Turkey’s intent of joining the European Union has a long history. The country applied for Associate Membership in 1959, two years after the formation of the European Economic Community (EEC), which was the precedent of the European Union (EU) formation. The EEC formed an association agreement with Turkey three years later in 1963, which was known as the Ankara Agreement.
Among the goals of the agreement was the formation of a customs union with the EEC before 1995, a step that would facilitate Turkey becoming a full member of the EU. However, there was no definite time set for the country to join the EU (Sulamaa & Widgrén 2).
In 1996, the EU came to an agreement that Turkey would join the EU’s customs union. However, the agreement covers a limited number of goods; it covers only industrial products and processed agricultural goods (Sulamaa & Widgrén 2).
Up to date, the country is yet to become a full member of the EU. The intent of the country to join the EU has been very controversial and has elicited widespread debate among the EU member countries.
Turkey’s migration
Turkey’s migration policy is mainly influenced by several factors; in fact, Turkey has been traditionally known as a country of emigration. During the 1960s and 1970s, many Turkish nationals migrated to other western European countries such as West Germany. However, Turkey has recently become a transit country of other migrants into Europe.
Most of the migrants are irregular and mainly come from the Central Asian countries such as Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan. The country is also a destination of most irregular immigrants from the former soviet countries (Kirisci, 2003).
Germany has by far the largest number of Turkish immigrants. However, after joining the EU the free migration of the Turks into other EU countries is expected to increase the number of Turkish immigrants in Germany to 3.5 million (Flam 15).
The illegal migration from the Caucasus (central Asia and Middle East countries) usually poses a security threat to the residents of both Turkey and the European Union. However, some parties believe that the number of illegal migrants from the Caucasus would reduce if Turkey were allowed into the European (Hug 15).
This would mainly be because Turkey’s integration into the EU would have significant economic benefits to the country, thereby reducing the number of immigrants who illegally migrate to EU in search of better economic opportunities.
The current adjusted per capita income in the EU is far much greater than that of Turkey. In fact, the PPP – adjusted per capita income of the EU – is more than three times than that of the EU. However, economic conditions of entry of the country into the EU will make it catch up with per capita of the EU, albeit after several years (Flam 12).
Upon entry of Turkey into the EU, large-scale immigration from the country is expected to cause several problems in the other EU countries. The EU-15 is of concerned by the possibility that the immigrants will lead to the reduction of wages, increase unemployment and cause social and political tensions in the EU.
This will at the same time, lead to an increase in wage level in Turkey, greatly benefiting the residents (Lejour, de Mooij & Capel 11). However, the effect of the large-scale immigration from Turkey is not expected to have significant impact upon entry of the country into the EU. This is due to the fact that the EU member countries can restrict immigration of citizens of new member countries for a period of up to seven years during the transition period.
In fact, this transition restriction has been applied to other countries that have joined the EU recently with notable examples being Greece, Portugal, and Spain (Flam 13). Similar restrictions are expected to be imposed to the country upon entry into the EU to avoid destabilization of the EU and to help the EU and Turkey in adapting to the conditions.
Turkey’s Migration policies
Turkey is a country that has among the most conservative policies to regulate settlement of foreigners and asylum seekers in the country. Turkey’s Law of settlement passed in 1934 was used by the country to cater for the large number of expulsions of Turks into other countries.
The law facilitated the settlement of people of Turkish background who were spread throughout the central Asia, Middle East, Nazi Germany, and other parts of Europe from settling into the country. In addition, the law facilitated the accelerated citizenship of the people while offering Land or loan to the migrants. A large number of the beneficiaries of this law were Turks who were from Greece and Bulgaria (Tolay-Sargnon 6).
During the Nazi Germany, a large number people who did not have Turkish origin were also given residency as they were fleeing from the persecutions by the Nazis. After the tragic effects of Europe during this period, Turkey adopted the Geneva Convention regarding the status of refugees in 1951.
The Convention indicated that refugees will only be accepted temporarily and would have to come from European countries. By signing the convention, Turkey added “refugees” into the legal category of migrants.
However, with time, the category has included other people due to the development in the world and the increase in the number of people who are moving from one country to another. These include tourists, international students, and temporary migrant workers (Tolay-Sargnon 7).
Turkey now copes with large numbers of migrants of non-Turkish origin whose classification is difficult to make. Most of these migrants are seeking asylum but do not come from Europe, hence cannot befit from being given the refugee status according to the Geneva Convention.
Most of the migrants usually use Turkey a transit point into other European countries, as entry into the country – legally or illegally – is easier compared to the other European countries. However, upon entry into the country, these people find it difficult to enter the European countries. Most of these migrants are petty traders from the former Soviet countries and are considered illegal by the Turkish authorities (Tolay-Sargnon 8s).
The survival of this migrant group is usually left to themselves, the local Turkish population, and many other NGOs who offer services to the migrants. This usually exposes the migrants to abuses and makes most of them to live under very difficult conditions. However, lack of funds for administration of the migrants makes it difficult for the government to arrest, detain, or deport the migrants.
This has mainly facilitated inclusion of clauses such as “temporary guests” in the immigration policy of the country to facilitate settlement of certain groups of people without making legislature changes (Tolay-Sargnon 9). This has made the country not to have any immigration crisis.
However, the large number of illegal immigrant in the country poses problems in the EU-Turkey relations. EU view Turkey’s immigration policy of non-regulation negatively as it creates uncontrollable illegal immigration and human trafficking. Turkey’s immigration policy is generally different from that of the EU, which seeks to control people who are entering the EU (Tolay-Sargnon 11).
The EU is concerned about the immigration policies of Turkey due to several reasons. There has generally been a migrant influx into Turkey. Turkey had to provide shelter to the Iraqi civilians who have fled during the multiple crises, which have happened in the country.
Another reason that has led to the interest of the EU in the immigration policies of the country is due to the increase in the number of illegal immigrants into the EU, most of who are from Turkey or use the country as their transit location into the EU.
The illegal immigrants pose different problems to the EU and thus making it to take measures to address the problems of the immigration policies of Turkey as its integration into the EU is bound to cause different (Tolay-Sargnon 12). The EU mainly uses criticism of the immigration policies and practices.
However, after the recognition of Turkey as a viable candidate for integration into the EU, the EU has used more active and technical cooperation to help in solving the immigration issues which the country faces (Tolay-Sargnon 13). The major aim of the cooperation is to help in the harmonization of the immigration policies of the country with that of the EU, pending integration into the union.
Most of the changes that require technical and administrative changes have already been implemented by the country. However, not all the changes have been effected as some of the changes go against the traditional roles of the country as a sovereign state.
According to Turkey’s National Program for the Acquisition of the Acquis (NPAA) of 2001 and 2003, the government put upon itself an obligation to undertake a wide range of policy reforms on the management of its borders. The policy changes would overhaul the asylum, immigration and visa policies to ensure that they are harmonized with those of the EU.
Through the NPAA, Turkey promised to lift the limitation of entry of migrants into the country. However, Turkey requires that the EU should share the burden (material) of implementation of the policy and protect the country from mass influx of refugees into the country (Kirisci 3). In this case, year 2012 was proposed as the deadline for putting up necessary infrastructure to facilitate the changes before the initiation of the legislative process.
This has facilitated the introduction of several measures to improve Turkey’s asylum policy. However, the reforms undertaken by the country have not been able to form an administrative and legal capacity to handle people from outside Europe who may seek asylum in the country. This has resulted in a deadlock between the EU and Turkey on the issue of asylum (Kirisci 3).
Due to the fact that most of the illegal immigrants into Europe use Turkey as a transit route, the EU has proposed that upon integration of the country into the EU, any illegal immigrant should be deported back to Turkey. Turkey would then have to deport the immigrants to their home countries.
Turkey has vehemently objected to this idea, resulting into major disagreements between the EU and Turkey (Kirisci 4). Moreover, Turkey has introduced several legislative and administrative measures to help in the combat of the illegal transit migration and human trafficking.
The visa policies of Turkey have also drawn wide criticism from the EU due to their flexibility and falling short of the EU standards. The visa policies provide a category of immigrants from certain countries whose residents can stay in the country for a predetermined period, usually three moths, without having to obtain a visa.
The policy also specifies certain countries whose nationals must first obtain visas prior to entering the country. However, the practice which has attracted widespread criticism by the EU member countries is the Turkey’s practice of issuing Visas at the frontier in return for a fee which varies from country to country, a practice known as “sticker visa” (Kirisci 5).
Conclusion
Harmonization of the immigration policies with that of the EU has been faced with so much resistance by Turkey. This is mainly due to the fact that the citizens or the parliament is not involved in the harmonization of the policies. Instead, the process involves mainly officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of the Interior, the military and the police (Kirisci 6).
These officials report directly to the prime minister, thus showing that the government regards the integration into the EU very highly (Alessandri 8) In addition the resistance is due to the burden sharing of the harmonization of the immigration policies with EU.
Due to strategic location of the country, integration of the immigration policies with those of the EU makes the country at risk of becoming a buffer zone or a dumping ground of the asylum seekers and refugees who the EU does not want (Kirisci 7).
Works Cited
Alessandri, Emiliano. The New Turkish Foreign Policy and the Future of Turkey-EU Relations. Rome: Instituto Affari Internazionali. 2010. Web.
Flam, Harry. “Turkey and the EU: Politics of Economics and Accession.” CESifo working paper no. 893. 2003. Web.
Hug, Adam. Turkey in Europe: The economic case for Turkish membership of the European Union. London: The Foreign Policy Centre. 2008. Web.
Kirisci, Kemal. Harmonisation of migration policies and Turkey’s security challenges. Istanbul: Centre for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies. Web.
Kirisci, Kemal. Turkey: A Transformation from Emigration to Immigration. Center for European Studies, Bogaziçi University. 2003. Web.
Sulamaa, Pekka & Widgrén, Mika. Turkish EU membership: a simulation study on economic effects. Web.
Tolay-Sargnon, Juliette. “Turkey’s Immigration Policy: Can EU Norms Change Turkey’s Identity?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Palmer House Hotel, Chicago, IL, 2007. Web.
Turkey’s application for the membership in the EU (1987) has brought the relationship between the two parties to the new stage. In 2005, Turkey was given the status of an official candidate for the EU membership, which made the prospect of accepting the country to the Union rather realistic.
Significant differences that relate to the fields of economy, politics and international affairs, culture, civil law and religion have predetermined strong interest to the initial conditions, peculiarities, possible outcomes, potential threats and benefits of the abovementioned union.
The rapid progress in the parties’ relationship corroborated the possibility of a quick positive outcome of the decades-long negotiation and seemed to reflect their opinion about the future union. At the same time, the last years were marked by a turn in Turkey-EU cooperation.
Turkey’s international policy shift from orientation to the West towards the strengthening sympathy for the Muslim Middle East identified the country’s international ambitions connected with its world recognition in the position of a strong independent state.
Correspondingly, the EU society found itself concerned about the capability of two different cultures to co-exist, integrate, and successfully interact. The rhetoric of the European countries leaders (Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel) indicated the shift in the EU society’s attitudes.
Today Turkey keeps the status of an official candidate for the EU membership. Both parties do not demonstrate the willingness to revise the prospects of the future cooperation, though not showing strong willingness to force the process. At the same time, it would be quite untimely to assume that both societies’ attitudes towards the potential union are homogeneous and coincide with Turkey’s and the EU’s official position.
This predetermines the significance of investigation of discussed topic for the further evolution of the Turkey-EU relationship and gies birth to a range of research questions in the field of social studies that require scholars’ and policy makers’ particular attention.
Focus of Research and Research Questions
The focus of this research is the attitude of the Turkish society towards the possible Turkey-EU union. The purpose of study is to detect the tendencies in the Turkish public opinion about the countries membership in the EU, which may clarify to what extent this prospect remains realistic and how the integration will progress in case Turkey is accepted.
In the course of study, the following research questions are expected to be answered:
What attitudes towards Turkey’s membership in the EU exist in the Turkish society?
What arguments do the proponents of each attitude provide to support their point of view?
What factors influence the Turkish public opinion? What information sources have the strongest authority with the Turkish population?
What is the official opinion of the Turkish government? Does it have significant influence on the attitudes of the population?
How do the Turkish people see their own future in case the country enters the European Union?
What parties of the Turkish society are the most interested in the EU entry?
What are the strongest potential threats of the Turkey-EU union? (economical, political, cultural, social, religious aspects)
How do the Turkish people want to see their country in the future? (internal condition, international arena)
How do the Turkish people perceive the attitude of the EU citizens and officials towards Turkey?
What alternatives to the EU membership do the Turkish citizens consider possible for their country?
Methodology and Information Sources
The study implies analysis of information sources devoted to the discussed topic. It is planned to get familiarized and compare the opinions of scholars and journalists who have been studying the public opinion of the Turkish population about the EU entry, as well as the opinions of the Turkish policy-makers.
The following sources will be used in the course of the study:
Monographs.
Articles in scholarly journals.
Turkish daily newspapers.
EU documents.
Interviews with Turkey officials: Egemen Bagis (the Minister of EU affairs in Turkey), Uluc Ozulker (ex-ambassador of Turkey to the EU).
