The Influence of the European Union on Turkish Foreign Policy

Özlem Terzi

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9780754678427
• eBook ISBN: 9781317027546
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

EU membership provides member states with a new perception of their place in the world; their foreign policies very much influenced by their involvement in the politics of Brussels. The candidate countries also go through the same experience. The membership prospect however, presented a serious challenge to Turkish foreign policy and it was obvious from the moment Turkey was declared as a candidate country in 1999 that its membership perspective was linked to the solution of problems in its domestic and foreign relations. In this book, Özlem Terzi examines the influence of the European Union on the making of Turkish foreign policy since it was declared a candidate country. By comparing an issue specific analysis alongside an actor-based focus, Terzi questions whether such a transformation in the self-perceptions of Turkish policy makers is actually taking place, and whether the policy making process with respect to foreign policy issues expands to include new actors, like the civil society, thus democratizing the way foreign policy is made. Case study rich and packed with interviews with actors involved in policy making in Brussels and Ankara, this book enables the reader to correctly discern the factors that make the Turkish case unique and to reveal whether certain aspects of Turkey's pre-accession process are not as unique as we think. 'The Influence of the European Union on Turkish Foreign Policy' is a valuable and informative contribution for students, researchers and scholars interested on the transformative power of the EU and the role of Turkey's relationship with its neighbours.

Chapter 1
Introduction: Is it Possible to Speak of a Process of Europeanisation in Turkish Foreign Policy?

Among discussions of a ‘shift of axis’ in Turkish foreign policy over the last couple of years, this book seeks an answer to the question ‘what has been the influence of the European Union on Turkish foreign policy in the ten years of pre-accession process between December 1999 and 2010?’. Based on the concept of ‘Europeanisation’ with a special focus on its ‘social learning’ and ‘identity construction’ aspects, the book analyses the changes in the perceptions, values and behaviours of actors involved in the making of foreign policy in Turkey and discusses the influence of the EU on the changes in Turkish foreign policy substance since 1999.

Turkish foreign policy in the 1990s reflected the pre-dominance of hard-power in the pursuit of foreign policy goals. Turkey would resort to military means or at least threaten to use military power in the face of a conflict that surfaced either in the Aegean or in its South. Today, Turkey predominantly uses diplomatic means to underline its regional importance and actively joins in the efforts for the seeking of a solution to regional disputes. Turkey’s ‘soft-power’ is more on the agenda today than its military. What has changed in between? Surely, Turkey has been declared a candidate country to the EU. But was this enough to bring about such a massive change of attitude in a country as big and prone to use might as Turkey?

The foreign policy rhetoric of Turkey has mainly been that of a realist. It has dwelled on concepts of ‘national interest’ and ‘military power’, especially in the 1990s, when the Western belonging of Turkey was questioned and Turkey saw the countries it was aligned with show no understanding with respect to its security concerns. It would be wrong to say that the foreign policy of Turkey is not based on realist premises today. However, Turkey has learned to appreciate the value of ‘soft-power’. This was brought about by two different but simultaneous processes. The first one was the ‘misfit’ Turkish policy-makers experienced in their understanding of world affairs in the relationship with their European counterparts. The EU candidacy helped in bringing to the fore what these main differences were and showed the way the frame of mind needed to change in order for Turkish policy-makers to belong in the same ‘security community’ with their counterparts in the EU. The analysis of this change of mind is presented in the first part of the book that focuses on the actors involved in the foreign policy-making process. This part also focuses on the change in the balance of power between the actors involved in the policy making-process.

The second process of change was the actual change of substance in Turkish foreign policy that showed the governments that they could succeed far better by changing the definition of what constitutes the national interests and the most appropriate way to pursue for attaining them. Again most of these changes stem from EU requirements and the positive response from the EU that the Turkish governments received after certain alterations of policy, for example with respect to Greece or Cyprus. Mostly as a result of ‘cost-benefit analysis’, but also as a result of the transformation of its self-identification Turkey can be claimed to undergo a certain process of social learning embedded in the EU structures.

