Stratejik Aratrmalar Dergisi / Journal of Strategic Studies 1 (1),2008,213-236 BEYKENT NVERSTES/ BEYKENT UNIVERSITY

ON THE STRATEGY DOCUMENT OF THE EU AND TURKEY

Mesut Tatekin
ZET Bu makalede AB Gvenlik Stratejisi Dokman analiz edilmektedir. 2003 ylnda Avrupa Konseyi tarafndan kabul edilen dokman blmden meydana gelmektedir. Sz konusu dokman erevesinde ABnin gvenlik, risk ve tehdit alglamalar tartlmaktadr. AB Gvenlik Stratejisi Dokman Avrupa iin ortak bir strateji kltr oluturmaya almaktadr. AB, Transatlantik birlie yakndan bal kalarak ABDye bir kar ve bir alternatif olmakszn kresel bir aktr olma niyetini beyan etmektedir. Trkiyenin bu erevedeki rolne ise deinilmemektedir. Ancak Trkiyenin Avrupa gvenlii iin jeopolitik nemi zerinde durulmaldr. Bu kapsamda, bu makale ilgililerin bilgilendirilmesine ynelik bir ngr salamaya almaktadr. Anahtar Kelimeler: AB Gvenlik Stratejisi, Javier Solana, Trkiye, AB Gvenlii, Gvenlik Ortam. ABSTRACT This article aims to analyze the European Union security strategy document. This document which consisting of three chapters was accepted by the European Council in December 2003. This paper will discuss security, risks and threat perceptions of the EU in the light of the document. The European security strategy document aims to build a common European strategy culture. The EU has declared its will to act as a global actor, not opposed to the USA as an alternative but with the USA at an equal partner, remaining closely tied to the Transatlantic community. No mention of Turkeys role has been made in the document. In addition, it will be underlined that Turkey has a geopolitical importance for European security. In this context, this article tries to give an insight to the document in order to enlighten the interested public. Keywords: EU Security Strategy, Javier Solana, Turkey, EU Security, Security Environment

1. INTRODUCTION

PhD Candidate, Gazi University, mesuttastekin@yahoo.com

On The Strategy Document of the Eu and Turkey

This paper attempts to analyze the European Union security strategy document (EUSS, 2003) consisting of three chapters, which was accepted by the European Council in December 2003. The document firstly lays out the international and European security environment. Secondly, it clarifies the strategic objectives of the EU, and policy implications for the EU are explained in the third chapter. This paper will discuss security, risks and threat perceptions of the EU in the light of the document. In addition, it will be underlined that Turkey has a geopolitical importance for European security. The document, despite being crucial for Turkish security interests, has not yet been discussed either in the wider public or among scholars. This article tries to give an insight to the document in order to enlighten the interested public. 1. EUROPEAN SECURITY STRATEGY DOCUMENT: ITS SCOPE AND CONTENT The document outlines the security environment in which the EU regards itself as the European as well as the global security actor which is seeking to build up a multi-polar international order which is based on multilateralism. In the document, Russia is seen to have a vital role in this proposed world order and in European security as an important partner of the EU. Despite the fact that the security of Europe and Turkey are closely interrelated (ayhan, 2002: 4255), Turkey is not mentioned in the document, nor is there any information related to Turkey and its possible role in European security concern. Moreover, the areas that are mentioned as part of the European security environment and risk areas are also geographical regions that include Turkey, and in which Turkish state interested as well. Turkey stands at the crossroads of the regions which are regarded in the document as important regions for European security such as the Balkans, the Mediterranean, the Near East, and the Caucasus.

214

Stratejik Aratrmalar Dergisi 1 (01), 2008,213-236

Mesut Tatekin

The strategy document of the EU is put forth for consideration since EU states could not come to a unanimous decision and develop a common attitude in the face of the USAs determination on its Iraqi course (Karaosmanolu, 2003: 175-183, 2001: 156-166). Some EU states witnessed not only how the solidarity of transatlantic states was eliminated by the USA subjectively, but they also perceived that the USA ignored the EU as a political actor of global significance. It was inferred by some EU politicians that Washington was eager to see the EU as merely a complementary part of the USAs global policy (Brzezinski, 1997) or it had such a tendency to this matter. The USA started the war on Iraq and expected her allies to support them without taking into consideration the transatlantic allies criticisms or waiting for them to come into reconciliation. However, we can infer that the USAs Iraqi policy was a catalyst for the EU putting forward a security strategy document. The European security strategy document drew on lessons taken from the Iraqi crises; thus, the EU announced to the world what kind of attitude it would adopt towards various developments in the world. Also, the document presented perspectives to the EU member states about foreign policy. In the document, the EU strongly emphasized that is an independent actor in world affairs. For a long time, it has been frequently expressed on the other side of the Atlantic that Western Europe would gradually lose the strategic importance in international relations which it had during the Cold War (Schweigler, 2004: 410-506, Dreighton, 2002: 719-741). The EU, which was founded against an unstable political background, could not be an important strategic associate within the new circumstances. The EU, which had already been deprived of a common strategic culture, did not have the capability of acting with a single identity. According to this perception, the USA should have arranged its security and defense relations with each EU state separately and not with the EU as a single actor.