Argument
The preliminary study of the given issue has demonstrated that the Turkish population is not homogeneous in evaluation of the outcome of Turkey’s EU membership. The tendency of opposition to the Turkey’s EU membership is expected to have been strengthening.
The Turkish citizens’ strongest concerns are expected to be connected with:
the role Turkey will obtain in the European community after joining the EU;
the impact of the union on the life of the ordinary Turkish people;
social, cultural and religious differences that will play a role of serious obstacles in the Turkey-EU integration.
Hypothesis: despite availability of the attitudinal factors that form resistance towards Turkey’s EU membership, the Turkey population has positive expectations about the potential union.
The literature review provided below is aimed at testing the abovementioned statements.
Literature Review
Study of Turkey population’s attitude towards the EU membership requires obtaining a background on the Turkish political process. Much has been said about the impact of Islam on the Turkish society. Arat’s (2005) is devoted to analysis of Turkish Islam as a power that influences the Turkish political process. The author also estimates the power of the Turkish women in politics.
Arat mentions the “serious polarization within society” (5) between the secularist and the Islamist poles. White’s work (2002) helps understand the roots and the process of evolution of Islamic politics in Turkey. Özyürek’s (2006) demonstrates that the secular and Islam issues actively interact and to the great extent oppose each other within the borders of Turkey’s political process.
The author states that the secularist tendencies have been strengthening in Turkey during the last few years. Andreson (2008) discusses the dynamics of the democratic process in the Turkish politics and “the warped dialectic between state and religion in the Turkey”. The democratic trends have been competing to the approach expressed by Erdogan, the AKP leader, ”When the feet try to govern the head, it becomes doomsday”.
Arikan (2008) marks that the principles of democracy and human rights are the basis of the “new European political order” (113). Turkish expectations about the EU membership are to the great extent connected with blossoming of these principles in the social life of the country.
On the other hand, the domination of the mentioned “new order” is perceived by some citizens as the invasion to the unique Turkish cultural space that has been forming for centuries. However, Carkoglu (2003) marks that “general attitudinal bases of resistance to EU membership- religiosity, anti-democratic attitudes and Euro-skepticism – do not form sources of EU refutation” (186).
The author argues that the Turkish elites are now in the state of polarization, and each force is able to find the necessary rhetoric and persuasion mechanism to “conquer” the population’s support through media (187). Paradoxically, the elites that resist to the EU membership are able to keep their electoral support (ibid.).
Carkoglu says that despite the dominating positive attitude towards the EU entry among the Turkish political elites, the legislative changes required by the EU are conducted quite slowly (ibid). Besides, they prefer to not emphasize the EU-related issues during the “electoral rush”.
To form a full understanding of Turkey’s attitude to the EU entry, it is necessary to study the opinion of different parties, such as (at least): officials, political organizations and social movements, media, different social groups. One of the most significant questions in the study of the Turkish public opinion about the EU entry is what parties are the most strongly interested in it.
In the abovementioned (2008), Anderson outlines the following, “In Turkey itself, as in Europe, the major forces working for its entry into the Union are the contemporary incarnations of the party of order: the bourse, the mosque, the barracks and the media. The consensus… is not quite a unanimity. Here and there, surly voices of reaction can be heard…
For the Turkish left, politically marginal but culturally central, the EU represents hope of some release from the twin cults and repressions of Kemal and the Koran; for the Turkish poor, of chances of employment and elements of welfare; for Kurds and Alevis, of some rights for minorities.
How far these hopes are all realistic is another matter”. It is necessary to mark that female participants of the country’s social and political life also demonstrate strong interest towards the issue of the EU entry.
Aybar et al (2007) who studied the ordinary Turkey citizens’ expectations about the EU membership argue that the union has been initially perceived by the Turkish women as a trigger of the women’s emancipation process. However, as Tunkrova argues in (2010), despite the legislative reforms, true democratization requires more time and the effort of the domestic actors (4).
However, some researchers share a pessimistic view on the capability of the Turkish society to accept the tendencies of the European new order. Particularly, Kösebalaban (2001) argues that the Turkish nation’s sympathy for the European values is not able to outweigh the Turkish domestic ideology.
On the “subconscious” level, says Kösebalaban, a union with Europe is perceived by certain parties as an invasion, an encroachment on Turkey’s independence and identity. However, at the moment, while Turkey has not faced the “challenge” of EU integration, this should not be equated with the “conscious level”: the overall attitude of the Turkish nation to the EU membership remains positive.
Conclusion
A set of factors has predetermined the polarization of the Turkish society between the sense of the national identity and socio-cultural autonomy, and the sympathy for the so-called “European new order” with its principles of democracy and human rights. At all levels, from the political elites to the ordinary citizens, there are proponents and opponents of the Turkey-EU union.
Despite the required legislative reforms and social changes progress quite slowly, the overall attitude towards Turkey’s EU membership is positive.
It is remarkable that the Turkish people understand that the EU entry will intensify the secularist tendencies in the society and lead to the changes at all levels, from legislation to the everyday life. Despite this fact, the support of the EU membership prospect is strong, which may mean that secularization itself is considered by the Turkey citizens a positive change.
Works Cited
Anderson, Perry. “After Kemal”. London Review of Books. 2008. Web.
Arat, Yesim. Rethinking Islam and Liberal Democracy Islamist Women in Turkish Politics. Albany: State University of New York, 2005.
Arikan, Harun. Turkey and the EU: an Awkward Candidate for EU Membership? Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008.
Aybar, C. Bülent, et al. “Analysis of Attitudes of Turkish Citizens towards the Effects of EU Membership”. Turkish Studies 8.3 (2007): 329-348.
Carkoglu, Ali. “Who Wants Full Membership? Characteristics of Turkish Public Support for EU Membership.” Turkish Studies 4.1 (2003): 171-94.
Kösebalaban, Hasan. “Turkey’s EU Membership: A Clash of Security Cultures.” Middle East Policy 9.2 (2002): 130-46.
Özyürek, Esra. Nostalgia for the Modern: State Secularism and Everyday Politics in Turkey. 2006. Duhram, NC: Duke Uinversity Press, 2006.
Tunkrova, Lucie. “The EU Accession Process and Gender Issues: Central Europe and Turkey.” Report for the Fifth Pan-European Conference on EU Politics, Porto, Portugal, 2010. JHUBC. Web.
White, Jenny. Islamist Mobilization in Turkey: A Study in Vernacular Politics. Seattle, Wash.: University of Washington Press, 2002.
The European Union is a political and economic Union that brings together 27 independent Countries. These States are largely situated in Europe. The Union traces its origin to EEC (European Economic Community) and ECSC (European Coal and Steal Community) that began in 1952. Since then, it has enlarged through accessions and added policies.
In 1993, (EU) European Union was established under its present name after the Maastricht Treaty. Over the years, it has undergone various amendments, latest of which being the Lisbon Treaty that came into force in 2009. It operates under a hybrid system where member States and independent institutions negotiate decisions.
These include the European Council, the European commission and the European Central Bank, among others. It has a parliament, which is elected by citizens from member States. In addition, it has a single market, which applies in all member States.
It is also quite important to note that it contributes about 20% of world GDP and is home to an estimated 7.3% of global population. Moreover, it has continued to enlarge with more countries in Eastern Europe expressing interest. This paper will explore enlargement of European Union and analyze its challenges (Trichet 1).
Enlargement of European Union
After the Second World War, it was decided that Germany and France be united in order to institute a lasting peace. The two nations were very strong both economically and politically. This began with ECSC in 1952 as six nations signed the Paris Treaty. Later on, EEC was established in 1958 to eliminate trade barriers between member States. What followed was merging of institutional communities into EC (European Community).
Its enlargement started after institution of European parliament. This can be traced back to 1973, when Denmark, Ireland and the UK were added; this increased its number to 9. Further activities in 1980s saw expansion with inclusion of Greece in 1981 as well as that of Portugal and Spain in 1886.
This brought the number to twelve. Thereafter a major breakthrough came in form of Maastricht Treaty of 1992, which established ways for cooperation in defense and foreign policy. This included formation of policies on internal affairs, judiciary and economy as well as monetary Union. It is under these conditions that it was named the EU (CIA.gov 1).
However, it was still different from (EC) European community. This enlargement continued with inclusion of Sweden, Austria and Finland, thus making the number 15 by 1995. In 1999, it introduced a new exchange rate known as the euro. This became a unit of exchange in all member States except Denmark, Sweden and the UK. Citizens of remaining member States started using the euro in 2002 and this has continued up to date.
Enlargement of European Union did not stop at this; in 2004, additional ten States were included. These were mainly from Eastern Europe namely the Czech Republic, Latvia, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Estonia, Lithuania, Hungary and Poland.
This increased its member States to 25. Further enlargement was witnessed in 2007, when Romania and Bulgaria also joined, increasing their number to the present 27. This led to formulation of the Nice Treaty in order to run it efficiently (CIA.gov 1).
Their efforts to establish a constitution failed through referendum in Netherlands and France. However, many of these features were incorporated in 2007. Subsequent efforts led to European Union succeeding European Community. After 2007, a number of countries have applied to be incorporated into the Union. Some of which had applied at an earlier date.
European Union has also laid strategies of helping candidates and potential candidates to reform their policies in line for accession. In this regard, the Union has also revised funding for candidates in form of pre-accession assistance to 14110 million euros, which is to be utilized between 2014 and 2020.
In addition, Croatia’s accession to EU was approved by parliament in 2011. It had applied for membership in 2003. This was approved in 2004 and subsequent approval done in 2011. The country is expected to join EU as its 28th member State in 2013 (CIA.gov 1).
States planning to join EU have been categorized into two main groups namely, current and potential candidates. The former include Croatia, Iceland, Macedonia, Montenegro and Turkey. On the other hand, the latter include Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Serbia. Iceland applied for accession into European Union in 2009 with negotiations starting in 2010.
Macedonia also applied for its accession in 2004. It was confirmed as a candidate in 2005. Other countries such as Montenegro and Turkey applied for accession in 2008 and 1987 respectively. They were confirmed as candidates in 2010 and 1999 in that order. Potential candidates applied for their accession in the following years. Albania applied for membership in 2009.
However, its accession is not expected until 2015. This is same with Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is still relishing on the aftermath of 1992 -1995 war. Serbia and Kosovo have also expressed interest in joining the EU even though a lot is yet to be done in ensuring smooth accession. It is quite important to note that several programmes have been put in place to help in accession on these countries into EU by 2020.
These include police reforms, fostering of ethics, modernizing of infrastructure, economic reforms, efficient energy use, reinforcement of democracy, peace treaties and banking standards, among others. However, these have come with several challenges. Some of which have been contained while others persist. For instance, ethnic conflict between Serbia and Kosovo is paramount, among others (Trichet 1).
Challenges
European Union is considered as the largest world economic zone; this has worked to improve its competiveness and prosperity. The Union has a policy, which is aimed at fostering peace, freedom, rule of law, tolerance and solidarity as well as democracy. However, it has also faced challenges to achieving these objectives.
This is mainly because of pre-accession strategies that have been difficult to achieve it terms of aspiring countries. For instance, it has taken Turkey about 12 years to be confirmed as candidate for accession despite having applied in 1987. In general, process of accession to EU community involves many activities that require countries to reform virtually every economic structure.
This is usually difficult for some countries as well as their citizens. In some cases, governments are willing but citizens reject policies to be enacted as pre-accession requirements. This has delayed possible accessions of countries such as Turkey, Montenegro and Iceland, among others (“EU enlargement: The next eight” 1).
There are other challenges that EU has faced over the years in its bid to enlarge. These challenges started in 2004 when 10 countries from Eastern block were admitted. After inclusion of 10 other States, its population was increased by about one-fifth. Moreover, a big gap separates rich countries from poor ones. Accession countries projected a GDP which is half that of EU.
In addition, indicator of backwardness showed that accession countries were twice that of EU. Moreover, its effects on United States were quite unpredictable, given that its population and market was the largest globally. Its decision-making is based on negotiations; this made it increasingly difficult with an increasing number of States. Besides, these States have diverse interests, which are difficult to merge.
Furthermore, incorporating uniform policies is quite difficult in a wider EU. Enlargement of EU affected United States in many ways. These included economic and political ramifications. For instance, it expanded market for US goods as well as created dispute over trade disputes, among others (Europa.eu 1).
Enlargement of EU has also caused balance of power between the four institutions. In fact, more power has shifted to Council as negotiation takes part in decision-making. Another challenge is about population of major States against small ones in EU. This is in line with voting powers in the council. For instance, major countries such as France, Germany, the UK and Italy have more people than small States.
Negotiations efforts were made on using population size in decision-making but this was rejected by middle-income countries like Poland and Spain, among others. Decision-making has therefore become more difficult with economic recession facing most member countries. The increasing number of States is also increasing financial spending by EU on small States.
Sweden, Germany and Netherlands have been the chief contributors to EU economy. On the other hand, Spain, Portugal and Greece have been the highest beneficiaries. Increasing number of accession countries will pit competition for EU funds. Besides, economic disparity between old and new countries compromised small countries in decision making since they have to concur with big countries in order to get donations.
