PERCEPTIONS AND MISPERCEPTIONS IN THE EU AND TURKEY Stumbling blocks on the road to accession Peter M.E. Volten, editor 2009 HARMONIE PAPER 23 Perceptions and misperceptions in the EU and Turkey: Stumbling blocks on the road to accession. Editor: Peter Volten Copyright © 2009 by CESS All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. First published in October 2009 by The Centre of European Security Studies (CESS) Lutkenieuwstraat 31 A 9712 AW Groningen The Netherlands Director: Peter Volten ISBN: 978-90-76301-25-9 The Centre for European Security Studies (CESS) is an independent institute for research, consultancy, education and training, based in the Netherlands. Its aim is to promote transparent, accountable and effective governance of the security sector, broadly defined. It seeks to advance democracy and the rule of law, help governments and civil society face their security challenges, and further the civilized and lawful resolution of conflict. CESS is international, multidisciplinary and collaborative. Its work is part of the European quest for peace and security both within and outside Europe. CESS encourages informed debate, empowers individuals, fosters mutual under- standing on military and other security matters, promotes and sustains democratic structures and processes and supports reforms that favour stability and peace. PREFACE Ever since its inception some fourteen years ago, the Centre for European Security Studies in Groningen has focussed on the transformation of the security sector in the post –Cold War setting. Our chief concern has been to support and promote democratic governance. Even in defence and security, which is often confidential and specialised, governments must account for their actions and their use of public resources. In the words of our much-regretted colleague David Greenwood, who passed away on 11 May 2009, the essence of governmental responsibility is for the executive branch to “reveal, explain and justify” its policies and actions to Parliament and the public at large. During the Netherlands EU presidency of 2004, we launched a programme to assist Turkey in its process of accession to the European Union. The Netherlands government generously supported this programme, but is not responsible for its content. CESS is convinced that Turkish membership would benefit both Turkey and the union. Anchored in NATO and the EU, Turkey will be better able to make a geopolitical contribution in a vitally important region of the world. Conversely, if the EU is able to incorporate Turkey as a secular state and the second largest democracy with a preponderantly Muslim population, this would be a strong affirmation of the pluralistic values of the EU, both internationally and within each member state. The acceptance of shared values would also have a stabilising impact on domestic issues in the West. For these reasons, CESS organised a task force, which reported on the need for “further alignment” of Turkish and Western practices in civil-military relations. Much has been done, but we are not there yet. We identified areas in which we believe Turkey needs to carry forward its democratic reforms. At the same time, we tried to explain what we think the EU means by European standards and practices in civil- military relations. Candidate members like Turkey are expected to align themselves with these standards and practices, but no one knows exactly what they are. My own approach has concentrated on what I called “security through cooperation”, i.e. doing things together so that we get accustomed to working together. That also seems the best way to remove misunderstandings and misconceptions on both sides. In June 2008, CESS organised, together with the Turkey Institute, an informal international roundtable on misperceptions standing in the way of Turkish accession to the EU. Many Turkish experts participated in this meeting, held at Oegstgeest in the Netherlands. They will meet again in Istanbul, in October 2009. The papers for the 2008 conference are presented in this book, which is to be launched in Istanbul. 3 Clearly much remains to be done. The EU is impatient about the pace of reforms in Turkey, which nevertheless are remarkable. Turkey feels that the EU is treating it unfairly, holding it to different standards than Bulgaria, Romania and other countries that recently joined the union. Both positions have some merit. The purpose of this book is to identify political obstacles to Turkish membership of the EU in a constructive manner and to clear the path for realistic but meaningful progress. Dr Willem F. van Eekelen, Chairman of the board of the Centre for European Security Studies 4 CONTENTS Part A Introduction I Reflections on Perceptions and Misperceptions in Turkey and the European Union. Three Inconclusive Dialogues? 