Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Turkey’s Inclusion in the Atlantic Community: Looking Back, Looking Forward

2008; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 9; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/14683840701813986

1743-9663

Paul Kubiček,

Islamic Studies and History

Abstract Turkey’s European credentials are an issue of great contemporary dispute. This essay looks back at Turkey’s early efforts to join European and trans‐Atlantic institutions. One goal is to examine the past record to uncover what it can contribute to current debates over Turkey’s place in Europe. In this regard, one can compare attitudes towards Turkey in the past with those expressed today, as well as how the definition of the Atlantic and European communities has evolved over time. It also considers how ties with Western democracies have affected democratization within Turkey itself, which has had its ups and downs over the course of the past 50 years. Notes 1. J.A.R. Marriott, The Eastern Question (Oxford: Clarendon, 1919), p.3. 2. Stated by former French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing, as cited by Le Monde, November 8, 2002. 3. Bernard Lewis, “Forward,” in Dankwart Rustow, Turkey: America’s Forgotten Ally (New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1989), p.ix. 4. For purposes of this paper, the Atlantic community will refer primarily to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as the most visible organization to unite North American and European countries. The author recognizes that other organizations could also fall under the umbrella of the “Atlantic Community,” but NATO is without question the most important one for Turkish–Western relations. 5. Roger Trask, The United States Response to Turkish Nationalism and Reform, 1914–1939 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1971); and Paul Kubicek, “Turkish Accession to the European Union: Challenges and Opportunities,” World Affairs, Vol.168, No.2 (Fall 2005), pp.67–78. 6. George McGhee, “Turkey Joins the West,” Foreign Affairs, Vol.32, No.4 (July 1954), pp.617–30. 7. Notably, multiparty democracy, the hallmark of Western political practice, was not established until 1945. For good general works on Turkish history, especially the Atatürk period, see Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961); Jacob Landau, Ataturk and the Modernization of Turkey (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984); Hugh Poulton, Top Hat, Grey Wolf, and Crescent: Turkish Nationalism and the Turkish Republic (New York: New York University Press, 1997); Erik Zürcher, Turkey: A Modern History (London: I.B. Taurus, 2004); and Niyazi Berkes, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization: Selected Essays of Ziya Gokalp (London: All and Unwin, 1959), p.276. 8. Poulton (1997). 9. Trask (1971), p.92. 10. Bruce Kuniholm, The Origins of the Cold War in the Near East: Great Power Conflict and Diplomacy in Iran, Turkey, and Greece (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980). 11. Dankwart Rustow, Turkey: America’s Forgotten Ally (New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1989), p.88. 12. George S. Harris, Troubled Alliance: Turkish–American Problems in Historical Perspective, 1945–1971 (Stanford CA: Hoover Institution, 1972); and Kuniholm (1980). 13. Arguably this had been a long‐term goal of Atatürk’s reforms and thus was driven by domestic imperatives as well. See Harris (1972), p.16. 14. Ibid., p.19. 15. Ibid. 16. Kuniholm (1980), p.363. 17. Don Cook, Forging the Alliance: NATO, 1945–1950 (New York: William Morrow, 1989), p.74. 18. Harris (1972), p.33. 19. S. Victor Papacosma, “NATO and Internal Disputes: Greece and Turkey,” in S. Victor Papacosma, Sean Kay and Mark Rubin (eds.), NATO After Fifty Years (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 2001), p.200. 20. Kuniholm (1980), p.414. 