215

Journal of Social Sciences 1 (01), 2008, 213-236

On The Strategy Document of the Eu and Turkey

It was thought that the political influence of France within international relations after the collapse of the Soviet Union had diminished and that it had lost part of its political power to reshape the international order. These ideas asserted that France no longer had such an important role in world affairs and thus Germany, which was considered to be a rising European power, should have been given priority over France. Such thoughts were already on the agenda of the US foreign policy schools after the collapse of the Soviet Union. While Germany was considered as a regulative actor (Ordnungsmacht) in Central and Eastern Europe, Japan would take over certain roles in the Far East as a close ally of the US in world affairs. Owing to the lack of a power similar to Germany or Japan in the Near East, the USA should take over the shaping of this region directly. Within the new world political constellation, the USA no longer had compelling reasons to support further EU integration. Because of this, USAs support for deepening EU integration was abandoned and the priority for US foreign policy moved to reshaping the Near East and, in broader sense, Asia. The EU was thought to lack strategic thought and political significance as demonstrated by Kissingers famous words that the EU did not even have a phone number. Consequently the USA should not look to the EU as a serious player in world affairs (Mathiopoulos, 1998: 41-57). More recently, such assumptions were not proven; the EU accepted the security strategy document which shows a common attitude, determination and will for the development of a common strategic culture. Thus, France which has a strong will to play a strategic role in international relations continued its efforts by being active during the preparation of the document and proved that it could not be put aside in the shaping of world political structures and affairs. Germany, under the leadership of Kanzler Gerhard Schrder, supported France to make the EU a world political actor.

216

Stratejik Aratrmalar Dergisi 1 (01), 2008,213-236

Mesut Tatekin

With the leadership of France and Germany, the EU tried to gain a position as a world power (Wolfram, 2005: 38-39). Javier Solana, General Secretary and High Deputy was appointed as Foreign Minister of the EU; thus, the EU obtained a phone number and fortified its role as a political actor in world policy. Moreover the EU responded to George Bushs Grand Strategy by approving the A Secure Europe in A Better World. European Security Strategy, prepared by J. Solana (USNSS: 2004, Schrader, 2004: 37-50). Thus, the EU proved its will, power, and determination to play a role as an equal actor with the USA in the shaping of international security and defense relations in the world political order. In addition, it was stated that the EU would not be satisfied with just a civilian power position (Ehrhart, 2004: 149163). As mentioned above, the EU strategy document began to take shape during the discussions and developments that took place around the Iraqi issue. The Iraqi question revealed that the US and the EU perceived the notions I and the other differently and evaluated world politics and threats in a different way. Moreover, a guiding document needed to be formed for those EU states which supported different approaches so that disagreements could at least be minimized. In short, the document was approved unanimously by the Heads of state and governments of the EU. The document is unique in the sense of being the first example of efforts to develop a culture of common strategy by exceeding conventions of nationstate strategy culture. From that point on, the EUs perception and evaluation of world politics and security conditions gained clarity, and its role as a new political actor with 450 million people, 25 different nations in its constitutions became clearer. In the document, the security concept embraces quite a large meaning field including military, political, diplomatic, economic and environmental dimensions, so the threats which had already occurred or were likely to occur were dispersed among all these fields. The necessity to develop

217

Journal of Social Sciences 1 (01), 2008, 213-236

On The Strategy Document of the Eu and Turkey

suitable instruments and precautions in order to overcome the crises which occurred or would occur in this field was a natural result of the EU security perceptions (Eric, 2004: 27). Apart from its introduction, the document was divided into three parts: (1) Security Environment: Global Challenges and Key Threats, (2) Strategic Objectives, and (3) Policy Implication for Europe. In the introduction part, the meaning and importance of the EU as well as influences and changes which affected the EU member states and citizens are pointed out. It was stated that Europe had never been so secure, so prosperous, and so free. The USAs and NATOs positive contributions to the EU integration process are also stated in the introductory part. It is emphasized that, despite the expansion of some values such as rule of law and democracy, Europe faces threats and challenges. The first part of the document addresses the European security environment in context of global challenges and main threats. These are discussed below. 2. SECURITY ENVIRONMENT: GLOBAL CHALLENGES AND KEY THREATS In this part of the document, international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons and technology of mass destruction, regional conflicts, failed states, and international organized crime are mentioned as the leading challenges and threats for world and European security. The stated security problems are outlined and the globalization process is assessed. It is pointed out in the document that our world is experiencing a globalization process and that there are negative and positive aspects of globalization. Poverty and hunger problems are particularly emphasized. It is stated that these are the phenomena accompanying the globalization process. Having pointed out that poverty and hunger cause instability and armed conflicts, the policies to fight poverty and hunger are considered within the framework of security measures. That there is a connection between poverty / hunger and