It is also important to note that economic policies of transition economies are quite different from that of developed economies, which are advanced capitalists. This is likely to make compliance difficult for small countries as has been witnessed in Turkey and Greece, among others. These challenges, among others risks paralyzing the Union unless constitutional stalemate can be resolved (Pereira 1).
Conclusion
The European Union was established for purpose of fostering peace, solidarity, rule of law and democracy, among others. Its enlargement began in 1973 when Denmark joined the six initial States. It has since increased to 27, with accession of Croatia as the 28th State pending. Moreover, about eight States are expected to join by 2020. This has posed several challenges on its policy framework.
This is mainly because the countries are derived from diverse political philosophical thoughts. For instance, most countries that joined from Eastern Europe have small economies. Moreover, they are derived from communist regimes. On the other hand, those from Western Europe are based on capitalistic political philosophy, which are at advanced state. These differences pose great challenge to its success.
Moreover, this gap has caused more challenges in the Union as economic turmoil ravages most of its members. Besides, small economies are competing for help from big economy States although their citizens are not ready to comply with some economic reforms. It therefore remains to be seen how they will respond to these challenges (Sissenich 1).
The conception of two-level relations was developed by Robert Putnam. This political model includes the international conflicts resolution between liberal democracies and, obviously, is still useful in understanding the European Union’s relations with the United States.
The historic relations of the Unites States and the European Union are based on the common idea of the rule of law, human rights and market economy. Putnam insists upon the theory of the close connection of the domestic politics with the international relations (1988, 427).
It means that all international negotiations between the governments of the liberal democracies are considered as the talks on both the national and international levels. Each government, first of all, uses the politics according to its domestic interests. Therefore, all the negotiations can be considered from the position of its benefits for the particular country.
Smith suggests analyzing the current tension of the US-EU relations from the position of world order: the role of leadership, the distribution of power, the development of institutions and the articulation of ideas and values about the nature of the world arena (2004, p.96). The United States and the European Union are two largest trading structures which occupy the similar position in the system of global economy.
The past few decades, these relations became more balanced. Since the foundation of the European Common Market in 1957, the United States got a new partner and started the bilateral and multilateral relations (Smith, 2004).
The European Union doesn’t have an integrated foreign policy. This makes the bilateral US-EU relations more complicated. For instance, the European foreign policy was divided during the Iraq War due to the impossibility of the common agreed position. Nevertheless, the relationship between the US and the EU is the brightest example of the bilateral cooperation.
Both structures successfully negotiate on domestic and international levels getting the expecting results (DePorte, 1979). The US and the EU economics and military powers are the biggest in the world. They completely dominate global trade system and dictate the approaches of international economics’ development.
After the end of the Cold War, the world was divided between the US and the EU economic structures. The fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tension situation at the Middle East played a very important role for the Western Alliance restructure and integration.
In spite of the similar liberal democratic values, both structures disagree with each other on the different issues such as political, economical, ecological and social aspects. In order to direct an economic cooperation, in 2007, the US Deputy national Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs and the Commissioner for Trade of the EU established the Transatlantic Economic Council.
McGuire and Smith see the base of this relations as the cooperation of “warrior states” (US) and “trading states” (EU) according to their fundamental approaches to worlds order (2008). Thereby, both structures can be considered as the system of states. They successfully cooperate within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Thereby, they don’t sacrifice their external sovereignty (McGuire and Smith, 2008).
The trade policy is the main aspect of the US-EU relations. However, it is not easy to come to agreement due to the numerous barriers and protectionism on both sides. For a long time, WTO has been trying to pass a new trade agreement. In 2001, in Doha, the negotiations were failed.
Since that, the talks were collapsed until in 2006 German Chancellor Angela Merkel proposed to ratificate the new agreement of the Transatlantic Free Trade Area (“Merkel for EU Agreement with US”).
Nowadays, the world is faced with the problem of international terrorism. The United States and the European Union have to cooperate in order of the global safety. The European countries actively support the US programs of the terroristic suspects’ treatment. The United States and the European Union signed the United Nations’ Geneva Convention Against Torture that includes the human treatment of the prisoners.
However, this issue is a cause of sharp debates between the countries. The European Union’s delegation says about the contradiction of this Convention with European norms on human rights (Smith, 2004). The other point is the European discomfort on a boarder due to the US approach to terrorists’ countering.
In this situation, the European Union position is based on the domestic benefits that, obviously, can be affected by the approaches suggested by the Convention.
The conception of two-level games is still useful tool within the background of the US-EU relations. Within the domestic negotiations, a leader absorbs the opinions of other members and cooperates with them building the coalition. The international level needs other methods of negotiations: the leader should implement the concerns according to its benefits for the country.
The current debates about the leadership, power, institutions and values between the US and the EU demonstrate an actuality of Putnam’s theory. Obviously, the modern cooperation of the United States and the European Union can be considered from the position of the conception of two-level relations.
Reference List
DePorte, A. W., 1979. Europe between the Superpowers the Enduring Balance. US: Yale University Press.
McGuire, S., and Smith, M., 2008. The European Union and the United States. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Influences, impact and paradox: Turkish attitude towards the European Union
Turkey is a country which has long standing relationships with the European Union. The country has long been applying for the European Union membership (Togan, S. 1019). Turkey has continued to embrace western culture due to its geopolitical position and the friendliness of Ataturk towards western ideologies.
Thus, it has continued to westernize its system such that its effects have been felt throughout every sector of the Turkish society. The country also became a member of NATO thereby taking a position against the communism during the period of the iron curtain (Avrupa’ya Hayir Diyebilen Turkiye 157).
There have been a lot of passionate moves by the Turkish government to embrace the Middle Eastern culture. This has led the government to establish relationships with its eastern and North African neighbours. The country has also been involved in major peace initiatives in the Arab world.
It is important to note that its strong relationship with the US also made the country a strong Israeli ally. However, this relationship cooled down when Turkey supported the Palestinians in Gaza. This cooling came at the same time with the moving away of Turkey from the EU due to its foreign policies.
The country has therefore made several alterations to its domestic policies in order to comply with EU standards. For instance, the country abolished death penalty. Turkey also had a positive attitude towards the Annan Plan in the UN-led Referendum to unite Northern (Turkish) and the Southern (Greek) Cypriots. It opened the border with Armenia and improved its relations with Greece.
It is thus appropriate to state that Turkey’s attitude will only be enhanced by having it to solve different issues. Some of the issues involve the period in which Turkey reformed and reorganized its policies to synchronize with those of EU. This actually corresponds to the electoral victory of AKP.
This party single handily formed the next government that oversaw great steps towards the EU, among them a return to negotiations. AKP reduced the role of its military in the National Security Council. Also, the party abolished death penalty (Anderson 22). These changes depicted the party as one that was committed to integrate with EU and also as a solution to some of the country’s problems.
It is important to note that all these changes took another turn in the year 2005. This is because the events that followed after this year made Turkey to move away from the EU. Thus, during the 2011 election agendas, the EU was not mentioned in most of the political parties’ election propaganda. Currently, there has been a government regulation to ban the use of internet and to infringe on the rights of the media houses.
The AKP has continued to grow in Islamic agenda thereby getting closer to the Arab world and consequently cooling of relations with Israel. Thus, the government has switched back to the previous nationalist stubborn attitude towards Cyprus (TUSIAD 4). The foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu has also led the Turkish foreign policy whereby the axis shift has actually become so hard to neglect (Barysch 48).
Since AKP has been affiliated with Islam, it has been forced to dance to the tune of its electorate (Cizre 118). The party still held certain reservations that come as a result of tensions that exist in the country. Thus, it claimed to be in support of human rights yet still held on to religious beliefs that undermine the same human rights (Onar 279).
This meant that it can contravene the EU legislation if it is pressured by the electorate. Also, Turkey, which is a powerful country, adhered to Pan-Islamic model with the ability to extend its influence far and wide into other countries such as the Middle East, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Persia (Daloglu 4).
The bid for Turkey to join the European Union has been considered as one of the most controversial in the history of the European Union. When viewed through the lens of Turkey’s long struggle to adopt modernity, opponents at the EU seem to be only contributing to a national debate that has been ongoing for a long time (Meral 59).
In this case, the struggle has been between traditionalist Islamists and westernizing Kemalists, both competing for Turkey’s soul (Gulmez 427). The attitude of Turkey is in direct proportion with making progress in domestic and foreign policies to please the EU. Since the majority of the Turkish people are Muslims, Turks appear euro-sceptic for reasons such as the need for national protection of minorities (Levin, P. 12).
Turkey is still a highly segmented society whereby there has always been a clash between the societies. There has to be consensus regarding EU membership. Otherwise, it will be difficult for the government to continue pushing through the necessary changes in TBMM.
From the European perspective, it is factual to exclaim that Turkey’s Islamic identity is the number one crash to Turkey’s Europeanness. Islamists believe that Turkey is more Eastern that European. Thus, approval of EU membership is only supported by those who do not support seriat (Carkoglu 173).
The concept of Turkish nationalism as defined in Kemalism remains a key factor in determining the extent of Islam’s influence (Nora Onar 171). In Kemalism, the Turkish people had to get used to deep-seated secularism whereby the mosque had to be separated from the state in an uncompromising manner. Aybar states that, this is because the vision of the modern Turkish republic is strongly embedded in it (341).
For those who support the Europeanization of Turkey, westernization forms a major argument in their opinion (Onis, 365). However, according to Oguzlu, at a time when the support for EU accession is declining abroad, the debate is no longer restricted to the advantages and disadvantages of the accession (98).
This sentiment is even echoed by French president when he said that he did not think that Turkey has any place in Europe (Arikan 28).
It is beyond doubt that the Islamic character influences Turkish politics, which later influences its EU membership. According to Flam, the Islam factor has really contributed to the great controversy (203). This is because Islamic nature is deeply rooted in Turkish politics (Tekin 292).
There has been a rise in Islamic character of Turkish domestic politics that have been considered as major setbacks in Turkish aspirations to join the EU, a fact that has been shared by Rahigh-Aghsan (44).
It is thus important for Turkey to calm down, take a step back, lay out all its cards on the table and say ‘wait a minute, let us see all the options and chances we have’. By doing this Turkey will certainly find the correct way (Erhan et al. 229). This will also help to understand more on how the citizens view the relationship between EU and Turkey.
Works Cited
Arikan, Harun. Turkey and the EU: an awkward candidate for EU membership? London: Routledge, 2008.
Aybar, Bulent. “Analysis of attitudes of Turkish citizens towards the effect of European Union membership on the economic, political, and cultural environment”, Turkish Studies, 8.3, (2007): 329-348.
Anderson, Perry. “After Kemal.” London Review of Books 30.18 (2008): 13-22
Barysch, Katinka, Can Turkey combine EU accession and regional leadership? Center for European Reform Policy Brief, 2010.
Carkoglu, Ali. “Who Wants Full Membership? Characteristics of Turkish Public Support for EU Membership.”Turkish Studies 4.1 (2003): 171-94.
Cizre, Umit. “Problems of democratic governance of civil-military relations in Turkey and the European Union enlargement zone”, European Journal of Political Research, 3.1, (2004): 107–125.
Daloglu, Eda. Turkey-EU and Islam: Is Islam a Factor of Negotiations?, London: Routledge, 2010.
Erhan, Cagri; Ozlem Genc and Zerrin Dagci Sakarya. Siyasi Partilerin Avrupa Birliği’ne Bakışı. Ankara 2011
Flam, Harry. “Turkey and the EU: Politics and Economics of Accession”, CESifo Economic Studies 50.1, (2004), 171-210.
Gulmez, Seck. “The EU policy of the Republican People’s Party: An Inquiry on the opposition party and euro-skepticism in Turkey.” Turkish Studies 9.3(2008): 423-436
Levin, Paul. Turkey and the European Union: Christian and Secular Images of Islam. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011
Meral. Ziya. Prospects for Turkey. Legatum Institute, 2 Sept., 2010. Web.
Oguzlu, Tarik. “The impact of ‘democratization in the context of the EU accession process’ on Turkish foreign policy”, Mediterranean Politics, 9.1, (2004): 94-113.
Onar, Nora. “Kemalists, Islamists and Liberals: Shifting Patterns of Confrontation and Consensus.” Turkish Studies 8.2 (2007)
Öniş, Ziya.“Contesting for Turkey’s Political Centre: Domestic Politics, Identity Conflicts and the Controversy over EU Membership.” Journal of Contemporary European Studies 18 (2010): 361-76.
Önis, Ziya. “The Turkey-EU-US Triangle in Perspective: Transformation or Continuity?” The Middle East Journal, 59.2, (2005): 265-284.
Rahigh-Aghsan, Ali. “Turkey’s EU Quest and Political Cleavages under AKP”, Review of European Studies, 3.1 (2011): 43-53.
Tekin, Ali. “Future of Turkey–EU relations: a civilisational discourse”, Futures, 37.4, (2005), 287-302.
Togan, Sübidey. “Turkey: Toward EU Accession”, The World Economy, 27.7, (2004): 1013–1045.
TUSIAD. Cyprus Issue should not harm Turkey’s membership process. Euractiv 21 Nov. 2011. Web.