21. Mark Smith, NATO Enlargement during the Cold War: Strategy and System in the Western Alliance (New York: Palgrave, 2000), pp.28–39; and Cook (1989), p.217. 22. Harris (1972), pp.37–8; and Smith (2000). 23. Harris (19972), p.38. 24. Ibid., p.40. 25. Lawrence Kaplan, NATO and the United States: The Enduring Alliance (New York: Twayne, 1994), p.47 26. National Security Council Statement (NSC 109, 1951), in Foreign Relations of the United States 1951, Vol.5 (Washington, DC: Department of State, 1951), p.1150. 27. Smith (2000), pp.69–74. 28. Ibid., p.79. 29. Ibid., p.80. 30. As early as February 1951, Henry Villard, a member of the Policy Planning Staff at the US Department of State, argued in favor of Turkish membership in NATO but noted that: “If Turkey were admitted, it would, of course, be necessary also to include Greece. In fact any commitment made to Turkey would have to apply to Greece as well.” In Memorandum of February 5, 1951, in Foreign Relations of the United States (1951), p.1118. 31. Rustow (1989), p.91; and William Hale, Turkish Foreign Policy, 1774–2000 (London: Frank Cass, 2000). 32. Harris (1972), pp.53–3. 33. Rustow (1989), p.90. 34. Hale (2000), p.121. 35. McGhee (1954), p.617. 36. Harris (1972), p.56. 37. For example, Turkish bases were instrumental in the deployment of US forces to Lebanon in the Lebanese crisis in 1958. 38. Papacosma (2001), p.202. 39. Hale (2000), pp.109–11. 40. Smith (2000), p.65. 41. Ibid., p.90. 42. Ibid., p.95. 43. McGhee (1954), pp.626, 630. 44. Smith (2000), pp.62–3. 45. Desmond Dinan, Europe Recast: A History of the European Union (New York: Palgrave‐Macmillan, 2004); and Ernst Haas, The Uniting of Europe (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958). 46. Ferenc Vali, Bridge Across the Bosphorous: The Foreign Policy of Turkey (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971), p.337. 47. Feroz Ahmad, The Turkish Experiment in Democracy, 1950–1975 (Boulder: Westview, 1977), p.399. 48. Ziya Öniş, “An Awkward Partnership: Turkey’s Relations with the European Union in Comparative‐Historical Perspective,” Journal of European Integration History, Vol.7, No.1 (2001), pp.105–19. 49. Meltem Müftüler‐Bac, Turkey’s Relations with a Changing Europe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997), p.54. 50. An additional protocol signed in 1970 ended the preparatory stage, and the long‐delayed 1995 Customs Union arguably ended the transitional stage. The final stage, full membership in the now‐EU, is of course under negotiation. 51. Meltem Müftüler‐Bac, “The Impact of the European Union on Turkish Politics,” East European Quarterly, Vol.34, No.2 (June 2000), pp.159–79. 52. Turkish eligibility has been reaffirmed in all subsequent decisions, although Turkey’s bid for full membership in 1987 was rather summarily rejected. 53. Müftüler‐Bac (1997), p.55. 54. Vali (1971), p.335. 55. Mehmet Ali Birand, “Turkey’s Long March towards the EEC,” in Jacques Thobie and Salgur Kançal (eds.), Turquie, Moyen‐Orient, Communauté Européenne (Paris: L’Harmattan, 1989), p.269. 56. Oliver Goulden to Leslie Fielding, “European Integration: What to Do with the Greeks and Turks,” UK Public Record Office, WO.208–2953, quoted in Christopher Brewin, “Turkey’s Right to a Date,” Paper for the European Consortium for Political Research, 2nd Annual Pan‐European Conference on EU Politics, “Implications of a Wider Europe: Politics, Institutions and Diversity,” Bologna, Italy, June 24–26, 2004. 57. Ibid. 58. See Müftüler‐Bac (1997) and Öniş (2001). 59. Smith (2000). 60. Ibid., p.94. 61. See Müftüler‐Bac (2000); Öniş (2001); Ziya Öniş, “Luxembourg, Helsinki and Beyond: Towards an Interpretation of Recent EU–Turkey Relations,” Government and Opposition, Vol.35, No.4 (Autumn 2000), pp.463–83; and Kubicek (2005). 62. Political considerations obviously did matter, as the Birkelbach Report from 1962 stated that only democratic states could qualify as full members in the Community. 63. Öniş (2001), p.105.