218

Stratejik Aratrmalar Dergisi 1 (01), 2008,213-236

Mesut Tatekin

security in the document is certainly worth praising. Surmounting the security problem as a pre-requisite for social development is stated. When it is considered that this point is disregarded in the US security strategy, making the connection between security and human development is a significant favorable improvement, and it is possible to see the EUs attention to social democratic values. Another significant issue touched upon in this part is that Europe is devoid of energy sources and that this issue is a security problem when dependency to energy sources is stressed. The EU strategy document regards terrorism as the most important problem in terms of European security and focuses on the global dimension of the problem. That the document focuses on this problem must be an indicator of the USAs search for co-operation in sharing security concerns (Dedeoglu, 2004). The document states that Europe is both a target and a base for terrorists. That terrorism forms a threat to European security is supported by the fact that the El-Qaide organization has cells in some European countries such as England and Spain. In the document, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction coupled with the presence of terrorist organizations and organized crime is mentioned as another threat to European security. In the direction of such a policy, the EU and three important EU states, namely France, England and Germany, started a bargaining process to persuade Iran to abandon the project, as it had initiated a nuclear program long before. The worry was that Iran may use this for the production of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, this initiative of the EU has not yet been achieved (Frankfurter Rundschau, 16.11.2004). Another significant point stressed in the first part is the changing function and significance of states and the emphasis on their changing order in the globalization process. The unstable relationship between Near Eastern states and state system is referred to. The warning was made that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and advances in rocket technology in this region

219

Journal of Social Sciences 1 (01), 2008, 213-236

On The Strategy Document of the Eu and Turkey

particularly might turn the Near East into a source of threat for European security (Perthes, 2004). As another source of instability and threat, regional conflicts such as Afghanistan, Somalia and Liberia are mentioned. A direct and indirect effect of these conflicts to European security is also expressed. Furthermore, developments such as the collapse of states which have difficulty carrying out their duties (Schneckener, 2004: 188-194) affect regional security directly and European security indirectly. Unstable environments also trigger organized crime, the trafficking of women, immigration, gunrunning and the opium trade. In the document, Europe is defined as one of the main targets of such organized crime and criminals. Such crime combined with a possible connection of terrorism to the weapons of mass destruction feeds Europes security worries. Contribution of the EU to stability in Europe through supporting the administrations having a sense of democratic responsibility in the neighboring regions; strengthening EUs capability of rapid reaction forces by improving appropriate mechanisms against the mentioned threats and crises as a requirement of an active multi-multilateralism in the world politics; emphasizing of achievements of the EU in crises prevention, and emphasizing the significance of transatlantic relations, are main subjects to be issued in the next part. 3. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES In the second part of the document, the above-mentioned strategic goals are focused on. The main proposition of this part is that humanity has more opportunities and abilities then ever, but faces dangers and uncertainties in similar proportions. The thesis that democracy should become widespread globally for defending European security is given coverage in this part as well. On this point, the

220

Stratejik Aratrmalar Dergisi 1 (01), 2008,213-236

Mesut Tatekin

USA and the EU share similar opinions and political culture; nevertheless the opinion that the American way of life has some negative aspects in it is widespread in Europe. Although it is accepted that US political culture attaches importance to citizen and human rights, there is another objection that social problems such as homelessness are not taken seriously enough in American politics, namely in the world view and lifestyle of the Americans. In addition, market conditions are relied on more than necessary and the regulatory power of politics is not given an opportunity. As is known, in US political culture, liberty, which is one of the values of the Enlightenment, is preferred to equality. In contrast to this, in European political culture, equality is given priority. Therefore, it may be assumed that the EU has a different approach towards values such as equality, liberation, democracy, and the free market from that of the USA. The belief that the EU, with democracy and similar European values, will be able to surmount the security problem by disseminating wealth is a significant point. In a way, here an alternative solution is offered to the American intervention policy which is based on the military instrument. The EU resorts not only to military, but also diplomatic as well as economic and other civilian instruments such as development aid in order to contribute to European as well as global stability. Actually, it is difficult to put forward that the EUs economic aid is enough to secure regional stability. However, associating security and economic instruments with one another to prevent crises is very important. With this point, the EU strategy differentiates itself from the USA national security concept by attributing civilian instruments in addition military one in its proposed intervention policy. In the EU strategy document, three strategic goals are established in order to defend and support European security and its values in a way going beyond

221

Journal of Social Sciences 1 (01), 2008, 213-236

On The Strategy Document of the Eu and Turkey

Europe. Firstly, main threats are touched upon, and international terrorism is well studied. Fighting terrorism, limiting and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, reinforcing the role of International Atomic Agency and establishing a tight export regime are listed as basic measures against threats that have appeared or will materialize. As is known, the USA has similar concerns and supports the mentioned measures. However, while the USA is willing to implement the measures unitarily, the EU wants to rely on binding multi-lateral relations (Krause, 2004: 43-59). When globalization is accepted as a paradigm, the source of security threats will not be limited to the close geographical area. The significance of geography is increasingly declining; for instance, the atom program of North Korea, the nuclear risk from Southeastern Asia, and the developments in the Near East, will be a close threat for European security. Threats to European security may begin outside European territory, so the whole globe needs to be regarded as the European security area (Fuerot, 2004). Consequently, as globalization also covers Europe, directing global developments and controlling them will be evaluated within the framework of European security. In a globalize world, security threats and risks are not solely of military origin. Therefore, there are threats and risks which are not of military origin. Preventing and impeding them can not be realized only through using military instruments. Such threats can only be surmounted through the use of political, diplomatic, and military instruments. The document states how the EU has responded to the above-mentioned threats, and shows its contribution in the Balkans, Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo as examples (Helse, 2005). As is known, the EU deployed military troops in the mentioned regions and places in the name

For Turkish perspective on international terrism see Denker, Mehmet Sami (1997), Uluslararas Terr, Trkiye ve PKK, Boazii Yaynlar: st.; Arboan, Deniz lk (2003), Tarihin Sonundan Barn Sonuna Terrizmi Anlamak ve Anlamlandrmak, Tima Yaynlar: st.