Turkey’s bid for EU membership has been considered as one of the most controversial and problematic bids that the EU has ever encountered. A lot of research has been done about what the EU thinks about this country’s accession into the union but not much information has been gathered concerning Turkey’s opinion on the same.
It will be imperative to know what the most influential forces in Turkey think about EU integration so as to determine whether or not the accession process is likely to remain a priority to the Turkish people in the future. In this paper, it will be argued that irrespective of attitudinal factors, there is still support for EU membership amongst the Turks.
Purpose of the research/ research questions
The purpose of this research is to examine Turkish society’s attitude towards the EU. It will be illustrated through the positions taken by key groups in the country (these include the government which consists of opposition and leading parties, business groups, the general public and labour unions). The following research questions will be useful in achieving the purpose of this research:
What is the Turkish attitude toward EU membership?
What arguments are given in favour of these attitudes and which major threats to the Turkey EU membership have been identified?
Is this attitude aligned more towards the international or the internal?
How have Turkish people interpreted EU citizen’s attitudes such as President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel’s attitude towards their entry?
What other prospects for international membership have been considered and do the Turks prefer attachment to the East (Middle East) or Europe?
Who influences these opinions amongst the Turkish population?
What is the Turkish government’s opinion on EU membership and how influential is this opinion? (the leading party’s opinion i.e. the AKP and the opposition party’s opinion i.e. CHP will be differentiated)
What opinion do key business groups hold especially TUSIAD and MUSIAD?
What opinion do major labour unions such as DISK, Hak-is and Turk-is hold?
Significance of study
By assessing Turkish opinion about ascension to the European Union, it will be possible to know how realistic these prospects are. Furthermore, the research will give a glimpse of how integration can take place if Turkey gets admitted into the EU. The findings from this paper will also illustrate how much progress has been achieved and what needs to be achieved in order to meet this goal of entrance into the EU.
The findings will have implications for the people of Turkey who will be affected by membership in the Union. It will also inform external stakeholders such as EU citizens, EU leaders as well as alternative international membership forums especially in the Middle East. Each group will know whether they are regarded favourably by the Turks and this will determine some of their future social and economic outcomes.
Literature review
Arikan (111) looks at the other side of the coin i.e. the opinion of the EU concerning Turkey. He explains some of the criticisms that have been expressed by the European Union concerning Turkey. The EU acknowledges that a lot has been achieved in terms of democracy in Turkey but its political climate still falls short of European standards.
The country places limits on political associations as illustrated by the Welfare Party’s ban and restrictions of its members’ freedoms to participate in politics for five years. The Turkish government has a tendency to create a centralised political identity rather than a democratised plural state.
Several restrictions on NGO activities have been imposed in this country and have therefore illustrated how participatory democracy is yet to be achieved within the state. Constitutional reforms have been implemented quite slowly so this implies that the country is yet to meet those standards (Arikan, 112).
Furthermore, the military plays an excessively large role in the Turkish political system and this is unacceptable by European standards. The Turkish political climate has been marked by a series of military interventions in the 60s, 70s and 80s with the army asserting that they are custodians of civil liberties in Turkey.
Another major problem cited by the EU against Turkey is their failure to respect human rights. Use of excessive force by security forces is common in the country. Journalists, trade unionists and other groups have been arrested for their opinions concerning key constitutional issues and people have also disappeared from the country.
This has demonstrated that the EU still feels that Turkey does not deserve EU membership. Given such an opinion, it would be crucial to look at the other end of the spectrum and determine whether the same negative opinion is held by Turks.
Arat (3) carried out a research concerning liberal democracy in Turkey. He especially focused on the Welfare party or Islamist Refah party and its female membership. He found that this party had a high representation of females who utilised their personal connections to mobilise other women. Through the views of these women, it was possible to see how liberalist political thought can exist in an Islamic secular society.
It showed that there will always be tensions between the liberalist school and Islam but the two can still co exist. In order to understand the opinions of the Turks concerning European integration, it is necessary to learn about the political and social dynamics that operate in this nation.
However, this book looked that those intersections in terms of gender, religion and politics. This report will dwell on the same topics but with a focus on the EU accession. It will attempt to show how opinions on EU ascension intertwine with politics, religious and gender identities amongst the Turkish people.
Onar (272) explains the three major political forces that operate within the Turkish political scene and these include: the Kemalists, the liberalists and the Islamists. This analysis looks at a very important background against which one can assess political decisions within this country. The author explains that Islamists believe that Turkey is more ‘Eastern’ than European and that its identity should revolve around the Islamic faith.
This group therefore nurses fears about excessive westernisation. The welfare party is known to be the most predominant Islamic party in the country. The second group consists of the liberals. While no single political entity claims to be predominantly liberal, a number of civic groups belong to this category. The latter believe in a laissez faire approach to social-economic discourses in the nation.
In other words, they advocate for the freedom of religious practise throughout the country. The third category of political forces consists of Kemalists. This group consists of all those people who believe in the secularisation of Turkey. They assert that anything Islamic is backward. In fact, they have advocated for the removal of religious teachings and dress in any public institutions.
They also stress the importance of the state over and above the needs of the individuals. These three groups have been in some sort of triangle; in other words, they are rarely in agreement. Information from this journal article focuses on the political climate without giving too much emphasis on how the groups affect Turkish opinion on EU accession. This gap will be sealed in the following section of the report.
Aybar et.al (329) carried out a research in order to assess Turkish perceptions towards the EU. The study was administered through questionnaires and was more focused on the numbers rather than the reasons behind these sentiments. This report will attempt to fill that gap by explaining the reasons behind Turkish attitudes.
Focus in this particular research will not be quantitative as was the case with the Aybar et.al (329) study. A qualitative assessment of the reasons behind these attitudes will be examined in order to offer an in depth understanding of the Turkish people concerning EU application and accession.
Findings
Turkish attitude toward EU membership
Arguments given in favour of these attitudes and major threats identified
The overall majority of Turkish people support the country’s entrance into the EU. A research carried out in 2003 by Carkoglu (188) illustrated that about eighty percent of the participants in the research supported EU membership. This was an overwhelming majority and individuals who took part in the study represented the country’s diverse population.
However, recent figures indicate that this support has been dwindling; nonetheless, the majority still support it. In fact, polls show that a thirty percent drop in support of EU membership has been recorded in this country thus showing that there maybe other dynamics at play that may be responsible for this waning support.
Westernisation is one of the major arguments in favour of EU membership (Onis, 365). The Turkish elite have often considered westernisation as a major goal from as far back as the Ottoman Empire.
This is largely because the term is associated with greater standards of civilization, modernity, greater economic performance and democracy. Consequently, joining the EU would contribute towards achievement of this goal. The political elite therefore think of the EU as a platform for transforming their identity.
Supporters of European integration in Turkey also cite economic performance as an important driver in their lives (Onis, 367), (Anderson, 18). Many Turks have been frustrated by the poor economic conditions in their country and believe that there are better job prospects in other parts of Europe than in their country.
This is further rationalised by the existence of millions of Turkish immigrants in some EU member countries like Germany. Records illustrate that about two million Turks live in Germany. Citizens presume that if Turkey was to become part of the EU which allows free movement of people within the Union then they would use their blood ties in those nations to look for better jobs there.
However, jobs are not the only economic reason cited by these members. Big business owners believe that EU membership will provide them with a more diverse capital market and this will propel their businesses greatly. Medium sized business owners believe that the EU is the solution to the serious macro economic problems in Turkey.
They believe that ascensions will guarantee them low interest rates and greater economic policies for investment. Large business owners also believe that they will benefit from better macro economics in the region because the latter is likely to be much more stable than the conditions in their own country.
The Turkish population also believes that EU integration will lead to greater democracy in the country. Some worry about Islamist tendencies and its ability to ruin the AKP. They believe that the European Union will contribute towards greater democracy in the country because their standards are set so high. These sentiments have been expressed by professionals and members of the middle classes (Anderson, 20).
A number of political safeguards have also been cited as lucrative reasons for EU membership. Some citizens believe that EU membership will prevent the return of military rule. For the military, the EU will also serve their long term dream of making Turkey westernised. This is something that many citizens aspire to and believe will be the solution to their numerous challenges.
Others are highly frustrated by the prevalence of corruption in public institutions and believe that the EU will allow them to solve these problems. The poor administration of public services also causes many Turkish citizens to support EU membership because they believe that these challenges will be addressed thoroughly when in power (Carkoglu, 189)
Although certain political entities believe that westernisation is an important goal to be achieved through membership in the EU, others argue that this would threaten their national identity (Kosebalaban, 134). The latter scholar explains that there is a clash between modernist tendencies and traditional forces.
These opponents to European integration state that westernisation and modernisation are not necessarily synonymous. In other words, they believe that that thinking was informed by leaders in the Ottomon Empire who thought of the west as the only civilising force. However, these inclinations have changed dramatically and a number of people are starting to oppose those notions.
One such group is the Kemalist establishment. This group has great nationalist tendencies that oppose Western association but still believe in modernisation as a goal to be aspired. These sentiments come from the fact that Islamic cultural forces played an important role in fighting off western forces so they were regarded as an entity to be opposed rather than embraced (Kosebalaban, 143).
Waning support of EU membership stems from a series of factors. First of all, Turkey is suffering from accession fatigue. Despite carrying out several economic and social reforms, prospects for Turkey’s integration are still not looking good. This negotiation process has taken far too long and a number of people have grown tired of waiting for EU membership.
The other reason is that members of the public have been discouraged by the numbers. Even if Turkey was to meet all the criteria laid out by the EU, the country would still not be guaranteed of membership. There are already EU citizens and leaders that oppose Turkey accession into the EU so this is a serious obstacle to their success. The Turks know about this opposition and this has also undermined their support for integration.
Whether this attitude is aligned more towards the international or the internal
This attitude is still more international than national. Many Turks have been frustrated by the myriad of challenges in their own country and are looking for alternatives solutions.
Nationalist sentiments are growing but there is an indication that these sentiments can coexist with international standards especially those of the EU. A number of objections have been raised concerning the dangers of these policies but the positive results from economic, civic and social reforms have illustrated that an international orientation would serve the country well.
National interests have been debated on especially concerning the talk of an identity issue in Turkey. Citizens believe that national interests should be protected even as they aspire to achieve international goals and requirements.
How Turkish people interpreted EU citizen’s attitudes such as President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel’s attitude towards their entry
The EU debate concerning Turkey’s prospects for accession normally centred around two elements and these include the civil environment and the cultural environment. Some entities believe that Turkey should not be allowed into the European Union because of its predominantly Islamic heritage.
They affirm that it is at odds with the EU culture. Two crucial people advocating for rejection of Turkey’s bid were President Nicholas Sarkozy of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany.
What was even worse was that people in France seemed to demonstrate intolerance against Muslim immigrants as France’s capital was characterised by a series of protests. Eventually, this created a hard line stance on the part of the French President who together with the Chancellor of Germany out rightly rejected Turkish membership into the EU.
These moves minimised the desire to gain EU membership in Turkey. Even the AKP was at odds with these sentiments because they knew that their prospects for EU membership would be undermined by these powerful EU member states. Support for EU membership is still higher than opposition to EU membership but these numbers reduced after the French stance on EU and Turkey.
The French parliament had accused Turkey of failing to deal with the question of missing Armenians in their country and they had even criminalised this issue. Eventually, that decision led to immense opposition of the French in Turkey and even a boycott of their products. The tensions increased anti EU sentiments in Turkey (Onar, 284).
Other people who heard about Turkey’s cultural misalignment with the EU have interpreted this in the reverse. Some traditionalists affirm that European integration for Turkey will threaten their cultural identity. A study carried out by Aybar et.al (330) found that fifty eight percent of the percent felt that Turkish culture would either be eroded or dominated by western cultures from the EU region if Turkey entered the EU.
The President of France at that time – Jacques Chirac – argued that Turkey was not culturally similar to other members of the EU. Consequently, it can be said that the people of Turkey were affected negatively by these assertions made by EU leaders.
Other prospects for international membership that have been considered and whether the Turks prefer attachment to the East (Middle East) or Europe
(Meral, 60) explains that Turkey can sometimes be seen as a mediator in Middle Eastern foreign relations. In other words, this country thinks of itself as a go-between in Israeli and Palestinian conflicts. Also, the US has often perceived it as a stabilising force in the EU. However, the people of Turkey are well aware of the fact that they require support from western nations.
If they get too involved in the Middle Eastern region then chances are that they will isolate themselves from the rest of the world. If the EU accession issue stalls and eventually fails then chances are that Turkeys will consider forging relationships with Russia. In fact, indications already illustrate those prospects especially because of the immense number of visits that Russia has had in turkey.
Trade between the two countries has increased dramatically and it is likely that this relationship may grow even more if Turkey’s accession bid flops. Turkey has had certain ties with unconventional Muslim nations such as Syria, Sudan and Iran. Continued trade ties with Iran have undermined western and US backed sanctions imposed against it. This has severely affected the relationship between Turkey and the US.
On the other hand, Turkey’s association with most Middle Eastern countries is founded on the belief that the rise would boost their economic prospects. Furthermore, Turkey wanted to establish itself as a mediator between the troubled Middle Eastern nation and the west.
