Today, the EU wants to be an active global player in the Balkans, Caucasus, the Mediterranean and the Middle East with Turkey at the crossroads of all these regions. You may find various definitions, but all of them have one thing in common: being a global player is about goals, tools and success. There may be different perceptions but success arises from an actor’s credibility and consequently its ability to play the anchor role for stabilisation.

The EU’s capacity to be a stabilising anchor depends on its military and financial resources and on its capacity to act with a single voice. Kosovo’s independence is the most recent case that revealed important aspects. Of course, it would not be right to expect the EU to have a foreign policy like the US, but since the EU wants to be an alternative with its “soft power” approach,  it is worth noting how the difference in the recognition of Kosovo’s independence took place. Kosovo is just one and the most recent example of how difficult it is for the EU’s to speak with a single voice.

While dealing with the Balkans on the one hand, the EU has the goal to stabilise the Mediterranean on the other hand. The Mediterranean Union project with its current stance is one further example of the EU’s inability to act with a single voice. Although Sarkozy’s proposal to found a Mediterranean Union is not supported by all the members, especially Germany, steps towards its establishment have increased, for example research on the Arab World and the EU’s role in the region. With the French EU presidency the process will probably be accelerated.

However, how the EU is going to achieve its goals like democracy and promotion of human rights in this region is questionable. The EU’s main values cannot be thought of without secularism which reveals Turkey’s importance for the EU whereas many European politicians overlook it for the sake of populist politics and present Turkey as “the other”.

Moreover, any discussion about Turkey’s “otherness” inevitably leads to questions about the EU’s capacity to be an anchor in the world. If Turkey is such an “other” despite its adaptation of Western values like secularism since its establishment, and the EU cannot even be an anchor for Turkey with these “Western” values in its political system, how is the EU going to be a stability anchor in other regions which do not even have such political systems?

Thus, the EU’s efficiency in being a stability anchor in a candidate country can tell us much about its capacity to be a global player. Especially, in a candidate country of particular importance in geostrategic terms and in the world after 9/11, where polarization has started among the civilisations and consequently religions.

Yet, the support for Turkey’s membership in the EU is decreasing – not only in Europe but also in Turkey – as well as the skepticism towards the EU and its lack of credibility. That questions on whether Turkey is on the road to the full integration with the West are rising must be a reason for the EU to reconsider its policy tools. Of course only if the EU really wants Turkey to be a full member of Europe, if the EU wants to become a world player by Turkey’s accession which is a full secular democracy. It is almost a cliché to accuse the EU of being a Christian club, but if Turkey’s otherness due to the majority of the population currently possessing identity cards stating Islam as their religion is so important for the EU, then this cliché turns out to be true.

And if the EU never considered Turkey as “European”, why did it start negotiations in the first place? Only to make it a privileged partner which provides the necessary military and energy resources, but never with the same rights for freedom of movement of people and capital, goods and services? If Turkey becomes a privileged partner, would it mean for Turkish citizens that getting a visa would not take two months but five weeks?

The EU’s principle foreign policy tool of conditionality is losing its appeal. It is weakened by its increased lack of credibility and by some European leaders’ rising lobbying activities against Turkish accession. The discourse in Europe is shifting to populist politics. Blaming Turkey for the slowdown in the reform process only encourages populist politics.

Goals, tools, and success. The circle is very obvious: Success is the achievement of the goals by the right policy choices.

The claim to be a global player is only warranted if the actor is successful. It can only be successful if it is consistent and credible with its goals and policies. Otherwise, it would not be a global player but a cacophonic multinational one consisting of domestic populist players.