It is of course questionable how reliable this promise is. Not only because the EU’s credibility in case of Turkey has become almost absurd but also because the concept of Mediterranean was and is always an alternative to the concept of European. And this concept, “being European” is now needed even more than before.

The Question of Identity

Since its beginning, people have asked what was meant by “European”. For Germany, the idea of Europe was more important than to the other countries, in the first place to anchor its German identity after the Second World War to the European identity. This elite-driven project- ironic, if one thinks about the wrong analyses of modern Turkey and the misuse of the elite concept- was successful and supported by the other founders as a means to control Germany. This European identity was then strengthened with the introduction of the Euro to complete the Economic and Monetary Union. The Euro was a step to create and deepen the European identity. Now, this identiy has spread to countries with minor democratic experience-also with less democraticj experience than Turkey - but countries with the same “values”… Talking about values is risky; first of all, it is the easiest way to get support from the public which in turn can lead to populist politics.

But the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty has once again shown that the European identity based on shared values is not accepted by all members. The “no-vote” in Ireland, reminded everyone of the consitiutional crisis in 2005 and increased scepticism towards those countries where a referendum must take place before ratification. This demonstrates the need for a stronger European identiy and this can only be done by a stronger definition of the “other’s” identity.

The need for the definiton of the other’s identity

Nobody can deny that the Ottoman Empire, taking a huge place in the collective memory of the Europeans was situated in Europe and part of the European history. However, for many it was the “other” against which the main actors should unite - or it was the strategic partner in the formation of politics against another “European” actor.

According to some academics dealing with European identity, the Balkans, for example, were the other Europe whereas the Turks were completely the “other”[1]. Unfortunately, it looks like this has not changed. A crucial article of Michelle Pace demonstrates how the definition of the Mediterranean has also changed over the years.

“A discourse analysis of some EU primary sources including EU documentation

on the Mediterranean and some interviews carried out at the European

Commission highlights the tension in the several references made to this

area, which is here understood as a socially constructed idea.”[2]

In her useful article one can read;

“The Rome Treaty defines Greece, Spain, Malta, Cyprus, Turkey and the other ‘non-European countries and territories which have special relations’ with the founding members as European”

“With Portugal, Greece and Spain becoming members and the fall of Berlin Wall, regulations are made for the Maghreb and Mashreq countries and territories as well as Turkey, Cyprus and Malta”

Then the relations with the Mediterranean becomes “the releations with the Maghreb and Mashreq countries and Israel, while noting the importance of the Community’s particular relations with Turkey, as well as those with Cyprus and Malta”.

“Then, the Mediterranean is defined and put as a footnote as ‘Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey.’ while no

reference is made to Malta, Cyprus and the Palestinian territories in this definition”.

Finally, the statement is the following:

“[t]he countries of the European Union and their eastern and western Mediterranean   partners …’ and the initiatives under the first pillar are said to involve ‘a dialogue with countries in the Arab-Muslim world, and with other countries’. And ‘between Europe and its neighbours in the southern andeastern Mediterranean’ and further on the partners are referred to as ‘the Mediterranean rim countries.’[3]

Thus it wouldn’t be wrong, despite its simplification, to view today’s attempts to establish a Mediterranean Union as the establishment of dialogue with the Muslim world. That is why Turkey is needed even more than before, but in terms of this proposal not as a European country. Within this framework, Turkey would be the most preferred strategic partner. Turkey would be anchored to the West but would not belong to the West. This might be one of the reasons why France is declaring they wouldn’t put extra obstacles in the way of Turkey’s accession process during their term presidency. It is in the best interest of this policy to keep Turkey waiting in front of the door, treating it as “almost Western” and giving her the task of representing the “Western values” in the Muslim world.  But like any other successful franchise company it should adopt to local tastes. This does not, however, mean that Turkey is viewed as Western or European.

Two days ago, hundreds of thousands of people were applauding Barack Obama in Berlin when he asked for more support in the fight against terrorism. An influential speech for the European public as everybody applauded that “true partnership requires sacrifice”. How the European “elite” will respond to this applause is of course unknown, but with its “soft power” policies like in the case of establishing dialogue with the Muslim World, the EU will seek and probably get support from the US - no matter who the next American president will be - for the creation of the Mediterranean Union.

Looking at all these points, one can see that nothing has changed in the mainstream Western European perception of Turkey. That’s why the accession process will be never ending. Who knows, maybe with more political crises in the future there won’t even be an EU of 27, when Turkey can finally join. And that is why the Mediterranean Union is going to be the seed of many political crises. Underestimating acceptance of “European” values like democracy, secularism and market economy, not only by the elites but the wider society in Turkey, is wrong and this way of franchise politics instead of full membership only costs time and energy.