Sometimes, this mediating role has compromised relations between the latter country and the west. It is likely that if the EU process fails then Turkey will continue to work with its Middle Eastern counterparts. Nonetheless, this will be done cautiously so that the country does not isolate crucial western allies in the process. All in all, one can assert that Turkey’s attitude towards the Middle East is a mixed one.
The country has started turning to the Middle East especially going by its continued support for Iran and controversial group Hamas. Turkey is starting to look as if it has embraced a dark side. The EU would lose a very important country in the continent if it blocks Turkey’s membership into the EU because Turkey is moving towards immensely controversial foreign policy (Meral, 59).
Entities that influence these opinions amongst the Turkish population
Carkoglu (184) carried a research to assess Turkish support towards EU membership. It was found that party inclinations were an important influential force in determining one’s position. If one belonged to a political party that supported European integration then EU support was greater. Political forces are therefore an important influence in determining support for EU integration.
Religion also played an important role; if a certain citizen believed in extreme sentiments then chances are that the person would not support European integration. This means that Islam was an important shaper of the opinions that most people held.
Age is yet another important factor in determining how people decide to vote. Older citizens were in greater support of EU membership than young ones. It was found that this group has a pro-European mentality that may have been created by the social forces in their lives. This is something that younger people may not have been exposed to. Information sources (or the lack of them) also considerably influence EU support.
The issue of nationalism has not just been advocated by Kemalists who believe in the strength of the nation state; it has also been a pressing issue for the government through the leading party. In 2005 it was found that the government had passed certain sections of the constitution which punished people for their antinationalist sentiments; this was called the famous 301 code.
The EU felt that the 301 contravened human rights and freedoms and other democratic principles. However, the government affirmed that it passed this law because it wanted to preserve national identity.
This was illustrative of the fact that nationalist sentiments sometimes placed the government in a tricky spot because it wants to meet EU obligations but must also avoid stirring nationalist uproars. In this regard, one can assert that nationalists play a role in shaping attitudes towards the EU as seen through their opposition of certain EU policies (Onar, 284).
Certain populations are simply not well informed about the EU process and its importance. Furthermore, the political elite have access and ability to control information flow so they can manipulate information in order to cause it to fall in their favour. However, most of the decisions made are independent.
In other words, the Turkish people’s support for EU membership arose out of economic reasons. Most would disregard their political and religious affiliations in support of accession because of economic conditions.
Turkish government’s opinion on EU membership and how influential this opinion is (The leading party’s opinion i.e. the AKP and the opposition party’s opinion i.e. CHP need to be differentiated)
The AKP thinks of European Integration as an important part of their political agenda. They believe that if Turkey was to become a member state of the EU then the hegemonic problem existent in the party would be immediately addressed. This positive attitude has been expressed by a series of changes initiated by the AKP in response to EU directives. First, the party has reduced the military role in the National Security Council.
The EU had stated that there was too much use of force by security forces. Consequently, AKP decided to close the State Security Courts. The party also abolished the death penalty and released Kurdish parliamentarians who had been jailed. All these changes illustrated that the AKP is committed towards the goal of European integration and perceives it as an important solution to the problems in the country in general (Anderson, 22).
However because AKP is still a political entity, it has been forced to dance to the tune of its electorate in certain circumstances. For example, when Turkey was struggling with the issue of allowance of the veil in public spaces, AKP took up a stance which may not have been supported by their EU but also one that could not be condemned. In this controversy, a university student had to discontinue her education because of the veil ban.
The courts ruled against her thus implying that the courts were endorsing secularisation of Turkey. This sparked a lot of uproar among Islamists who affirmed that Turkey was loosing its cultural identity to European universal values (Onar, 279).
The AKP through the Prime Minster asserted that this court decision was ill informed and that religious considerations had not been made. In this regard, AKP was showing that although it supports the EU, it still holds certain reservations stemming from the tensions that exist in the country. Another illustration of these tensions was seen when the AKP allowed the 301 code to pass.
This was clearly a piece of legislation that undermined human rights as stipulated by EU and other international standards. The party therefore showed that given excessive pressure from nationalists, the party can contravene EU regulations in order to preserve this.
The party predominantly supports EU membership but may sometimes alter this inclination when strong opposition emanates from opposing groups. There is a complex interplay of factors surrounding AKP’s position.
The leading opposition party called the republican People’s Party or CHP has also affected the EU-Turkey position taken by members of this country. The Party endorses EU membership albeit with preconditions. It believes that EU integration would be good for the country only if this does not compromise national interests. It has criticised the manner in which the EU has negotiated with Turkey concerning possible membership.
It believes there is an uneven playing field that will cost the country. It also voices complaints against the AKP. It believes that the AKP has openly adopted EU recommendations without safeguarding national interests. It also affirms that there may be some kind of Islamisation agenda that the leading party is advocating for so this is a complicated issue for people concerned (Gulemz 423).
In order to really understand CHP’s position on EU membership, one must know the difference between the different kinds of Euro-scepticism that exist in Turkey. Euro sceptics are people who oppose EU integration. However, these groups may either be soft or hard sceptics. Hard sceptics believe that the economic and political integration of Turkey into the EU will bring more harm than good so they reject it entirely.
On the other hand, soft Euro sceptics believe that EU integration would be good for Turkey but they oppose a certain component of the integration process such as a policy requirement of the integration process. Soft Euro sceptics believe that national interests should be put before anything else although they still endorse European integration. Throughout the European Union, Euro-sceptics have often emanated from the opposition.
They usually do this in order to have leverage over the prevailing government. It can be said that the CHP have adopted a soft Euro-sceptic stance on the EU. As stated earlier, the CHP has objections against the Islamic agenda pursued by the AKP. It accused the AKP of using EU integration as a cover up to introduce new policies which are not even related to the EU agenda.
For example, the AKP asserted that they would lift a headscarf ban from universities if the EU favoured it. The CHP was very critical of these sentiments. It also criticised the addition of new mosques in rental buildings by claiming that the leading party was using integration as a cover for their personal agenda (Gulmez, 427).
The CHP has also criticised some of the documents that have been dispensed by the EU. For instance the EU progress report contained certain aspects that had never been brought up before. For instance, the report stated that negotiations concerning Turkey’s bid could be suspended if a majority vote supported it. Also, the negotiations on the same would only start if a unanimous vote existed.
Consequently, the CHP is stating that Turkey’s prospects for accession have been minimised because of these assertions. The report has also talked about limiting labour movement for Turkish citizens. The CHP believes that this would be tantamount to less-than full membership. This party believes that AKP are too eager to become members of the EU, that they are willing to do anything in order to gain membership.
Opposition believes that the government has not paid special attention to certain components of the EU policy. This is detrimental to Turkey’s bid for accession and is also harmful to national interests.
For instance when the EU described the kind of people who would be recognised as minorities if Turkey joined the Union, the CHP claimed that such a requirement would place almost all people in the country under the minority umbrella and this contravened Turkey’s Lausanne treaty agreements.
The CHP has also spoken against the possibility of losing EU membership even after meeting the Copenhagen criteria since provisions have been given for rejection of Turkey. The party affirms that this contravenes the union’s own principles. One can therefore say that the CHP party is exploiting the leading party in order to gain political mileage.
The opposition claims that all these issues have not been addressed by the leading party AKP and this puts Turkey at jeopardy. On the other hand, it can also be said that the CHP considers accession as the end goal but it is sceptical about many elements of EU policy (Gulmez, 429).
Opinions that key business groups hold especially TUSIAD and MUSAID
As one of the leading business entities in Turkey, TUSIAD firmly endorses EU citizenship. This can be seen by the number of documents released in order to achieve these objectives. TUSIAD has many press releases in the public domain that talk about its support for the EU. It argues that membership in the EU will ensure that the economic and political arena are conducive for business.
This is the reason why it has cooperated with other European business entities such as the Union of Industrial and Employer’s Confederation of Europe. It did this in order to improve relations between the EU and Turkey. Most support for EU membership revolves around the economic realm.
TUSIAD believes that the EU will provide a better platform for Trade by Turkey and since it represents the private sector then it is imperative that it supports an initiative that will contribute towards a stronger economic climate. The organisation has frequently taken on a proactive stance to Turkey-EU relations. It has stated its opinions against political occurrences that appear to undermine EU accession issues.
In this regard, TUSIAD has warned against statements made by Turkish political leaders concerning a very controversial issue which was Cyprus. Nonetheless, this organisation has not blindly advocated for EU friendly policies as it often voices complaints against these policies as well.
For instance, it criticised the EU stance on Cyprus claiming that the EU had ignored many historical factors which resulted in an unbalanced and ambiguous situation in that Island. Consequently, one can say that TUSIAD is at the forefront of political reform and support of EU integration but has also given constructive criticism of this Union when it has overstepped its boundaries (TUSIAD, 2).
MUSIAD on the other hand focuses on small business owners. It has not been as proactive as its counterpart TUSIAD has been in the political landscape. It has not given express statements about its attitude towards EU membership however one can deduce its stance by some of its leaders’ assertions.
For example when the coordinator of the sector council was asked about his opinion on concentration of MUSIAD’s efforts on Muslim nations, it asserted that Muslim nations have greater export promise and potential than western nations.
This inclination towards Muslim nations illustrates that the organisation is more interested in an Eastern orientation rather than a western one. Therefore, EU integration is not a very important part of its agenda (Business news Europe, 6).
Opinions that major labour unions such as DISK, Hak-is and Turk-is hold
Trade Unions that have taken a political stance concerning the EU matter include Turk-Is which stands for the confederation of Turkish Trade unions, DISK which stands for the confederation of revolutionary trade unions and Hak-is which stands for confederation of Turkish real trade unions. Aksin and Uzgoren (7) explain that there is an inflation of trade unions in Turkey.
In this regard, one sector can have numerous trade unions with diverse interests. This implies that since the trade unions cannot speak with one voice then their influence is tremendously weakened. Turk-Is is by far the most influential trade union. It has established a reputation of a supra party affiliation although it has been accused of befriending the US and betraying the common interests of the masses.
It has been perceived as very close to the state. The other union is DISK which has a socialist agenda. It has also been aggressive in terms of military and power politics hence the reason why it was banned for eight years. Hak-Is was established at roughly the same time that DISK was established but this one was perceived as being more oriented towards religious tradition.
It is difficult to classify Turk–Is’ stance on the EU because it has been rather mixed. First, Turk-Is believes that Turkey would greatly benefit from the new conditions that will emanate from membership. However, the union has also stated that it has its doubts about Turkey’s prospects for membership. It has raised a lot of concerns about EU policy on Turkey’s negotiation process and believes that the process is unfair.
The EU has placed too many obstacles for Turkey and this may greatly undermine their ability to reach those levels that they desire. Turk-Is believes that Turkey has been held at ransom by EU regulations on labour even though the country is not certain about membership. For example, the Customs Union was a requirement imposed by the EU before Turkey could consider joining it.
Turk-Is criticised the implementation of this policy by affirming that Turkey had exposed itself to decreased unionisation rates, fewer availability of jobs, a worse economy and greater social risks. The Union therefore felt that Turkey had been short changed and had compromised some of its national interests. Turk-Is has also disagreed with the EU concerning a number of sensitive issues that the EU decided on.
One such problem was the concept of Cyprus. Turk-is believed that the EU was wrong about its decision about the Island. It also opposed the EU’s decision on minority rights and the Armenian question (Aksin and Uzgoren, 8).
This trade union has issues against the adoption of foreign policies that compromise national interests in order to meet EU’s stringent requirement. The trade union believes that the greatest concerns should be given to the country’s internal problems rather than other external matters.
Hak-Is on the other hand is religiously oriented and has been advocating for the well being and safety of Muslim employers and the need to instate certain components of mutual justice borrowed from Islamic principles. This union strongly believed that Turkey should take on a more Eastern than Western orientation.
Surprisingly, though, this trade union believes that EU membership would be good for Turkey because it would facilitate the growth of democracy and civil rights within the nation. It has even indicated its support through certain projects that work towards EU suggested reforms.
Nonetheless, the Union’s leader has been quick to point out that Turkey should not accept all proposed changes at any cost because this would be detrimental to its prospects in the future.
DISK also supports EU membership. Its leaders have affirmed that Turkey needs to have an international orientation if it intends on competing in the global platform and one way of doing that is joining the EU. The trade union asserts that the EU would create a greater democracy in Turkey and hence pave the way for better economic prosperity so it is definitely in support of membership (Aksin and Uzgoren, 8).
Conclusion
From a thorough analysis of EU membership issues in Turkey, it has been found that the Turkish public still supports EU accession even though the numbers have drastically reduced in the past one decade. Reasons identified for support include greater democratic space and less military involvement in politics, greater civil rights, better economic prospects and heightened modernisation.
However, a reasonable proportion of the Turkish population object to EU membership citing internal objection to Turkish membership by prominent members such as France and Germany. Others are fatigued by excessive waiting, other believe that the EU has exerted double standards upon this Turkish nations.
Certain groups cite cultural and national sentiments as reasons why Turkey should not join the EU. Therefore, the general public has mixed feelings about EU integration.
