EU.1 All of these may make sense from a European point of view but they do not stand the test of reality and do not serve European interests.
Cyprus
European diplomats in 2002 confided in private conversations that “Cyprus” would be denied entry into the EU if Turkey acquiesced to have UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s plan put on a referendum before the Greek Cypriots joined the Union in May 2004. A Turkish overture toward a solution would be rewarded by European neutrality over the question and “Cyprus” would not join the EU until a solution was reached, these assurances went.
Unfortunately, the Ecevit government’s lack of vision and diplomatic boldness benefited Greek Cypriots more than anything and the initiatives of the succeeding government of Tayyip Erdoğan to revive the process came too little too late. When the referendum was held in April 2004, even though Turkish Cypriots ratified the plan and Greek Cypriots did not, the latter were graciously rewarded by membership in the EU the following month.
Given their behavior toward Turkey today, it is quite possible that European diplomats were lying four years ago. Today, the EU is tacitly intimidating the Turkish government to open its ports to Greek Cypriots vessels. It may seem understandable, given the fact that the customs union between the EU and Turkey should normally cover the Greek Cypriot administration. The Turkish government is not categorically rejecting this proposition; it is only asking the EU to ease the embargo on Turkish Cypriots as a gesture of good will – which was promised by a variety of European nations. Now, however, they are rebutting these offers without a tinge of conscience.
What is truly unfair is that the Greek Cypriots are not held one-tenth responsible for the conflict, even though it was their cooperation with the fascist junta in Athens back in 1974 that brought the Turkish armed forces to the island. Currently they are not even bothering to negotiate and are reaping the rewards for it. Turkish Cypriots, on the other hand, are struggling for their survival under a punitive and, with their stance on the Annan Plan, completely unjust set of sanctions. It may seem foolproof to ask Turkey to recognize a member of a club that it is trying to join, but that request is not being made in good faith and that will not stand. It is silly to expect Turkey to make any more concessions without some coming from the EU side.
The Burden of the EU Process and Freedom in Foreign Affairs
Given the present state of affairs, the circus caused by the prospects of joining the EU is draining vital time and energy from Turkey’s able but small diplomatic corps. With all the intra-service notes, reports, memoranda, and meetings going on in the Foreign Ministry to satiate spoiled Europeans, more important issues such as Iran’s nuclear program, the situation in Iraq, relations with Russia and the United States are being put to the backburner. For a country that has traditionally benefited mostly from maintaining multilateralism in its foreign affairs, Turkey’s incessant reliance on the EU is imprudent. Turkey needs to step back from the mess and reconsider its options, which must include retreating from EU membership.2
It might seem too far-fetched to consider such an option, but it is always better to be prepared than be caught off-guard. My op-ed last week might have come forward as anti-American for some but that is not true. The United States, despite the Bush administration’s best efforts, still has the First Amendment in its Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Freedom of speech, regardless of how vulgar and odd, is still a right. That is obviously in conflict with locking up people in Guantanamo and secret prisons around the world, which runs against the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury.”
But it is an even greater contrast with what Europeans do (concentration camps were a European invention for those with weak memories). By disallowing Turkey to fight Armenian and Cypriot allegations on an equal footing, the EU is demonstrating that it really is not interested in freedom and equality; it is about boring conformism. The richness of a political debate is determined by the diversity of arguments in that debate. As George Patton once said, “if everybody’s thinking the same thing, than nobody’s thinking.” It is a perfectly valid question as to whether Turkey wants to join an organization that institutionally bars certain non-violent forms of speech.
While pursuing a more independent course of action might be a more plausible answer, it might not yield the desired outcome in the short run. Retreating from EU membership might poison Turkey’s relations with Greece, which has been at a good standing more or less since Turkey was granted candidacy status in December 1999. Greece has interestingly been Turkey’s most consistent supporter at EU summits, sometimes even despite its affiliation with the Greek Cypriots. A possible retreat from the EU process must be accompanied by the sincerest assurances to Greece that Greek-Turkish relations need to be situated on more stable grounds regardless of the intransigence of the Greeks’ European partners and Cypriot brethren.