222

Stratejik Aratrmalar Dergisi 1 (01), 2008,213-236

Mesut Tatekin

of its legal entity, and wanted to contribute to the formation of peace and wealth in these regions. Another important point in this part is that defense doctrines during the Cold War period lost their function and the problem of occupation was no longer problem. However, the document set the ground for intervention by emphasizing the necessity to start the defense line at or outside the European border. However, how the EU will establish a balance between the international law and its intervention policy is a significant point that needs clarification (Ortega, 2005: 87-104). As the second strategic target, the document emphasizes the improvement of the EUs relations with its neighbors. Security and wealth should not be aimed only within the EU borders. Giving a share from this wealth and security to the neighboring countries will be linked to the interests of the EU. The interest of neighboring countries in this will be of interest to the EU. Thus, the EU will move away from being an isolated wealthy and secure block, and instead contribute to creating a belt of peace on its periphery that will incorporate democratic states. Eastern European, Mediterranean countries and the Balkans are pointed out within this context. The Israel-Palestine conflict forms the basis of Near Eastern problems. In this conflict, while the EU has supported the Arabs, the USA has backed Israel (Atatv, 2003). Whereas the USA was tolerant towards the security concerns of Israel and overlooked its wrong doings, the EU was more sensitive to the pathetic situation of the Palestinians (Krell, 2004, Asseburg, 2003). It is worth noting another significant development that the EU must have been worried about: the unexpected and dangerous consequences of allowing the USA to determine developments in the Near East. The USA, after its intervention in Iraq, started a new initiative with the concept of a Greater Middle East, and struggled to shape the region in line with the new political requirements. Within this framework, the USA allocated 18-19 billion US$ solely for the reconstruction of Iraq (Gaerber, 2004: 87-100). The EU was

223

Journal of Social Sciences 1 (01), 2008, 213-236

On The Strategy Document of the Eu and Turkey

worried about being left out of the developments and issued a draft document entitled The EU-Mediterranean and Middle East Strategic Partnership on March 22, 2004. In this way, the EU demonstrated its concern over the question of security. The document seems to be the continuation of the Barcelona process within the framework of Near Eastern dialog, and emphasizes the intention of a common peace, stability and wealth in the region by making reference to the issues in the European security strategy document. Nonetheless, no figure regarding the financial dimension is provided. The third strategic target of the document is the proposition that international order should be shaped based on multi-lateral relations and laws. As dependency increases in a globalizing world, the actors involved participate in this process. Thus, it is thought that a stronger and healthier international community will be formed. As participants become familiar with judicial norms they will try to conform to these norms; unlawful behaviors will be taken under control by applying the multi-lateral mechanisms. However, international law should be rearranged in line with the new conditions. Despite this call, the document did not focus on what needed improvement. International organizations need to be strengthened. The United Nations as a worldwide nation and its role in international security are studied. As the decisions of the UN form the basis and framework of law, the UN Security Council is a primary multi-lateral organization responsible for international peace and security. The UN constitutes the heart of multi-lateralism and world order, and it should do so. Therefore, one of the priorities of the European security policy is to reinforce the UN and thus help the UN to play its role successfully. It is emphasized that international and regional organizations are fundamental for a world order in which prosperity and peace is prevalent. The document stresses the significance of commercial and economic relations to establish a better international order and that of global and regional organizations

224

Stratejik Aratrmalar Dergisi 1 (01), 2008,213-236

Mesut Tatekin

facilitating these relations. In this respect, the EU security strategy is clearly different from the American national security strategy. The EU has become an example of multi-lateral relations among equal states from the standpoint of development. The EU could make contribution to the formation of world order by disseminating its experience globally. This will mean a more stable and peaceful world order. In the document, the states qualified as rogue states are not named, but it is inferred from the revealed concept that much effort will be exerted to attach these states to the international community and diplomatic efforts will be made to achieve this. It is pointed out that frequently resorting to military sanctions will remove the legitimacy of the present international system and, the international order may turn into a chaos. Therefore, particular attention should be paid to judicial values to determine the behaviors of other actors. Coercive measures in the document are not named. The third part of the document lays out policy implications for Europe. 4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR EUROPE The main points taken up in this part of the document are: (1) The need for the EU to develop a strategic culture, (2) Strengthening the capacity for preventing crisis and swift action, (3) Improving civil crisis management, making military and civil elements more effective by combining these two after the intervention to crisis (Rummel, 2005a: 83-105, 2004: 259-279), (4) Enabling diplomacy as an instrument to solve problems, (5) The EU and NATO relations, and (6) The call to develop strategic partnerships with the leading states of world politics. The EUs successful crisis management in the Balkans is emphasized and this is shown as an example of what the EU can achieve (Ortega, 2005: 87-104). It is stressed that similar achievements can be obtained in other regions only if the member states adopt a common attitude. It is reiterated that the EU, with a

