The future of the European Union and Turkey

Before the Balkan Wars, European states believed that the Ottoman Empire would win the war. Therefore, they declared that after the war, the pre-war status quo would not change, that any occupation or annexation by the Ottomans would not be accepted, and that border changes would not be tolerated. However, when the Ottoman Empire lost the war, their attitudes changed. They immediately recognized the territories seized by the Balkan states and the new borders, and pressured the Ottomans to accept the new situation.

When looking at Turkey’s relations with the European Union (EU), the following is evident: the attitude of European states is consistent with their history. Conditions that were not placed before other candidate countries have been placed before Turkey. Demands contrary to Turkey’s independence, integrity, sovereignty, and political unity have been brought to the table. In all bilateral and multilateral disputes to which Turkey is a party, the EU stands against Turkey. The painful part is that those who object to these impositions by the EU and advocate for relations based on sovereign equality and reciprocity with the EU have been labeled “dinosaurs,” “conservative,” “status-quoists,” or “Kemalists” by EU supporters in our country.

Yet, Turkey-EU relations are less about Turkey’s desires and more about how and where the EU wants to see itself. Will the EU prefer the protective umbrella of the US and NATO? Or will it choose to be a global power? If it chooses the former, no matter what Turkey does, it will not include Turkey. It will not make it a member. It will keep it as a buffer between itself and troubled regions, just as it does now. If it chooses the latter, it will certainly want to benefit from Turkey’s geopolitical and strategic importance, its population, and the strength of its armed forces. It will make it a member.

WHAT WAS THE BIG MISTAKE TURKEY MADE?

Thanks to the Customs Union, signed in 1995 and in effect since 1996, the EU, which gained full influence over Turkey’s domestic market, customs regime, and foreign trade regime, achieved this without making Turkey a member. It has effectively established a tutelage regime over Turkey. Turkey is not at the table where decisions are made. But it is obliged to comply with the decisions taken at that table. Because it accepted the Customs Union without being an EU member. This attitude is no different from falling into a semi-colonial state. The EU neither includes Turkey nor allows it to move away from the EU gate and seek different options. It keeps it waiting with the promise of full membership. Therefore, under current conditions, it is impossible to think that it will make Turkey a full member.

The EU is incapable of exerting weight in solving global problems. It is a power under the leadership and control of Germany. After Britain’s departure from the EU, this picture has become even more pronounced. It is not possible for France to restrain Germany on its own. Today, the EU means Germany. Moreover, as the pandemic and the Ukraine-Russia War have shown once again, there is no harmony, unity, or solidarity within the EU. Just as there is a difference in scale among members, there are also major differences in priorities, goals, interests, threat definitions and perceptions, and expectations.

The EU has been successful with the common currency (Euro) and the customs union. However, it is unsuccessful in common foreign policy, common defense, and security policies. It is far behind the US, Russia, and China in world politics. Since Germany wants to be a political, military, and diplomatic power commensurate with its economic and technological strength, it uses the EU in the direction of its own interests.

Discussions regarding the future of the EU have increased even more after the pandemic. Approaches that were once frequently voiced in discussions about the future of the EU, such as “a three-four speed EU” or “a three-four ring EU,” and questions like “should it be a tight federation or a loose confederation,” “should it be the United States of Europe or the United European States” have now been left behind. Because Germany has clearly exerted its weight. And the world has accepted it as such.

WHAT SHOULD TURKEY DO?

It is impossible for Turkey to pursue policies that will satisfy each EU member individually, or to meet the demands of the EU as a union. Because every member of the EU, in its relations with Turkey, hides behind the union and uses the union as a tool and spokesperson. As seen in the Cyprus dispute, problems in the Aegean Sea, tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean, the so-called genocide allegations, the support given to the PKK-PYD-YPG and FETÖ terrorist organizations, expectations reminiscent of the Treaty of Sèvres, demands regarding the status of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, and interventions in Turkey’s internal affairs, it is impossible for the EU to make Turkey a member.

There is a segment in Turkey that, despite everything, advocates for becoming an EU member and making concessions on all national causes for this purpose. At the forefront of those who see the EU as the only chance, the only option, and an indispensable necessity for Turkey are liberals, second republicans, the “it’s not enough but yes” crowd, and the özürdiliyoruz.com team. Their alliance with political Islamists and ethnic separatists is known. Opposition to Atatürk, the Republic, and the nation-state, and support for imperialism are the common points of these three segments.

Turkey should not forget this: Our great leader Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is not a Westernist. He is a leader of modernization and enlightenment. He is anti-imperialist. The EU is not a patent office for civilization. It is an economic, political, and diplomatic supranational organization. It is imperialist. Turkey turned its direction toward modernity and civilization with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the Republican Revolution. The path to civilization and modernity lies in taking reason and science as a guide, not in being an EU member.

All texts that determine and guide relations between Turkey and the EU, such as the Accession Partnership Document, the Negotiating Framework Document, and the Progress Report, are full of expressions against Turkey. Vague expressions that were not in question for other candidate members but were brought to the agenda for Turkey, such as “the EU’s absorption capacity,” which can be used against it at any moment; “long transition periods,” “exceptions,” “special arrangements,” and “permanent, protective measures” reveal the EU’s true intentions. How “sincere, honest, and true to its word” the EU is was seen after the Annan Plan was voted on in Cyprus. Not a single promise made to the TRNC administration was kept.

THE GREAT LESSON TAUGHT BY ATATÜRK

Being modern does not mean doing what the West says. It means being independent, free, sovereign, honorable, and standing tall. The Turkish nation realized the Enlightenment Revolution not thanks to imperialism, but by fighting against imperialism and defeating it. Entering under the tutelage of the EU is not “success, victory, or revolution.” Receiving a pat on the back from the EU is not an “approval or registration” of Turkey’s modernization efforts. Not being a member of the EU is not “the end of the world.”

To those who see the EU as the only project of modernity, who are ready to do whatever is asked to become a member, and who confuse contemporary civilization with Westernism and colonialism, Atatürk teaches a lesson with these words:

“… Gentlemen! In return for all of Europe’s progress, rise, and civilization, Turkey has, on the contrary, regressed and tumbled into a valley of decline. Now, to correct the situation, a certain mentality has emerged, such as necessarily taking advice from Europe, doing everything according to Europe’s ambitions, and taking all lessons from Europe. However, what independence is there that can rise with the advice of foreigners and the plans of foreigners? History has not recorded such an event!”