This book analyses the changes in Turkish foreign policy through the concept of ‘Europeanisation’, with a special focus on the aspects of social learning and identity construction. On the other hand, not all changes of Turkish foreign policy can be attributed to the EU, especially the changes in the content of the AKP government’s policies towards the Middle Eastern countries, which necessitates an explanation of alternative identities and rival realist tendencies in Turkish foreign policy. However, it is crucial to notice that even the changes of policy towards the Middle Eastern countries are closely linked with Turkey’s relations with the West in general, and with the EU in particular.

An analysis of the influence of the EU process on Turkish foreign policy firstly necessitates a definition of position of the EU in world affairs in order to set out the basis for seeking convergence.

The Place of the EU in World Affairs

The European Union is increasingly perceived as pursuing a foreign policy of its own rather than the sum of its member states’. It has a certain agenda of its own, starting with the promotion of regional stability, democracy and human rights. The declaration of the Copenhagen criteria as conditions for membership and the decision of incorporating a ‘human rights’ clause into all trade and association agreements that the EU concludes were the first legal instruments that the EU initiated to force third parties, willing to join the Union or willing to increase trade links with the EU, to respect human rights and to promote democracy and good governance.

The announcement of a European Security Strategy (ESS) showed that the EU also had its own perceptions of threat and the appropriate ways and means to deal with them. Adopted at the peak of the divergence of views with the US over the intervention in Iraq, the ESS listed five threats to international security instead of the two in the American National Security Strategy. Terrorism and proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were perceived as common threats with the US, whereas regional conflicts, organised crime and failed states were counted as additional threats that generally existed together and actually prepared the grounds for terrorism. In opposition to the US policy of unilateralism and the enforcement of the US’s right to pre-emptive strike under the Bush administration, the EU favoured multilateralism and the strengthening of international law and diplomacy as well as eliminating the economic and social grounds of terrorism.

The evolution of the EU foreign policy in a way to promote human rights and international law, and the pursuit of foreign and security policy objectives through diplomatic and economic means resulted in many observers to claim that the EU was a ‘civilian power’ or a ‘normative power’. The concept of ‘civilian power’ was initially used by ‘François Duchene who claimed that the traditional military power had given way to progressive civilian power as the means to exert influence in international relations’ (Duchene explained in Manners 2002). This term was also used to characterise German foreign policy after the Second World War (Harnish and Maull 2001), whereas it predominantly came to be used in relation to the European Union. The civilian power was defined as an actor that pursued its interests through political and economic means, without resorting to military (hard) power. It was also ready to forgo immediate national interests for the sake of a longer term stability and peace objective. The civilian power concept can be used to refer to ‘a specific kind of power which enables actors to achieve certain goals through specific means, that is non-military instruments, promotion of international institutions and legal obligations, democratisation, etc.’, Sebastian Harnisch and Hanns Maull (2001) explain that three norms have proven to be essential for the definition of civilian power: willingness and ability to civilise international relations; willingness to transfer sovereignty or autonomy to international institutions as a promoter of collective security and opponent of unilateral action; and eagerness to realise a civilised international order even if this means to forgo short-term national interests.

Ian Manners (2002) suggested in his famous article that the EU should be called a ‘normative power’. He defines the international role of the EU as a promoter of norms. He counts peace, liberty, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights as the core norms and he adds four minor norms such as social solidarity, anti-discrimination and the protection of minorities, sustainable development and good governance. He suggests that ‘not only is the EU constructed on a normative basis, but more importantly that this predisposes it to act in a normative way in world politics’. He presents the EU as a normative actor in three ways; first that the EU can be conceptualised as a changer of norms in the international system, second that the EU acts to change the norms in the international system and lastly that it should act to extend its norms into the international system.