Other stakeholders also hold varied opinions about EU integration. The leading party AKP supports EU membership and has initiated several reforms in order to meet this goal. However, the AKP has acted controversially in some respects concerning certain issues that the EU advised them against. The opposition party CHP has also endorsed membership albeit with some scepticism.
They believe that national interests should not be compromised in order to meet this EU objective. Similarly, major trade unions like Turk –Is and business entities such as TUSAID have also expressed similar sentiments claiming that Turkey should not lose its identity in order to appease the EU. Generally, these stakeholders still support EU membership but are cautious about certain components of EU’s approach.
Works Cited
Aksin, Deniz & Uzgoen, Elif. Turkish development strategy and the European Union: Discourses and strategies of the Trade Unions in turkey on Development. May 2007. Web.
Anderson, Perry. “After Kemal.” London Review of Books 30.18 (2008): 13-22.
Arat, Yesim.Rethinking Islam and Liberal Democracy: Islamist Women in Turkish Politics. Albany: State University of New York, 2005.
Arikan, Harun.Turkey and the EU: an Awkward Candidate for EU Membership?Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008.
Aybar, C. Bülent, et al. “Analysis of Attitudes of Turkish Citizens towards the Effects of EU Membership.” Turkish Studies 8.3 (2007): 329-48.
Business News Europe. The Sun Rises on Turkey’s Mittlestand. Business News Europe. 2011. Web.
Carkoglu, Ali. “Who Wants Full Membership? Characteristics of Turkish Public Support for EU Membership.”Turkish Studies 4.1 (2003): 171-94.
Gulmez, Seck. “The EU policy of the Republican People’s Party: An Inquiry on the opposition party and euro-skepticism in Turkey.” Turkish Studies 9.3(2008): 423-436
Kösebalaban, Hasan. “Turkey’s EU Membership: A Clash of Security Cultures.”Middle East Policy9.2 (2002): 130-46.
Meral. Ziya. Prospects for Turkey. Legatum Institute, 2 Sept., 2010. Web.
Onar, Nora. “Kemalists, Islamists and Liberals: Shifting Patterns of Confrontation and Consensus.” Turkish Studies 8.2 (2007).
Öniş, Ziya.“Contesting for Turkey’s Political Centre: Domestic Politics, Identity Conflicts and the Controversy over EU Membership.” Journal of Contemporary European Studies 18 (2010): 361-76.
TUSIAD. Cyprus Issue should not harm Turkey’s membership process. Euractiv. 2011. Web.
Regional integration is a common trend in today’s world as countries, regions and businesses are on a drive to become a part of the globalization process. Within the previous decade, the ongoing processes that have taken place in organizations such as the European Union (EU) and the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) generated researchers’ interest in the phenomenon of regionalism and gave rise to debates concerning the main preconditions and effects of the proliferation of the regional arrangements.
The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the integration processes and institutional organization of the EU and Mercosur and to analyze their current bilateral relationships.
The most influential approaches to explain the phenomenon of regionalism are neo-functionalism and liberal intergovernmentalism. The exponents of neo-functionalism posit that the primary motivation of the member states for organizing the international institutions is satisfying their functional needs by standardizing the procedures of economical exchange (Mansfield 1997, 15).
The exponents of the liberal intergovernmentalism theories put emphasis on pressures of the internal interests of the member states and their impact on the processes in the international unity, considering the member states as the main actors in the international system (Mansfield 1997, 15).
On the economic side, there are also three significant approaches that categorize unions; namely, the custom union theory, the optimal currency theory and the fiscal federalism theory. The first is the customs union theory. This theory presumes that trade within regional blocs boost cooperation and the economic welfare of countries.
This is due to healthy competition and trade tariffs implemented. Skeptics claim that this type of cooperation results in some countries being disadvantaged due to their inability to fairly compete with products from member countries (Morgante 2003, 58). It will be seen in the case study in this paper that Mercosur is currently a customs’ union and therefore, smaller member states like Paraguay and Uruguay suffer the consequence of having open markets but not having a significant diversity of products; however, this tendency is changing as these two states are rapidly advancing.
The Optimal Currency Area theory is based on the geographical positioning of various states and the suitability of having a similar currency for the region. Sharing a single currency maximizes economic efficiency and results in the growth of a region based on the singular currency (Roett 1999, 99).
Finally, the fiscal federalism theory proposes that for any organization it is important to understand the kind of functions that need to be centralized and those that need to be decentralized. This theory is applied to economic integration in the sense that aspects that need to be decentralized by individual states could be done in a regional scale; such as the formation of a common currency and fiscal policy for a region (Piattoni 2003, 48).
Thesis Statement
This study will provide an explanation of the similarities and differences between the European Union (EU) and the South American Common Market (Mercosur).
The strategies used by both blocs in their international arrangements and integration processes are rooted in the historical background of the regions, peculiarities of their economical development and primary motivation of the states for creating a union. Mercosur is currently utilizing particular achievements of the EU as a model for its own integration process, as it is adapting them to the realities and peculiar needs of the bloc.
Integration in Europe
Lessons Learned from the Wars and the Need for a Common Market
Though the creation of the European Union is dated to 1992 when the Treaty of Maastricht was signed, the idea of uniting the efforts of European states for reaching common goals is much older. The two world wars forced nations to re-evaluate the concepts of territorial sovereignty and economic independence. The war crisis brought a need for improved cooperation and coexistence between nations (Lorenzo and Aboal 2006, 157).
The European Coal and Steel Community can be regarded as the first attempt of European integration. It was established by the 1951 Treaty of Paris which was signed by France, West Germany, Belgium, Luxemburg, and the Netherlands. In 1957 the integration process continued with the introduction of the European Economic Community (EEC) which became part of the future EU.
Thus, European integration has a rich historical background which influenced the organization and the level of institutionalization of the union. As mentioned by Kelstrup (1992) “the mid-1980s move towards a single market was facilitated by the European fear of loss of competitiveness compared with the USA and Japan” (Archer 2008, 26).
Approaches Taken
In order to explain the phenomenon of European integration on the government and community levels, researchers theorized the intergovernmentalist and neofunctionalist approaches. The debates concerning the role of the governments of individual European states and the Community institutions in the process of integration have been led for a long time.
The choice of appropriate patterns of cooperation and the institutional structure of the union are important for considering the interests of every member and creating the conditions for mutually beneficial long-term relationships.
All the member states of the EU are developed countries, and the confederation model was chosen as the best option for this international arrangement. The equal opportunities and the proportionate distribution of the profits is significant for ensuring the confidence of the states that their interests are not violated and that membership is advantageous for them.
At present, the European Union has 27 member states. The signature of the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992 indicated the beginning of a new period of integration in Europe. The EU has managed to promote free trade and movement of people within the territory of the member states through the abolition of national borders and the implementation of common policies on various issues among member states.
The EU has also fostered regional and global cooperation by becoming a legal entity and thus allowing it to sign treaties and agreements on behalf of its member states. It has also undertaken a single currency and promoted common legislature on issues pertaining to justice among member states and the introduction of common currency/fiscal policies.
Institutional Structure
The EU has several institutions which help to maintain and strengthen the integration process. Among the main ones are the European Parliament, the Council of Europe, the European Council, the European Commission, the European Court of Justice, the European Central Bank, and the Court of Auditors.
However, the two institutions which are the most relevant for the development of the union are the Council of Ministers and the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Council of Ministers is an intergovernmental body; it is composed of the representatives of member states and its president is rotated every six months.
There are two approaches to voting in the Council of Ministers, they are by unanimity for taxation, cultural and social spheres or by qualified majority for the environment, transport or internal market. Therefore, “It is possible for EU legislation to become Community law against the wishes of a member state” (McDonald 2005, 16).
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is in charge of interpreting the union’s laws. The Court has three sub-courts; namely the European Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal (Archer 2008, 144). It is the final body in handling the conflicts between member states, businesses and individual.
It has been designed to listen to cases whereby a nation has breached the EU directives, has been sued, if a member of the union has failed to take the required action, due to a directive from the European Commission or based on decisions of the national courts of member state (Aqin 2009,166).
Current Achievements/Failures
The EU has been a successful union with many achievements to its name. These include effective common legislature, joint venture programs to boost regional unity, improved peace and security within the region- 60 years of peaceful relations, the reduction of cost of living of members of the region, and the promotion of trade and economic cooperation among members. The EU has adopted an effective Common Market policy, results which can be seen in the economic prosperity of the region.
In 2002 the national currencies in 12 member states were replaced with Euro Notes, excluding one of the hindrances for more effective cooperation within the bloc and providing new opportunities for further economical integration of the region. Previously, the shortcomings of the region included: poor energy policies and failure to agree on common security/military policies (Edwards 2002, 43).
The Lisbon Treaty which was signed on December 2007 and came into force on December 2009 was aimed at addressing the issues of new energy sources and security threats. As the result of negotiations between the EU’s 27 member states, the Treaty covered the coherent tools for the union to strengthen the common energy and security policies (“Taking Europe into 21st Century”). However, concentrating on the internal restructuring, the EU underestimated the importance of foreign policy.
The current EU’s foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton did not attend the Asem summit and the meeting of Asean-EU foreign Ministers in Madrid in 2010, not demonstrating proper interest in the foreign affairs (Islam “A Seat for the EU at East Asia’s Top Table”). The appointment of Von Rompuy and Catherine Ashton as the EU officials did not strengthen the positions of the union and its infrastructure because of their relatively low profiles of representatives of their states.
Though the military sector remains the weak point of the bloc policies, the recent shift in the historical opposition between Atlanticism supporting NATO and Europeanism requiring development of EU defense institutions has been observed. The idea of creating the EU army has occurred but its realization remains distant.
Expansion vs. Integration
Further paths of development of the international arrangement gave rise to debates among the theoreticians. Some of them argued that the European Union should focus on widening by expanding to the south and to the east; others insisted on deepening the integration processes among the current members, and the third group of specialists suggested uniting the two strategies.
The EU has initially opted for the expansionist approach, but has recently switched gears and moved on to the mixed approach. In 1993, the Copenhagen European Council concluded that “the associated countries in eastern and central Europe that so desire shall become members of the EU” (McDonald 2005, 14).
The potential members had to meet the three criteria: democracy, developed market economy and the ability to adapt to the Community strategies. At the same time, the process of geographical expansion was parallel to deepening the integration. Thus, both strategies of deepening and widening are significant for further development of the EU and cannot be separated.
Prospects for the Future
Along with all the achievements of the European Union, it has a number of challenges which need to be handled for future effective cooperation of the member states. Flexibility is one of the key aspects of the future prospects of the European Union.
“A particularly important form of flexibility in the EU is differentiation: that is policy development and activity in which not all member states are involved” (Nugent 2006, 585). An example of implementation of this approach is the open method of cooperation for handling some of the social issues. Thus, the emphasis is partially shifted to networking among the member states instead of traditional legislative-based form of regulation.
The EU plans of deepening and widening approaches it is increasingly becoming a challenge for the bloc. Along with the deepening of the relationships among the members, the bloc negotiates the opportunities of cooperation with other regions and unions—including blocs such as Mercosur.
Integration in South America
Conditions in the Southern Cone and Brazil: Nationalism vs. Internationalism
The Southern Cone states and Brazil are characterized with their historical reliance on foreign capital. This aspect had a significant impact on the level of economic development of this South American sub-region, which caused an external vulnerability of these states and their currency over-valuation along with the negative social consequences in the spheres of employment and welfare provision.
The establishment of the regional bloc Mercosur in 1991 indicated the beginning of the era of regionalism, in an attempt of the neighboring countries to unite their efforts to solve their common issues and creating the conditions for a long-lasting and effective cooperation.
The South American Common Market (Mercosur) is a regional bloc composed of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Venezuela is currently awaiting the confirmation of Paraguay to access the union as a full member. Mercosur also has four associate countries namely Peru, Columbia, Bolivia, and Chile.
The bloc is a result of the improvement the region has made after several earlier attempts to establish an integrated region in Latin America since 1960; it was formed in an attempt to promote free trade and movement of people within the member states (Lang 2002, 93).
Early Attempts of Integration and why they failed
Among some of the reasons for the failure of the previous attempts for regional integration in South America were the lack of cooperation among members, the priority given to individual interests instead of regional interests, the economic and political instability among countries, the lack of political and economic incentive for some member states, the international interference from developed countries with special interests in Latin America, and the general lack of international political goodwill (Dominguez 2004, 65).
The formation of the South American Common Market (MERCOSUR)
Mercosur evolved from LAFTA (Latin American Free Trade Agreement) that was formed in the 1960’s to promote free trade among Latin American states (Fabbrini 2005, 84). In the 1980, LAIA replaced LAFTA, changing the free trade zones with preferential trade zones. The conditions presented by this union encouraged bilateral trade activities between the member countries.
In 1986 Brazil and Argentina signed a set of commercial protocols that gave way to the 1988 Integration, Cooperation and Development (ICD) treaty. The ICD treaty was geared towards the formation of a free market between the two countries in ten years.