225

Journal of Social Sciences 1 (01), 2008, 213-236

On The Strategy Document of the Eu and Turkey

common culture, conscience and will, can evaluate its potential in managing and overcoming crisis. Other achievements of the EU in international politics and security are touched upon. In order to eradicate the threats and dangers mentioned above, the EU should use its potential and develop its mobility. Briefly, the EU defines itself as an actor responsible for both regional and global security. To carry out its global responsibility, the essential equipment and Common Foreign and Security Policy instruments should be reinforced and equipped with other convenient mechanisms. In this way, it is thought that the EU will be able to make a significant contribution to European security. The EU, with its two million military personnel and 160 billion Euro military expenses, has the power to establish its own defense system and to set up active intervention means (Reiter, 2004: 26-31). However, this potential is evaluated within the authority of national states, not within the framework of the EU institutions. The document regards the existing potential as having the capacity to be used in a number of operations concurrently. The EU is of the opinion that this potential can be evaluated more actively if a strategic culture is adopted. However, the EU is far away from the aforementioned stage. The EU has not managed a significant crisis or intervened in a serious crisis to date. So far, the EU has undertaken some responsibilities in collaboration with either the USA or the UN. In addition, the EU accepts that it can achieve some of its political goals through the wise use of diplomatic instruments. In the document, the EU is required to be active diplomatically, and nation states are expected to limit their powers in favor of supra-national structures of the EU. Diplomacy is assessed as an easy and low-cost means compared to military intervention. In other words, in order to reach the above-mentioned goals, low-cost formulas and cooperation should be sought. Channeling foreign relations towards the same political targets and agenda is stressed. In this context, the need to coordinate foreign trade, development aid, and foreign and security policies is accentuated. According to the document, trade and

226

Stratejik Aratrmalar Dergisi 1 (01), 2008,213-236

Mesut Tatekin

development policies should be used as powerful tools to promote reform and prevent crises before their occurrence. In the document, in addition to its positive references to the continuing good transatlantic relations, the EU considers that it can attain the aforementioned goals more easily by establishing good relations with the other powers in world politics. This way, the formation of a more peaceful and stable multipolar world order, in which the EU can participate as an equal actor, is secured. For this reason, the importance of multi-lateral relations is often stressed. Consequently, the EU should develop new partnerships not only with the USA (Hacke, 2004: 63-71) but also with Canada, Russia, Japan, China and India in order to build up a multi-polar world order which is based on the values of the international laws. That the names of those states are mentioned in the document should be seen not only as an outcome of the EUs efforts towards finding support to its own project but also as a result of the significant roles it playing now and/or that of the probable roles it will play in the future in international relations. The document has not included Turkey which has been active over the past fifty years in favor of European security. Conversely, it has made reference to Russia as a significant partner which was a threat to Europe during the cold war era. 5. EUROPEAN SECURITY AND THE ROLE OF TURKEY As mentioned above, Turkey has not been referred to in the strategic document. However, Russias importance in respect of European security is pointed out clearly. On the other hand by not giving Russia an EU membership perspective, a different Russian strategy has been accepted (EU-Russia Summit, 2005), and a possible full-membership of Turkey into to the EU has been agreed on. The reasons why Turkey has not been referred to in the document could be explained as the following: It may be an attempt to prevent

227

Journal of Social Sciences 1 (01), 2008, 213-236

On The Strategy Document of the Eu and Turkey

Ankaras position becoming more powerful during the negotiations; alternatively, it may be am implicit assumption that Russias contribution to EU security would be crucial in comparison to Turkeys. For Turkey this is a very important case to be discussed. However, in the document the Balkans, the Mediterranean region, the Near East and the Caucasus have been listed as sensitive regions for European security. These regions are undoubtedly important for Turkish security, too. Turkey is a country that is at the junction of all these regions, and as well as being affected by European developments, has the potential to affect the mentioned regions security (Oran, 1996: 353370). Not mentioning Turkey in the document directly and the not referring to Turkeys EU membership application should perhaps be put down to an oversight. Although there is no direct reference related to Turkey, it is known that the EU is very concerned with Turkey for strategic reasons (Bac, 2000, 5-25). Even without Turkeys EU membership, Turkey is very important for European security. Besides Russia, it would have been fine to give a place to Turkey. The fact is that if the EU prefers Russia to Turkey, this could cause new security complications for Turkey. The EU, by choosing Russia in its security policies, will cause Turkey to stay closer to the US security guarantee. In contrast, the USA, despite all good relations with Russia, has been seeing Russia as a counterpart, especially with regard to the Caucasus and Central Asia, has given priority to Turkey over Russia in a certain way (Sagorski, 2000: 329-334). Russias continuing development and influence, for the most part, has been against interest Turkey and Turkic people. Russia and Turkey, especially since the XIX century, have been competing and racing hard in order to become important actors in the system of the Western balance of power. The fact that important European states have chosen Russia as a partner has always been against Turkish interests. Turkeys alliances with the west are an essential