In the following years the objectives of the EU foreign policy have increasingly become the focus of further studies. Karen E. Smith (2008: 121) states that the EU pursues five main foreign policy objectives i.e., the encouragement of regional cooperation, promotion of human rights, promotion of democracy and good governance, prevention of violent conflicts and the fight against international crime. She states that the EU pursues the promotion of human rights and democracy not from a wholly altruistic view, but that it believes that human rights should be protected since their violation undermines security and stability, that states that respect human rights are better neighbours and that there is a ‘virtuous link between human rights, democracy and conflict prevention’. Another view in this line is that irrespective of security or interest calculations, human rights need to be protected and promoted in remote parts of the world only for their own sake. This view forms the basis of the conception of the EU as an ‘ethical power’1 (K.E. Smith 2006). Karen E. Smith (2008: 231) also states that the EU is not the only actor that gives ascendancy to these objectives in the international arena, and that one of the reasons that the EU is increasingly taking on a such a role is also reflected in the fact that these values are actually the new global Zeitgeist after the end of the Cold War. Such a conceptualisation of the EU as a civilian/normative/ethical power, leads to the question of what kind of a role this ‘power’ plays in the international arena.2 The formation of the EU’s role in international politics is defined as that of a promoter of human rights and democracy and a ‘norm exporter’. On the other hand, especially in the south of the Mediterranean, the Arab countries see promotion of human rights as a new form of imperialism, serving the interests of Europeans. It is interesting to note that this perception is also valid in some circles in Turkey. Thus Turkey’s transformation as a candidate country which entails the adoption of a new international role should be expected to be displayed at two levels: initially these norms should be exported to Turkey and then Turkey should come to a position to export these norms itself. The EU’s former Commissioner for Enlargement, Olli Rehn, has underlined such an expectation in his congratulatory message on Turkey’s temporary seat at the UN Security Council for 2009–2010 by saying that it would be an enormous gain for the EU, if Turkey contributed to the spreading of these norms at the UN. Turkey also gave signals for adoption of such a role when the then Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül declared that Muslim countries should respect human rights at a meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC).

On this basis, the change in Turkey’s foreign policy in the pre-accession process is the transformation of Turkish foreign and security policy to uphold the same values and norms as the EU or even to change the nature of Turkish foreign policy from being that of a realist/hard power to that of a civilian or normative power. However, Turkey has not passed through the same change of perception regarding security matters after the end of the Cold War as the Western European countries did. Quite to the contrary, it felt itself to be increasingly on the brink of Europe with a contested ‘Western identity’, which was coupled with an increase in the perception of domestic threats of PKK terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, that resulted in the increased involvement of the military in domestic politics. The environment Turkey lived in 1990s did not reflect the change in the global Zeitgeist at all. The declaration of Turkey as a candidate country to the EU by the end of 1999, somewhat changed the environment Turkey lived in and Turkey had the opportunity to become part of Europe again, from which it had so much feared to be excluded with the ending of the Cold War. This new security environment brought about a major transformation in Turkish foreign policy, ranging from the change in the actors that made the foreign policy to the evolution of the substance of these policies.

The Contents of the Book

This book analyses the influence of the European Union on Turkish foreign policy since 1999, when Turkey was declared as a candidate country to the EU. The EU membership prospect presents a serious challenge to Turkish foreign policy. It was obvious from the moment Turkey was declared as a candidate country that its membership perspective was linked to the resolution of problems in its relations with Greece and the finding of a solution to the Cyprus problem. Further issues related to Turkish foreign policy were added to the list in time: relations with Armenia, the US and the countries that are Turkey’s southern and eastern neighbours, namely Iraq, Syria and Iran. On many issues concerning the Middle East and the wider international politics like adopting the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court, Turkey found itself in a position to choose between supporting the US or pursuing a more refined, diplomacy – and dialogue – oriented policy, which was also new to Turkish policy makers on especially certain issues.

The democratisation process promoted by the EU in Turkey also resulted in a shift in the balance of power between different actors involved in the process of policy making: the foreign ministry, the military, government parties, opposition parties and the civil society. This book involves an analysis based both on issue specific changes in Turkish foreign policy and the transformation of the policy makers’ mind-set and the relationship between them. The book is the final product of the Istanbul University Research Project ‘Turkish Foreign Policy in the Pre-accession Process to the EU’, which was carried out by the author between 2007 and 2010.

Although an increasing number of articles appear in international journals about the ‘Europeanisation’ of Turkish foreign policy, they either link it to the wider democratisation process in Turkey or present an issue specific focus. This book aims to present both an issue specific analysis and an actor-based focus on the changes that are experienced in Turkish foreign policy since 1999. This book is not a book on Turkish foreign policy, per se and it is not a book on Turkey-EU relations. It differs from books on the above-mentioned areas by the ‘EU influence’ perspective it presents to the analysis of Turkish foreign policy both as a policy-making process and the substance of policy. It rests on a theoretical background on the transformative power of the EU – as for social learning, identity construction and norm internalisation – and the limits of EU’s influence on outsiders.