Argentina and Brazil saw the need to integrate with Paraguay and Uruguay, mainly because of the great “historical debt” they have towards their smaller neighbors— especially with Paraguay, taking into account that Argentina and Brazil devastated Paraguay in the Triple Alliance War (1865-1870) (Mattli 1999, 116) and the need the need for more markets to export their products. The decades of cooperation between European states became a useful experience, which provided many solutions to the common problems.
The initial agreements of Mercosur were focused on domestic regional policies for accommodating the variety of interests of the member states. The prevailing principle of this bloc is the open regionalism which presupposes the unilateral trade liberalization and the attraction of the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows (Phillips 2004, 86).
Mercosur is geared towards the promotion of free flow of goods and services, the formation of laws and legislature which aids the integration, and the adoption of a singular trade policy and the development of policies that encourage competition and economic cooperation among its member states.
Current Institutions
As Mercosur is developing as a bloc, its various institutions are also evolving. The current institutions are namely the Common Market Council, The Common Market Group, The Administrative Office, Parlasur (Mercosur’s Parliament), The Trade Commission and the Work Subgroups. The Common Market Council is the top level institution of Mercosur, since it has the authority to conduct the policy of the bloc (Mace 1999, 132). The Council is made up of one government representatives from each member state.
The Common Market Group is the executive body of Mercosur. It is responsible for ensuring that member states adhere to the signed treaties and for implementing the decisions of the Common Market Council. The Administrative office of the union is responsible for the research and records for the union (Hass 1958, 190).
Parlasur (Mercosur’s parliament) is the law-making body of the bloc. As compared to the EU’s bodies, the level of it’s institutionalization is rather humble and Parlasur’s consultative status how distant it is from the construction and functions of a real legislature (Dri 2009, 69). The Works Subgroups, on its part, assist the Common Market Groups.
The Trade Commission assists the executive and to promote the free and fair trade among member states. Finally, the work subgroups work under the Common Market Group and serve to collect data on various aspects of the union such as commerce, fiscal policy, social security, employment and on different policies that are pertinent to the union (Dominguez 2004, 94).
For now, the main objective of Mercosur’s bodies is the achievement of consensus between the governments of the member states so that later the level of supranationalism from EU bodies can be achieved.
Though the idea of adopting the model of the EU Parliament was not supported previously, the recent changes made to Parlasur made it even more democratic and increasingly more similar to the EU’s parliament. The people from each member state are now able to vote for their representatives (Williams 1996, 126).
Degree of success/failure: Policy Coordination
Some of Mercosur’s major achievements include: the improved trade and cooperation among members, the bloc has expanded greatly since its inception and economic growth among member countries has increased as there has been significant improvement in the GDP of member states (Mora 2003, 95). Achieving the objective of crating the conditions for the free movement of goods, about 89 % of intra-Mercosur trade was tariff-free.
The majority of goods with the exception of motor vehicles and sugar have paid zero tariff rates since late 1990s (Bouzas 2008, 2). In the case of Paraguay and Uruguay, their economies are significantly growing within the last few years. In 2010, Paraguay is expected to grow over 10 percent, becoming the leader in economic recovery in Latin America. As for the other Mercosur countries (Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay) they have also grown at considerably high rates; proving that Mercosur is emerging strong from the recent economic crisis.
Some of the limitations of the union are: the lack of cooperation among member states on certain issues (i.e. mainly because of the opposition of Argentina and Brazil on certain issues that are beneficial towards the development projects in Paraguay and Uruguay), some political issues that were reflected in the weakening of Mercosur’s institutions.
For instance, the reliance on the parliament of Brazil for the disbursement of Mercosur’s Convergence Funds (FOCEM) that are used to finance infrastructure projects in the weaker economies of the blocs.
In the ongoing project to construct a 500 Kv powerline in Paraguay, which is urgently needed in the country before 2012 to avoid a major economic catastrophe, Brazil is putting several obstacles and using its economic power as a political tool to maintain an almost “hegemonic control” over the bloc— a situation that is angering the other Mercosur members.
The Itaipu dilemma and the related negotiations drew the public attention to the problems of regulation of the relationships between the member states inside of Mercosur. According to the terms of the 1973 Itaipu 50-year Treaty, Paraguay is obliged to sell the largest portion of its unused energy (about 90%) at low price although each country owns 50 % of the enterprise (Nickson “Revising the Past”).
The Itaipu Treaty is set to expire in 2023; however, in 2009 Brazilian President Lula promised to offer a “better deal” to Paraguay. It means that Mercosur implements an intergovernmental approach to settling the conflicts between the member states as opposed to EU in which the functions of ECJ include regulating the relationships between the members.
The Lula-Lugo Agreement from 25 July 2009 indicated the beginning of a new stage in the Itaipu negotiations (Codas “Nueva Etapa Se Abre Con La Línea De 500 Kv”). Reaching the consensus, the interested parties planned the beginning of the 500 Kv construction project for the end of 2010.
The 500 Kv construction project can provide jobs to many citizens in Mercosur countries and will positively affect the Paraguayan economy (i.e. reducing poverty and inequality in the country), as well as give energy security to the rest of the region; taking into account that the Bi-national hydroelectric repress provides a considerable amount of energy to the bloc.
The main achievements of Mercosur include the decrease of the tempos of inflation within its member states and the stabilization of the economic growth of the states of the bloc without decreasing the level of employment in the region.
Model to be followed: The EU Model?
Mercosur is expected to grow and evolve within the next few decades. However, this will be a gradual process and might take extra effort from its members before achieving the level of development of the EU and other established unions (Luis 2007, 51).
On the one hand, adopting the experience of the EU and following the model of the institutional structure of the European bloc and its schemes of decision making would be beneficial for the Mercosur. On the other hand, it is important to consider the differences between the regional unions and the peculiarities of the current situation before implementing the same strategies.
It should be noted that at present time, Mercosur is at its core stage of development. Because of the region’s unique historical background and conditions and peculiarities, Mercosur might not obtain the same results using by using the strategies the EU uses. It should be carefully analyzed which are the strategies that are optimal to enhance the effectiveness and exclude those that are not.
Comparison Between Mercosur and the EU
The History of Bilateral Relations and Inter-Regional Cooperation
The negotiations between the EU and the Mercosur started soon after the establishment of the two blocs, specifically aiming at strengthening their economical ties. Within the latest decade, the relationships between the EU and the Mercosur have expanded significantly to include other important areas. These two unions have signed bilateral trade agreements and continued to carry out inter-regional cooperation policies.
In 1991, the EU signed a bilateral agreement with Argentina and later signed another agreement with Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay in 1992. These bilateral agreements were meant to promote trade between the two the countries of the two regions, promote industrial cooperation, foster exchange of agricultural technology, conservation and protection of natural resources and economic partnership.
In 1995, a more comprehensive agreement was signed between the EU and all Mercosur states. This agreement covered trade between the unions, integration issues between the unions, economic cooperation issues and institutional issues.
This agreement was meant to promote free trade and cooperation between these two unions, but at the same time operate according to the World Trade Organization (WTO) policies. This agreement also addressed the need for a more complete education and training of the youth in the EU and Mercosur and its importance on the future of the bi-regional integration.
Concurrent Goals/Objectives
Though Mercosur and the EU aim at the broader goal of global integration, these two blocs have a number of differences in their institutional structure and processes of policy-making. Both the EU and the Mercosur have many similar objectives but implement different strategies for achieving the results.
The difference is the weight and preference that each union puts on each of the target. For example, both unions are geared towards the promotion of free movement of goods, people and services, formulation of policies on the economy of the region and of the member states and formulation of trade policies to be used by the union and the member states (Preusse 2008, 40).
In addition, the historical backgrounds of both blocs differ significantly. In Europe, the two world wars had chaotic effects on the economies and the quality of life of citizens; therefore, promoting regional integration seemed to be the only solution in that continent. In South America, there have been mostly peaceful relations among states.
Mercosur as a bloc was not primarily intended to avoid an armed conflict, as there have been peaceful relations among its member states for a long time—with the only exception of the Chaco War fought by Paraguay and Bolivia (1932-1935). In contrast with the Latin American historical tradition, the concept of historical Pan-Europeanism implies that the EU community has always possessed a set of political and economical values which have been replacing the state-based systems of their member states.
The next important difference between the blocs is the institutional organization of the blocs, which has a significant impact on the integration processes among the member states of the unions as well as the effectiveness of their cooperation. Mercosur is headed by a Common Market Council, which is made up of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs from each member state.
On its part, the EU is headed by the Council of the EU (prime ministers and presidents) – the Council of Europe is an entirely different organization. This council comprises of ministers from member states, the secretariat, the committee of permanent representatives and the president (Rozanwurcel 2007, 179).
In terms of the EU administration, the union uses the umbrella of the Commission. The secretariat which works under the council is responsible for carrying out administrative activities on behalf of the council. All the subgroups that work under the EU are coordinated by the committee of permanent representatives. Mercosur, on its part, is made up of work groups that are directly answerable to the Common market group (Laursen 2003, 59).
Compared to Mercosur, the advantage of the EU as a bloc is its maturity. The initial European agreements root back to the 1950s. The EU has evolved from the European Steel and Coal Community that was formed in 1954. The European Steel and Coal Community later started its evolution phase by the formation of the European community in 1957. On its part, Mercosur evolved from LAFTA (Latin American Free Trade Agreement) that was formed in the 1960’s to promote free trade among Latin American states (Fabbrini 2005, 84).
EU-Mercosur Economic Relations
At present, The EU is Mercosur’s most important trade partner, while Mercosur in its turn is the EU’s ninth trade partner. During the 1990s Mercosur’s imports from the EU increased more than 235 %, while exports from Mercosur to the EU increased from $ 14.8 billion to $ 20.2 billion (Arenas 2002, 4).
It is significant that the majority of the Mercosur’s export products are agriculture-based and it makes the position of Mercosur dependent upon the external factors such as the prices on coffee or meat in the world (Lehmann “The EU and Mercosur”). Though the importance of the EU as the Mercosur’s target market for export has been decreasing during the 1990s, the EU remains its main source of import. These tendencies need to be taken into consideration for analysis of the trade negotiations between the blocs.
Trade Negotiations
During the Rio Summit in 1999, both blocs demonstrated their interest in gradual liberalization of the trade between Mercosur and EU. The seven rounds of the trade negotiations improved the cooperation between the blocs significantly. The fifth round was the most significant for the development of bilateral economical relations between the blocs.
It was held on July 2001 and indicated the progress of the negotiations process because the important issues of liberalization of trade were discussed during it. The sixth round took place on October 2001 in Brussels, and it was focused on science and technology problems along with the trade issues. The seventh round took place on April 2002 in Buenos Aires when the measures for liberalization of the trade were defined.
The latest Seventeenth meeting of the Mercosur-European Union Committee took place in June-July 2010 in Buenos Aires. The delegates from the two blocs negotiated the three major spheres of future cooperation of the member unions, namely the political dialogue, trade and the creation of the Association Agreement between the regional blocs. It was agreed that the text of the proposals for the Agreement will be discussed during the following meetings.
The main achievement of the negotiations was the settlement of the issues of competition policies for the trade between the states, including the development of anti-dumping policies and the implementation of the rule of origin for the import and export of the goods (“Seventeenth Meeting of the Mercosur-European Union Bi-Regional Negotiations Committee”). The negotiation processes have demonstrated the interest of the delegates from both unions in further development of the trade and political relations between the states.
Foreign aid: Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)
Though the EU is one of the main sources of foreign aid for Latin America (especially Mercosur), Mercosur members are not among its primary targets because of their relative prosperity in comparison to other countries of the region. For this reason, the issue of the financial aid was discussed as a separate point in 1995 when the Cooperation Agreement was signed.
The primary purpose of providing the financial support to Mercosur is creating the conditions for improving the institutional structure of the union and preparing for liberalization of the trade with the EU (“Enhancing the EU’s Policy on Mercosur”).
The EU is not only assisting the Mercosur to make entry into global trade but also provides technical support to the bloc. The good relationship between Mercosur and the EU has enabled Mercosur to benefit greatly from the investments made by the EU into the region. The EU has invested greatly into Mercosur and is currently the largest foreign investor in stocks in the region.
These trade policies are geared to promoting economic prosperity of the two regions and facilitate further integration (Richardson 2006, 101). The EU is responsible for up to 20% of Mercosur’s trade revenue. This totals to an average of 80 billion dollars in a year. Such a relationship is helpful as it helps the Mercosur earn revenue that is used in improving infrastructure, building schools, building hospitals and in improving the quality of life for people in the Mercosur.
The EU also benefits by securing a supply for its products and raw materials. Critics of the aid program believe that since Mercosur is not a producer of a wide assortment of products, the focus that the EU is giving on trade with the region is unlikely to yield the expected kind of returns. However, as time progresses, those assumptions are beginning to be proven wrong (Frank 2000, 122).
Security and Defense
The cooperation between these two regions also covers some military and defense issues. The EU manufactures military equipment for export. Mercosur countries are major consumers of British military equipment. The British also provide training on the use and maintenance of the machinery.
Mercosur, like its partner the EU, is determined to implement energy efficient production systems that properly utilize the available energy (Aqin 2009, 55). The European Union is an important trade partner of the South American bloc and the issue of creating a free trade area is under consideration at the moment.