9 Peter M.E. Volten Part B Clashing political and strategic cultures II Turkish Security Culture: Evolutionary or Carved in Stone 27 Ali L. Karaosmano÷lu III EU–Turkey Clashing Political and Strategic Cultures as Stumbling Blocks on the Road to Accession? 47 Graeme P. Herd Part C Socio-economic differences as an obstacle for integrating Turkey in the EU IV Turkey’s Economy: Is Accession Necessary? 71 Sübidey Togan V The Economics Do Not Bite, but Do Not Support Turkish Accession to the EU 91 Arjan Lejour Part D Populism in the EU and Turkey as a threat to the negotiation process VI Turkish Populism and Anti-EU Rhetoric 109 Hakan Yilmaz VII Europe’s Revolt of Populism and the Turkish Question 131 René Cuperus Part E Discontent and Distrust VIII The Declining “Soft Power” of the EU Regarding Turkey, and Its Consequences 157 Sahin Alpay IX Turkey’s EU Accession and the European Identity 179 Jaap W. de Zwaan Part F Consequences of accession and non-accession for the global position of the EU X The Long-Term Future of Turkish–EU Relations 191 Jaap de Wilde 5 6 PART A INTRODUCTION 7 8 I. Reflections on Perceptions and Misperceptions in Turkey and the European Union. Three Inconclusive Dialogues? Peter M.E. Volten (Department of International Relations and International Organization, University of Groningen) In 1963, Turkey and the European Union (EU) agreed on an Association Treaty. Turkey did not apply for EU membership until 1987 and this formal application was recognised at the EU summit in Helsinki as late as 1999. Political reforms in Turkey started in earnest after the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2002, indicating a sincere interest in membership. As a result of these steps, the EU decided in 2004 to start negotiations; these began in 2005. Fairly soon thereafter, however, developments on both sides stalled and relations between the two deteriorated. No one ever expected Turkey’s accession to the European Union to be plain sailing or easy. The political obstacles have been and are still proving formidable; today, even the periodically expressed enthusiasm on both sides of the Bosporus is waning, making the outcome of this major endeavour uncertain. Much of the debate on the many problems is shallow and self-serving, lacking a careful and dispassionate look at the obstacles in Turkey and in the EU, as well as those between Turkey and the EU. No doubt, these three simultaneous debates and attempted dialogues are a tall order. Neither side has control of all three, or is capable of steering them in one direction, but their interrelationship is undeniable. In order to address a number of the political obstacles in this process, the Centre for European Security Studies and the Turkey Institute, both based in the Netherlands, invited scholars and other experts from the two sides to a meeting in the summer of 2008. The idea was not to put the most immediate, concrete and well-known issues on the table; rather the aim was to look for the broader context in which these have occurred and to discover the underlying concerns, in particular the often unspoken fear or distrust related to the disagreements. Special attention was to be given to the perceptions of one another’s society, polity and identity. Although perceptions may not correspond with reality and, therefore, stand in the way as misperceptions, both perceptions and misperceptions have left their marks on the actual policies and continue to influence Turkish and EU approaches. The wide range of (mis)perceptions of a great many actors across a broad span of subjects forced the organisers to select a number of cases, almost at random. Each of the selected fields were analysed from an EU and a Turkish perspective. They were organised around the following topics: Discontent and distrust; Clashing political and strategic cultures; Socio-economic differences as an obstacle for integrating Turkey in the EU; Populism in the EU and Turkey as a threat to the negotiating process; and Consequences of accession and non- 9 accession for the global position of the EU. The contributions are presented in the chapters that follow the present reflections; they serve as input and background, as did the lively debates on the written contributions during the two-day seminar. The result is not a summary of the seminar, and the following chapters stand on their own. I will neither refer to the individual chapters nor explicitly attribute comments to any one of the participants. That would not do justice to the richness of the introductions, comments and discussions. Moreover, as with the selection from the broad subject matter, these reflections can only offer an impression rather than presenting clear-cut conclusions from the many observations and nuances regarding perceptions in the EU and Turkey. Finally, this account inevitably has a personal twist, coloured by the West-European and Dutch background of the author, as well as by his training in International Relations.