The following chapter presents the conceptual framework of the book. It firstly defines the concept of ‘Europeanisation’, as the main concept for the analysis of Turkey’s transformation as an EU candidate country in this book. It explains why the concept of ‘Europeanisation is chosen as the focal theoretical explanation of the change of Turkish foreign policy after 1999. After defining the main concept, the chapter gives a summary of findings of existing research on the Europeanisation of foreign policy in EU member countries. Thirdly, this chapter applies the ‘Europeanisation’ concept to EU candidate countries, since this concept is actually used in the analysis of public policy changes in member states. This chapter prepares the conceptual background on which Turkey’s transformation process as a candidate country and the changes taking place in its foreign policy can be discussed and analysed. This chapter also argues that the Europeanisation process of Turkish foreign policy should be analysed through a special emphasis on the constructivist aspect inherent in the concept of Europeanisation, making use of the works of Jeffrey Checkel on the adoption of ‘appropriate behaviour’ by policy makers. It presents the change in first the behaviours, later in the perceptions and thinking of the people who are making the decisions. It also questions this change of behaviour from a perspective of ‘rational-choice’, thus preparing the ground for the questioning of the genuineness of policy change in Turkey.

Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6 form the first part of the book, in which the focus is on the changing perceptions, values and behaviours of the actors involved in the policy-making process. Chapter 3 presents the problem of Europeanisation of Turkish political parties. Drawing on a theoretical background of political party Europeanisation in other European countries, this chapter questions whether Turkish political parties are actually going through a Europeanisation process or not. In this analysis, the chapter focuses on four major Turkish political parties. The first party analysed in this chapter is the Justice and Development Party (AKP), which is in government since 2002. It is the conservative party with a legacy of the formerly banned Islamist parties, and now claims to occupy a centre-right position in Turkish politics. The second party is the Republican People’s Party (CHP), which was the party that founded the Republic and is the major representative of the secular, civilian, bureaucratic and military elite in Turkey. The third party is the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), which was a partner of the 1999–2002 coalition government and has been in opposition in the parliament since 2007. The last party to be analysed in this chapter is the Democratic Society Party (DTP) which represents the Kurdish movement in parliament since the 2007 elections.3 It also draws on a legacy of formerly banned Kurdish parties. Its achievements and failures in Turkish politics have the potential to influence Turkey-EU relations.

Chapter 4 analyses the Europeanisation process of Turkish governments in the decade between 1999 and 2010. This time span covers three different governments in Turkey: the first is the coalition government between 1999 and 2002, which is the government that succeeded in obtaining the declaration of Turkey as a candidate country to the EU and experienced the first years under EU compliance requirements. The second government, the one between 2002 and 2007, is the first term of the AKP government. This government succeeded in fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria and started the accession negotiations. Ironically, it is also under this government that the pre-accession relations lost momentum and the relations got tangled up on the Cyprus issue. This chapter also presents a comparison of the achievements of the AKP government before and after 2005, when the accession negotiations started, and questions whether it is possible to speak of a change in the policy preferences of Turkish governments in the past ten years.

Chapter 5 focuses on the Europeanisation process of Turkish armed forces. Turkish military has followed the ideal of Turkey’s belonging in the ‘West’ since the founding of the Republic in 1923. However, the history of democracy in Turkey has reserved a sphere of special influence for the military in Turkish political life, especially after the 1960 coup d’etat. Since 1960, Turkish political life has experienced a direct or an indirect intervention of the military in civilian political life every ten years. This privileged position of the Turkish military is seriously challenged by the pre-accession process to the EU, since compliance with the Copenhagen criteria requires the diminishing of the influence of the military in the governmental decision-making process, including the drawing of foreign policy priorities, perception of security threats and the capping of military expenditure as well as civilian control over the military and parliamentary scrutiny of military expenditure. The concepts of ‘security sector reform’ and ‘democratic oversight’ have also contributed to the challen...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Dedication
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgments
• List of Abbreviations
• Part I Europeanisation of Political Actors
• Part II Europeanisation of Foreign Policy Practice
• Bibliography
• Index