228

Stratejik Aratrmalar Dergisi 1 (01), 2008,213-236

Mesut Tatekin

counterbalance to Russias power. That is why Turkey has always tried to enter into the western states system. It has also given importance to setting up relationships with the main actors, the strongest state in the western state system (omak, 2005: 201-208). In this way, Russia, with those relations set up first with the Western Europe and later with the USA, was balanced and the country that caused security crises on Turkey has been attempted to get over. So, the destabilizing potential of Russia should be eliminated. Turkey is not only an actor that would contribute to the fortifying of multilateralism and the setting up of a multi-polar world order, but also, with its powerful armed forces, is capable of intervening actively in crises that might come into existence around Europe. Turkey is, in respect of security and strategy, at the junction of AsiaEuropeAfrica. Turkeys preference is to participate in European and Transatlantic institutions as well as EU structures. In this way, Turkey is trying to bring its national development forward. However, should Turkeys attempt to join the EU fail, Turkey will become isolated, and depended on the USA more strongly. On the other hand, it is also possible that Turkey would set up successful relations with Russia and with the other power centers which would not be in harmony with the interests of the EU security concern. Turkey, in spite of all these worries and assertions, doesnt claim to function effectively as a regulative power (Ordnungsmacht) in the Near Easter, Central Asia or the Caucasus. Turkey, in order to reinforce the international system which is under the leadership of Transatlantic allies, is active in the aforementioned regions and is for setting up its national development in the frame of transatlantic and European institutions. The EUs concerns about taking on a power such as Turkey and facing difficulties of furthering its integration policy further are not yet over. Some interested groups in the EU claim that with the possible membership of Turkey the EUs borders will expand and that expansion will leave the EU

229

Journal of Social Sciences 1 (01), 2008, 213-236

On The Strategy Document of the Eu and Turkey

with new unstable frontiers. Furthermore, after Turkeys becoming a member of the EU, it may grow by spreading its national power and impact in the surrounding region. Naturally this, in turn, may draw the reaction of Russia and thus the relations between the EU and Russia could become tense and so an insecurity environment could be set up for Europe. Since Turkeys membership will eventually be so costly, keeping it out of the EU integration process may be recommended (Wehler, 2004: 33-34, Reiter, 2004). Furthermore, if Turkey becomes more powerful economically, this could lead to Turkey gaining more power within European institutions -this may be considered to be against the interests of the EU. The EU, to a certain extent, takes the value of Turkeys geopolitical position into consideration, but seems to lack the ability to evaluate it well (Oran, 1996: 353-370). However, in the document it is pointed out that for Europes security a possible source of worry is the dependence of the EU on the energy sources. Turkey is a country at the crossroads of energy corridors. The contribution of Turkey to the EUs energy needs might overcome these energy shortcomings. However, the EU tends to supply its energy needs not through Turkey but through Russia (Ruelhl, 2004, Schenider, 2005). The EU seems to have accepted the event of Russias re-expansion in the Caucasus and Central Asia and its control over these regions (Ruelhl, 2005). However, energy resources from the Caucasus and Caspian Sea could be well transported through Turkey to Europe. The EU, from this point of view, has not grasped or taken the importance of Turkey into consideration as the USA has. In other words, this means that the EU has not shaken off its suspicions concerning the positive contributions Turkey could make to EU security situations. The worry is that Turkey will eventually gain more power after becoming full EU membership and be powerful like France, the UK and Germany, and thus influence the balance of power structures among the EU states (Nussbaumer, 2004). Furthermore, according to this view, after possible full membership,

230

Stratejik Aratrmalar Dergisi 1 (01), 2008,213-236

Mesut Tatekin

Turkey gaining a powerful position in the EU could effect and might change the developmental direction of the EU and might even stop the EU integration process. Such worries in certain EU circles could not be overcome and are still current. After gaining EU membership, Turkey, by using EU-linkage as a lever, may reinforce its influence in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Near East and in the Balkans. This powerful potential of Turkey causes some worries within the EU. The assumption of these worries is that that the outcome would not be in harmony with EU security interests. Such an assumption supports insecure feelings against Turkeys membership. However, Turkeys possible exclusion from the European integration process will not only expose the limits of the EUs integration ability but will also demonstrate limits of ability of the EU as a global actor, as it is described in the strategic document. Conclusion The European security strategy document, which aims to build a common European strategy culture, is an important step that has been made in the sense of defining the common interests and the common threat perception. Yet it is too early to claim that the EU, with that document, has reached a strategic culture and a clear definition of common perception and interest. It is still unclear what sort of impact the document will have on the EU and EU states. The members of the EU are aware that they cant overcome crucial security threats and dangers with their own national resources. On the other hand, they seem too far away to put EU common interests above national interests. The EU security strategy document, which attempts to set up a common strategic culture, is an endeavor to overcome the fragmentation between EU states, as seen in it response to the USAs Iraq intervention. The EU has declared its will to act as a global actor, not opposed to the USA as an alternative but with the USA at an equal partner (Rummel, 2004: 119-143),