The Prospects of Democratization Without the EU Process…
…are not doomed at all. A foreign policy that is more realistic, multilateralist, and independent does not contradict the extension of freedoms in the domestic realm. On the contrary, any Turkish government that combines an assertive foreign policy and an extension of rights and liberties at home with the necessary reforms that would truly bring about economic prosperity to the country would be extremely popular.
Turkey can only fulfill its Kemalist legacy by adhering to its true spirit. This is evident in the following story: During the 1930s, President Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Prime Minister İsmet İnönü assigned the eccentric apparatchik Recep Peker to draft a report that would give a new sense of mission to Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (CHP-Republican Peoples’ Party). Peker’s 1936 report, which proposed the reorganization of the RPP along the lines of the Italian Fascist Party, met Atatürk’s bitter resentment. Atatürk reportedly exclaimed “what the hell has Recep done again?” and elucidated his vision for Turkey to his aide Hasan Rıza Soyak as follows: “Should an anti-monarchical current take over the world in the future, even those who demand a sultanate can form a party in this country.”3 Following September 11, this historic mission of Turkey that Islam and democracy can be reconciled on the same land has become even clearer.
What needs to be done at this stage is to cleanse the penal code from oddities like Article 301 (“insulting Turkishness”). Unlike European countries, the limit to freedom of speech must be set in such a way that only a clear and present call to violence would become a punishable offense. Even those demanding “a sultanate,” if they advocate their position peacefully, should let be.
The Kurdish Question and the PKK
By the standards set by Turkey’s founding father, the way to tackle PKK terrorism on the one hand and the Kurdish question on the other is very hard but not impossible, although the solution might have seemingly contradictory ingredients. The Kurdish question must be dealt in line with its political, social, and economic realities. Simply saying something on Kurds must be distinguished from professing violence. Meanwhile, the completion of the Southeast Anatolian Project4 must be the first and foremost thing on the nation’s agenda. A more rigorous grand strategy to bring the region to the twentieth century will likely pull a lot of the metaphorical carpet from under the PKK’s feet.
The most paradoxical of my suggestions relates to the leader of the PKK, Abdullah Öcalan, who is in prison at the moment. Turkey must seriously consider about re-imposing capital punishment, which it had completely repealed in 2004 in order to charm the indifferent and insatiable Europeans, thus allowing Öcalan to transform himself from a hostage to a mediator (I am personally against capital punishment and consider the destruction of life in any form immoral. However, I am realistic enough to know that there is a vast reality out there, unburdened by my moral qualms). The reason why the PKK was silent from 1999 until 2004 was that the Ecevit government had tacitly signaled to the terrorist group that it would execute “Apo” if it did not halt its attacks. Read backwards, if the group remained silent, their leader would let be. But the rationale of this tacit deal has already been replaced by PKK’s renewed attacks and Turkey must do everything at its disposal to shift the balance in its favor.
For sure, Turkey had guaranteed the United States that it would not execute Öcalan in order not to inflame the situation. On the other hand, the Turkish government should seriously take into account alternate ways in case push comes to shove. It might even take a new understanding with the American government for Öcalan’s fate to be decided.
Thinking Aloud
Many people genuinely want Turkey in the European Union. I am not sure if I am one of them anymore. I would like to see my country as a member of an organization with which it may still share some values and a prosperous future. On the other hand, the relationship between the process of membership and actual membership is similar to that of dating and marriage – you can pick up signals during the first stage to figure out if the commitment is going to work later on. With Europe’s treatment of Turkey, it might be the right time to look for alternate associations and/or peaceful solitude.
+++
Barın Kayaoğlu is a Ph.D. student in history at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia and a regular contributor to the Journal of Turkish Weekly.
E-mail: kayaoglu@virginia.edu
