TAT-ANKARA
The US has been one of the most supportive countries of Turkey’s EU membership. Especially during the 1990s, US presidents have argued that Turkey deserves a place in the EU while presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush actively lobbied for Turkey in EU circles. Even though these moves were met with reaction by some EU members, it is evident that the US’s main concern is to keep Turkey in the Western bloc and to maintain the Moslem-Democrat model in cooperation with the West. Furthermore, another reason is Turkey’s support for the US’s policies in the Middle East, Caucasus, and the Balkans. In this respect, it can be argued that Turkey’s membership would affect US_EU relations positively. The triumvirate currently that work within the NATO framework can be expected to strengthen even further with Turkey’s EU membership.
Consequently, the greatest worry on the part of the EU is the possibility that Turkey may act as a ‘Trojan horse’ within the EU. According to this view, the US will use Turkey, just as it does with the UK, to manipulate the EU, and therefore undermine the EU’s independence. Frankly, this claim implicitly assumes that Turkey is a small and weak country that cannot act on its own accord without the US’s guidance. However, Turkey has a longer history than the US and has a discerning experience in its environment. Despite its economic weaknesses, it does not make political decisions solely on economic considerations. As a matter of fact, even though it is one of the US’s most staunch supporters in NATO and has not seriously disappointed the US in the past, Turkey has demonstrated its independence on more than a few occasions and has done this at the loss of billions of dollars. For example, Operation Peace, the intervention in Cyprus in 1974, was conducted despite US protests, resulting in an American military embargo on Turkey, causing the latter to undergo serious troubles during the 1970s. Again, despite US opposition and threat, poppy cultivation was resumed in the 70s.
The Iraq War is the freshest example of Turkey’s course of independent action. The Turkish Grand National Assembly voted out the passage of American soldiers through Turkish soil into Iraq despite promises of an aid package worth USD 30 billion. Even though this decision ensued in an economic crisis, Turkey proved once again that it cannot merely be bought off and is not a simple ally that will agree passively with everything that it is told. Even though some Americans harshly criticized Turkey for a while, they saw how well-grounded Turkey’s warnings were and paid a heavy price (and indeed still do) for acting in the region without Turkey. In this respect, Turkey’s policies towards Iraq are more similar to those of EU members than the US’s. These examples prove that Turkey can neither be a Trojan horse for the US nor for any other country. With accession to the EU, Turkey, that has pursued a balanced foreign policy so far, will be even more comfortable in its relations with the US.
From the EU’s perspective, the situation is more complicated. During the crisis in Iraq, the EU failed to perform well, with member states unable to agree even on the basics. On the one hand, there was a group composed of the UK, Spain, Italy, and candidates from Central and Eastern Europe in support of the US, and on the other, there was a group around the France-Germany axis opposing a US operation. It is possible to talk about at least two different EU policies. Accordingly, the claim that Turkey’s accession will create disharmony in relations with the US, that having a quite pro-US member would dilute EU policies is extremely irrelevant. For EU Foreign Policy is already in serious trouble and is one of the most pressing questions that the EU needs to address in the period ahead. The EU must transform disharmony in the realm of foreign policy into consistent richness as soon as possible. While there are many reasons for the problem, one of them is that the EU does not spend as much time and energy as the US in conflict zones. To give an example from the Middle East, the US is a significant player in the region with its military bases and allies. Except for some of its member’s colonies and Britain, the EU is not adequately represented in delicate vicinities. Thus, it either ends up with fait accomplis as it had in Iraq or with some members behaving quite differently than mainstream resolve. In other words, EU Foreign Policy, without Turkey, is under the control of the US, or the latter causes divisions to form in EU Foreign Policy. Hence, Turkey’s membership can yield exactly the opposite result; that is, it can help the EU to have a more independent stance against the US and strengthen the EU. To exemplify the Iraq War once again, if Turkey was an EU member before the war, the US would have had to take Brussels more seriously. Moreover, through and EU-member Turkey, Brussels would have had the chance to transform to a much more potent and visionary actor in Middle East affairs. The power that the US has with its gigantic budget and hundreds and thousands of troops, the EU could have attained with Turkey. From this point of view, the EU’s dependence on the US in the Middle East and its vicinity can be decreased by having a member that is a military and financial power and an effective regional player. In this respect, it can be said that there is no other alternative than Turkey.