231

Journal of Social Sciences 1 (01), 2008, 213-236

On The Strategy Document of the Eu and Turkey

remaining closely tied to the Transatlantic community. It has been strongly pointed out that in establishing a multi-polar world order, to which the EU can contribute, a stable and peaceful world order could be created. Thus, the EU document follows the USA concepts in respect of the perception of security threats and the need for intervention in regional crises; it differs in respect of its proposal to set up a world order project. Fundamentally, by underlining its intervention policy with a mix of economical, civilian, and military elements, it has differentiated itself from the USA. It has not been mentioned on the Turkeys role in the document. However, it does state that by spreading welfare and security in Europe and around, the formation of a new line dividing Europe should be prevented. In view of these declarations, the omission of Turkey from the document appears contradictory. Indeed, the EUs strategic vision that is represented in the document could be realized better with the contribution of Turkey. It agrees on the point that gaining stability in Europe and around is a part of Turkeys security politics. Consequently, it would have been convenient if Turkey had been named as a strategic partner in the document. Turkey, as has been mentioned in the document, by taking part in the Barcelona process, has become an effective member of some regional organizations such as the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, the Economic Cooperation Organization and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Because of this, Turkey could have a positive effect on the EUs European security policy and there is no doubt that it can take responsibility for being a mediator in regional conflicts and clashes and assist in developing a regional security environment for the EU.

REFERENCES

232

Stratejik Aratrmalar Dergisi 1 (01), 2008,213-236

Mesut Tatekin

1. Andersson, Jan Joel, The EU Security Strategy: Coherence and Capabilities, Utrikespolitiska Institutet, 20 October 2003, Stockholm, (http://www.isseu.org/solana/docsto.pdf) (Downloaded: 28. 06. 2005). 2. Arboan, Deniz lk (2003), Tarihin Sonundan Barn Sonuna Terrizmi Anlamak ve Anlamlandrmak, Tima Yaynlar, stanbul. 3. Asseburg, Muriel (2003), Die EU und der Friedensproze im Nahen Osten and Materialsammlung zum Friedensproze im Nahen Osten Anlageband zur SWP-Studie 2003/S 28, Die EU und der Friedensproze im Nahen Osten (Berlin: SWP-Studie, July). 4. Atav, Trkkaya (2003), 11 Eyll: Terrle Sava m, Bahane mi?, Alkm Yaynevi, stanbul. 5. Brzezinski, Zbigniew (1997), Die einzige Weltmacht, (Weilheim/Berlin). 6. akmak, Haydar (2007), Avrupa Gvenlii, Platin Yaynlar., Ankara. 7. ayhan, Esra (2002), Avrupa Gvenlik ve Savunma Politikas ve Trkiye, Akdeniz niv. ..B.F. Dergisi (3). 8. omak, Hasret (2005), Rusya Faktr ve Boyutlu D Politika, Stratejik ngr Dergisi, (June). 9. Dedeoglu, Beril (2004), Yeniden Gvenlik Topluluu: Benzerliklerin Karlkl Bamllndan Farkllklarn Birlikteliine, Uluslararas likiler Dergisi, (Say 4, K). 10. Deighton, Ann. (2002), The European Security and Defence Policy, Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 40 No. 4. 11. Denker, Mehmet Sami (1997), Uluslararas Terr, Trkiye ve PKK, Boazii Yaynlar, stanbul. 12. Ehrhart, Hans-Georg (2004), Abschied vom Leitbild Zivilmacht? Konzepte zur EU-Sicherheitspolitik nach dem Irak-Krieg, Varwick, Johannes / Knelangen, Wolfgang (Hg.), Neues Europa -alte EU? (Opladen:Verlag Leske und Budrich).

233

Journal of Social Sciences 1 (01), 2008, 213-236

On The Strategy Document of the Eu and Turkey

13. EUSS (2003). EU Security Strategy Document, Bruxel, 12. 12. 2003. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf) 14. EU-RUSSIA Summit (2005), Fifteenth EU-Russia Summit. Road Maps, Moscow, 10 May 2005; (http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/er/84815.pdf) (downloaded: 28. 08. 2005). 15. Frankfurter Rundschau, 16.11.2004. (Downloaded: 28. 06. 2005). 16. Gaerber, Andrae (2004), Transatlantische Initiative fr Mittleren Osten und Nordafrika -eine unvollstaendige Agenda, Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft, (Heft 4, Berlin).. 17.

Goetz, Roland (2004), Rulands Energiestrategie und die

Energieversorgung Europas, (Berlin: SWP-Studie, March).

