Journals / Akademik Hassasiyetler / 2021 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 15

PROTRACTED BETROTHAL: A BRIEF HISTORY OF PRESENT TURKEY-EUROPEAN UNION ANTAGONISM

Pages
209–231
Publication Date
2021-04-26
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Therefore, these conditions do not let Turkey and the EU have a complete break-up or union regardless of contemporary agents’ intentions or decisions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Öz The European Parliament called for the suspension of European Union (EU)-Turkey accession negotiations on the basis of democratic conditionality in March 2019.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This development was a link of the chain of events that soured Turkey’s relations with the EU roughly since 2013.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, these conditions do not let Turkey and the EU have a complete break-up or union regardless of contemporary agents’ intentions or decisions.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Turkey · European Union

Özet

Öz The European Parliament called for the suspension of European Union (EU)-Turkey accession negotiations on the basis of democratic conditionality in March 2019. This development was a link of the chain of events that soured Turkey’s relations with the EU roughly since 2013. This article presents a historical assessment of Turkey’s interrelations with Europe and the EU that provides the historical context on which the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government constructed its foreign policies antagonizing the EU since its third term. Scholarly and journalistic literature on the negative trend in Turkey–the EU relations mainly focuses on the failing democratic conditionality aspect of relations. This approach inevitably causes presentism trap in analyses. The paper sheds light on the historical context of relations turned into ideational baggage carried by the sides. In its overview of the past of interrelations, the article locates four historically institutional dimensions: (1) Mutual “otherness”, (2) Turkey’s modernization, (3) symbiotic modus vivendi and (4) regional power politics. The article also touches the role played by Turkey’s domestic secularist and conservative political schism. This analysis of political interrelations comes to the conclusion that the current problems are not only consequences of the AKP’s or the EU’s recent moves but also the burdens inherited from fluctuating historical experience. The parties’ past, and thus todays, are saliently intertwined. Therefore, these conditions do not let Turkey and the EU have a complete break-up or union regardless of contemporary agents’ intentions or decisions.

🔖

Cite This Article

TETİK, M. O. (2021). PROTRACTED BETROTHAL: A BRIEF HISTORY OF PRESENT TURKEY-EUROPEAN UNION ANTAGONISM. Akademik Hassasiyetler, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 15, 209–231. https://ajindex.com/articles/134287

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Ağcasulu, H. and Ossewaarde, R. (2019). “Turkey‟s Otherness in the Identity Discourses of European Parliament”, Ege Akademik Bakış, 19(3), 359-372.
  2. Akçay, E. Y. (2012). “1970‟lerde Siyasi Partilerin Gözüyle Türkiye‟nin AET‟ye Bakışı: AP, CHP, MHP, MSP, DP2, TKP Örnekleri”, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4(7), 25-45.
  3. Aksu, K. (2012). Turkey–EU Relations: Power, Politics and the Future, (Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholar Publishing). Aksu, K. (2015). Turkey-EU Relations: Beyond membership; army, religion, and energy, (Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of London). Aras, B. and Köni, H. (2002). “Turkish-Syrian Relations Revisited”, Arab Studies Quarterly, 24(4): 47-61.
  4. Arı, B. (2004). “Early Ottoman Diplomacy: Ad Hoc Period.”, in A. Nuri Yurdusev (ed) Ottoman Diplomacy: Conventional or Unconventional? (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), 36-65.
  5. Atatürk, M. K. (1961). Atatürk‟ün Söylev ve Demeçleri Cilt 2, (Ankara: Türk İnkılap Enstitüsü Yayınları). Atatürk, M. K. (2015). Nutuk, (Ankara: Kaynak Yayınları). Ateş, D. (2014). Türk Dış Politikasına iriş: eni Muhafazakarlık ve Doğu-Batı Ekseninde apısal Değişim, (Bursa: Dora). Avcı, G. (2004). “Turkish political parties and the EU discourse in the post-Helsinki period: A case of Europeanization”, in Mehmet Uğur and Nergis Canefe (eds) Turkey and European Integration - Accession: Prospects and Issues (London: Routledge), 194- 214. Aybet, G. (1999). “Turkey and European institutions”, The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs, 34(1): 103-110.
  6. Aybet, G. (2012). “The Evolution of NATO‟s Three Phases and Turkey‟s Transatlantic Relationship”, Perceptions, 17(1): 19-36.
  7. Aybet, G. and Müftüler-Bac, M. (2000). “Transformations in Security and Identity after the Cold War: Turkey‟s Problematic Relationship with Europe”, International Journal, 55(4): 567–582.
  8. Aybey, A. (2004). “Turkey and the European Union Relations: A Historical Assessment”, Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, 4(1): 19-38.
  9. Aydın-Düzgit, S. (2012). Constructions of European Identity: Debates and Discourses on Turkey and the EU, (Palgrave Macmillan). Balcı, A. (2013). Türkiye Dış Politikası: lkeler, Aktörler, Uygulamalar, (İstanbul: Etkileşim). Baç, M. M. and Taşkın, E. (2007). “Turkey‟s Accession to the European Union: Does Identity and Culture Play a Role?”, Ankara Review of European Studies, 6(2): 31-50.
  10. Bayramoğlu, A. (2016). “Is Turkey at the end of its EU adventure?”, Al Monitor, 5 December