18. Hacke, Christian (2004), Die europische Verfassung: Katalysator fr mehr auen und sicherheitspolitische Gemeinsamkeiten?,Politische Studien, (Sept-Okt.). 19. HeIse, Volker (2005), Militrische Integration in Europa, (Berlin: SWPStudie, Sept.). 20. Hilz, Wolfram (2005), Die Sicherheitspolitik des Europischen Fhrungstrios, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte. 21. Javier Solana, draft version of the EUSS Document, http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/reports/76255.pdf. 22. Karaosmanoglu, Ali L. (2003), Transatlantik atla: Deien Kimlikler, Dou-Bat Dnce Dergisi 23, (Mays-Haziran-Temmuz). 23. Karaosmanolu, Ali (2001), Avrupa Gvenlik ve Savunma Kimlii Acisindan Trkiye-Avrupa Birlii likileri, Dou Bat, (No 14). 24. Krause, Joachim (2004), Multilateralism: Behind European Views, The Washington Quarterly, (Spring).

234

Stratejik Aratrmalar Dergisi 1 (01), 2008,213-236

Mesut Tatekin

25. Krell, Gert (2004), Die USA, Israel und der Nahost-Konflikt, Studie ber Demokratische Auenpolitik im 20. Jahrhundert, (Frankfurt/M.: HSFK-Report Nr. 14). 26. Mathiopoulos, Margarita (1998), Die USA und Europa als globale Akteure im 21. Jahrhundert, Aussenpolitik, 2/1998. 27. Mller, Friedeman / Ulbach, Uwe (2001), Persischer Golf, Kaspisches Meer und Kaukasus, (Berlin: SWP-Studie, January). 28. Mommsen, Margerata (2004), Die EU und Russland, WeIdenfeld, Werner (ed), Europa Handbuch (Bonn: BPB). 29. Nussbaumer, Heinz (2004), Wo endet Europa? Vom Umgang der Europischen Union mit der Trkei, Vortrag vor der Orientgesellschaft Hammer -Purgstall am 18. 12. 2004 in der Diplomatischen Akademie Wien. http://www.da-vienna.ac.at/userfiles/nussbaumer.pdf (12. 08. 2005). 30. Oran, B. (1996), Trk D Politikas:Temel lkeleri ve Souk Sava Ertesindeki Durumu zerine Notlar, ASBF Dergisi, (cilt.: 51, No: 1-4,). 31. Ortega, Martin (2005), ber Petersberg hinaus: Welche militaerische Missonen fr die EU?, in: Gnesotto, Nicole (2005) (Hg.), Die Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik der EU, Institute fr Sicherheitsstudien, Paris. 32. Perthes, Volker (2004), Europa und Amerikas Greater Middle East, (Berlin: SWP Aktuell 5, Feb.). 33. Reiter, Eric (2004), Die Sicherheitsstrategie der EU, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte B 3-4. 34. Reiter, Eric (2004), Die Situation der EU in ihrer geplanten strategischen berdehnung Sicherheitspolitische und strategische Aspekte eines Beitritts der Trkei zur EU, (Arbeitspapier des sterreichischen Instituts fr Europaeische Sicherheitspolitik Wien, Dez.). 35. Ruelhl, Lothar (2005), Sicherheitspartner Trkei. Geopolitik, Strategie und europische Interessen, Sicherheitspolitik des Bundesministeriums fr Landesverteidigung, Wien, (April).

235

Journal of Social Sciences 1 (01), 2008, 213-236

On The Strategy Document of the Eu and Turkey

36. Rummel, Reinhard (2004), (2005)a, Der zivile Gehalt der Europischen Sicherheits und Verteidigungspolitik, Schrter, Lothar (ed.), Europa und Militr - Europische Friedenspolitik oder Militarisierung?, (Schkeuditz). 37. Rummel, Reinhard (2004), Soft-Power EU Interventionspolitik mit zivilen Mitteln, in: Ehrhart, Hans-Georg / Schmitt, Burkard (Hg.), Die Sicherheitspolitik der EU im Werden (Baden-Baden: Nomos V. G.. 38. Rummel, Reinhard, (2004), Europische Mitverantwortung fr Globale Sicherheit, Reinhard C. Meier-Walser (ed.) Gemeinsam sicher? Vision und Realitt Europischer Sicherheitspolitik (Mnchen). 39. Sagorski, Andrej (2000), Entwicklung der russisch-amerikanischen Beziehungen, Gorzka, Gabriele. / Schulze, Peter, (Hg.), Wohin steuert Russland unter Putin? (Frankfurt: Campus V.). 40.

Schneider, Eberhard (2005), Die Europische Union und

Ruland im 21. Jahrhundert, (Berlin: SWP-Dis.papier, Mai).

41. Schrader, Lutz (2004), Europas Antwort auf Bushs Grand Strategy, Welttrends 42 (lkbahar). 42. Schneckener, Ulrich (2004) (Hg.), States at Risks. Fragile Staaten als Sicherheits- und Entwicklungsproblem, (Belin: SWP-Studie, Nov.). 43. Schwegler, Gerhard (2004), Aussenpolitik der USA, Lsche, P. / von Loeffelholz, H. D. (Hg.), Laenderbericht der USA (Bonn: BPB). 44. Wehler, Heinz-Ulrich (2004), Verblendetes Harakiri: der Trkei-Beitritt zerstrt die
EU, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, (B 33-34).

46. USNSS: (www.whitehause.gov/nsc/nss.pdf) (17. 5. 2004).

236

Stratejik Aratrmalar Dergisi 1 (01), 2008,213-236