The EU has also committed itself to providing technical assistance and knowhow so as to improve the quality of medical care in the region. This is both through exchange programs that facilitate the training of doctors from Mercosur in the EU and through provision of machines and equipment for Mercosur hospitals. The agreement also facilitates the exchange of students among these regions and the sharing of knowledge between research institutions.
Conclusion
The ongoing cooperation process taking place between Mercosur and the EU can be explained with the contemporary shift from nationalism to regionalism, and eventually to globalization, in the sphere of international relations.
Effective cooperation between neighboring countries have proven to be extremely beneficial, as states started creating international arrangements to promote peaceful relations, developing common policies to get rid of the economic frontiers and the main hindrances for the development of the region in general and every individual member state of the union in particular.
This study brings to light the distinct differences and similarities of the integration processes of the EU and the Mercosur, explaining the roots of the differences and their effect on the level of integration between the countries and the effectiveness of their cooperation. The differences in the historical and economical development of the regions, the primary goals for creating the unions and the main strategies for achieving these goals became the preconditions for the unique paths of integration between the member states.
Adopting the experience of the EU, including the institutional organization and the wide range of the spheres for the integration of the countries could be advantageous for the Mercosur on the condition of adopting it to the peculiarities and needs of the South American region.
The main challenges of Mercosur as an intergovernmental bloc include the asymmetry between the member states which is caused by their disproportionate economical development and the lack of institutionalization within its structure. These regional peculiarities are the significant hurdles for using the EU model for future development of Mercosur, its bodies, inner and foreign policies.
Brazil as the Mercosur’s dominant power has established bilateral relationship with EU since 2007 and this shows how a trend towards global open economy can hinder bilateral regionalism.
Considering the fact that the bilateral economical relations between EU and Mercosur cannot be defined as harmonious, and comparing the figures of export and import rates as well as the range of goods in both categories, it should be concluded that Mercosur with its primarily agricultural orientation is dependent upon numerous external factors along with the trading terms.
Summing up all the differences in historical background, institutional structure, the economical development and distribution of resources between the member states in EU and Mercosur as well as the development of their bilateral relations, only separate fragments of EU model can be applied for further development of Mercosur on the condition of adapting them to the realities and demands of the Latin American regional bloc.
References
Aqin, Nora and Rubén Caro. Políticas Publicas, Derechos, y Trabajo Social en el Mercosur. Bueno Aires: Espacio Editorial S.R.L., 2009. Print.
Arenas, Mariela. “Economic Relations of the European Union and Mercosur” Miami-Florida EU Center. 2002. Web.
Archer, Clive. The European Union. New York: Routledge, 2008. Print.
Bouzas, Roberto. “The Politics and Economics of Mercosur: Old Challenges, New Approaches”. Center for Hemispheric Policy: University of Miami. 2008. Web.
Codas, Gustavo. “Nueva Etapa se Abre Con la Línea de 500 Kv”. La Prensa. 2010. Web.
Dominguez, Francisco. Mercosur: Between Integration and Democracy. Switzerland: European Academic Publishers, 2004. Print.
Dri, Clarissa. At What Point Does a Legislature Become Institutionalized? The Mercosur Parliament’s Path. Brazilian Political Science Review, 2009 3 (2): 60-97.
Nugent, Neill. The Government and Politics of the European Union. New York: Duke University Press, 2006. Print.
Phillips, Nicola. The Southern Cone Model: The Political Economy of Regional Capitalist Development in Latin America. New York: Routledge. 2004. Print.
Piattoni, Simona. Informal Governance in the European Union. Northampton: Edward Edgar Publishing, 2003. Print.
Preusse, Heinz. The New American Regionalism. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press, 2008. Print.
Unlike many other nations of the world, Britain does not have a written constitution. A written constitution consists of all the laws and by-laws of a country that have been written down and explained in details. In a written constitution, every law that governs a particular nation is usually contained therein. A written constitution therefore consists of one large document, containing all the laws of a country.
However, the British constitution is not contained in a documented book, but the different rules and laws governing the country are contained in different documents. Some of the laws are not even contained in any document, but nonetheless, they exist and are in use (Jones, 2009). The British government exercises full parliamentary sovereignty, whereby the parliament is able to pass all the laws of the country.
In addition, parliament has the final word on most matters concerning the nation. The British governance is thus dependent on the customs and traditions of the nation. Just as many other nations have rules that have to be followed by members of the society, albeit informally, the British government also works in a similar manner.
In 1970, Britain joined the European Union and the question that now arises is whether the British government will have to change its mode of governance in order to fulfill the demands of the European Union (Jones, 2009).
The most evident structure of the British government is the parliament. Parliament exercises full supremacy in the nation. In all the undertakings of the British government, the final decision rests with the parliament. The British parliament is built around democratic governance and this ensures that all its actions are directed towards democratic governance.
On many occasions, it has become necessary to change issues that harm or affect people negatively. On the other hand, if something does not seem to have any harmful effect, I do not think it would be of any use trying to change it (Jones, 2009).
The unwritten constitution
The nature of Britain’s unwritten constitution seems to be the best thing for the entire British kingdom. This is because British laws are not constant but dynamic. For this reason, I am obliged to support the idea that Britain should continue with its current mode of governance, whereby use is made of the unwritten constitution even though the country is now affiliated with the European Union (Jones, 2009).
The rules and regulations governing Britain can always be changed to suit any situation that arises. For example, changes in the economy can easily be incorporated by changing the laws of the nation. This is one of the strong points that have enabled Britain to be on the forefront in matters concerning the economy.
In a written constitution, any changes in the economy of a particular nation cannot be incorporated into the nation immediately they occur. This is because doing so would be against the written law and hence, illegal. It would take some time for such changes to occur because the constitution would have to be changed as well.
By the time the constitution is changed, sometimes the intended changes may no longer have a positive impact on the people, unless the intended effect is long-term. Among the countries with a written constitution, the courts have the power to strike down the judiciary of the country. However, this is not the case with Britain since, it is only parliament that has the legal supremacy over all the other sections of the nation (Jones, 2009).
This does not give the courts the authority to strike down any of the actions of the parliament. Sometimes, the actions of the courts are not usually up to standard since they must adhere to the written laws and regulations. As such, they do not take into account the benefits of a given situation at present or in the future. This brings in the issue of legal and non legal rules (Jones, 2009).
All the laws contained in a written constitution are the legal regulations that should be followed at all times. This rule out the possibility of having to do something that is against the constitution, even though it may not be harmful. In Britain, both the legal and non-legal rules are contained in the constitution. The non-legal rules constitute a significant part of the constitution. These are referred to as conventions.
The conventions are also flexible, in that they can be changed when need arises, unlike the written laws. However, not everybody is entitled to such conventions at all times. One can fail to adhere to a particular convention at a particular time when they feel that it is the best thing to do. This cannot be termed as illegal or against the law since conventions are not there to be followed at all times.
This is unlike in the written constitutions where there are no legal and non-legal rules. All the laws are classified as legal and anybody who goes against these written laws is deemed to have defied the constitution. Consequently, such a person may be prosecuted in a court of law. In conventions, the court does not have any power over their influence (Politics Association, 1988).
Considering that the British government has been operating under an unwritten constitution and that no major chaos has arisen due to this form of governance, it would really be hard for the people to understand the need to change from an unwritten to a written constitution.
Since Britain is now operating under a coalition government that is required to conform to the laws set by the European Union, this does not necessarily mean that Britain has to adopt a written constitution (Jones, 2009). The best thing that needs to be done is to for Britain to adhere to the laws laid down by the European Union.
Whether the European Union laws are incorporated into Britain’s constitution in written form or unwritten, the most important thing is to acknowledge their presence and abide by them. If Britain’s constitution is changed from unwritten to written, it may bring about some adverse effects.
The people are already used to the unwritten constitution and most of them are aware of the laws and regulations that govern the nation. With the adoption of a written constitution, the flexibility of laws would be cut short and it would be hard for the nation to catch up with the changing dynamics of the economy (Jones, 2009).
Human Rights Act
The European Union contains many written and well explained laws. The fact that they are written does not mean that everyone in any country under the European Union is fully conversant with each and every law. Only a few people could be fully aware of such laws. Thus, the best thing is to be aware of the existence of the laws and to follow them to the best of your capability.
A major problem that seems to arise is whether British courts can acquire the power that the Human Rights Acts enforced by the European Union offers (Jones, 2009). Again, the Human Rights Act encourages cooperation between the legislature and the judiciary of a nation but the final say is always reserved to the parliament.
This shows that although courts in Britain may end up acquiring some more power as a result of the Human Rights Act, the parliament can still retain its role as the final decision maker of the nation.
This shows that no major changes need to be effected in the British government as a result of the Human Rights Act being in operation. British can still retain the supremacy of the parliament because, the main theme of the parliament’s actions are to the benefit and welfare of all the nation’s citizens (Politics Association, 1988).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the British government does not necessarily have to change the laws of its nation for having joined the European Union. What needs to be done is to enforce the laws that have been outlined by the European Union. These can be exercised alongside the laws of the nation.
At the national level, Britain can continue with its operations as before but when it comes to matters concerning the coalition government, Britain is bound to follow the laws outlined by the European Union.
Parliamentary supremacy has been the mode of governance and it can still continue to be, with only a few changes occurring to the courts, since, due to the Human Rights Act, they are bound to acquire some more power than before (Jones, 2009).
Reference List
Jones, B. (2009). British politics today. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Politics Association (Great Britain). (1988). Talking politics. London: Politics Association.
The United Kiingdom is one of several European states which make up the European Union. The UK joined the European Union in 1973 for the purpose of strenghtening its economic and political relations with other European states. The UK sought to boost its trade links with other nations in continental Europe, through the liberalized common market. The UK was motivated to join the EU to export more manufactured goods to other European countries with fewer restrictions.
All EU member states are required to remove barriers on movement of goods, people and labor between their borders. UK’s association with the EU has helped the country benefit from strong economic ties with other nations in Europe. The country’s Industrial and financial sectors, have greatly benefited from strong relations the country has with other EU member states (Bannin 67).
The UK government’s engagement with other EU member states has been mainly influenced by the benefits it gets from the common market. Political leaders in the country have been skeptical of treaties between member states, which allow for free migration of labor and adoption of the Euro as a single currency for all member states.
The UK government refused to accept the Schengen agreement, which allows people to move freely across borders of EU member states with fewer restrictions. The UK government has also failed to agree with other states on various issues which are important to the future of the EU.
The EU is currently facing a lot of economic challenges which have discouraged Britain from contributing funds to assist troubled member states. Several EU member states are experiencing severe economic problems caused by poor fiscal and financial policies (Gowland 87). EU member states have been forced to intorduce policies to help faltering member states revive their economies.
The association between UK and the EU has several implications for both parties. The financial services sector in the country has linkages with other financial systems in Europe. There is an increase in the volume of financial transactions done between UK firms and those in other EU member states due to liberalized trade policies.
The concept of free trade and open borders allows more British businessmen to take advantage of economic opportunities in other EU member countries (Burrell 59). This economic integration has made banking operations in the UK more intertwined with those in Germany, France, Italy and other European states.
Therefore, stock brokerage firms and banks in the UK are more susceptible to financial risks from other countries in Europe. For instance, the recent debt crisis which affected Greece, Portugal and Spain has had a negative impact on UK’s economy (Geddes 75). Some consumers in these countries have low incomes and this has caused a reduction in the volume of exports from UK to these countries.
UK laws have been amended to comply with EU statutes which all member countries need to abide by. Some EU laws have been adopted as part of common laws observed in the country and they are enforced by all legal institutions. Some of the EU laws adopted in the country relate to human rights, free movement of labor and immigration.
UK citizens are free to seek employment opportunities in other EU member states with fewer restrictions. Likewise, citizens of other EU member states are free to seek employment opportunities in the UK without any restrictions. Therefore, UK citizens have become more exposed to diverse cultures from other European states (Gowland , Turner and Wright 69). The EU has encouraged people from different countries in Europe to build positive relationships.
The British political system is a constitutional monarchy which has been in existence for many centuries. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state and the government is headed by the Prime Minister. The UK government is democratically elected by citizens who choose various political representatives to represent them in government. The country is a multi party state. The Conservative Party and the Labor Party are the two strongest political parties in the country.
The two parties have produced the largest number of Prime Ministers and members of parliament in the last century. However, on several occasions, they have formed coalitions with smaller political parties to increase their parliamentary majority after general elections. The leader of the party which wins a majority number of parliamentay seats after elections have been conducted automatically assumes the position of Prime Minister (Mc Annula 56).
There are several devolved government authorities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland which deal with issues affecting their citizens. These three territories have their own legislative assemblies which are semi-autonomous. The legislative assemblies in these territories operate under parliamentary acts passed in the House of Commons. The House of Commons, is the overall UK parliament where 620 representatives from their respective constituencies sit and legislate various laws which are enforced throughout the country.
The House of Lords reviews acts passed by The House of Commons and wields the power to veto some decisions made by members of parliament , if its members feel they are not good for the country. The judiciary in the UK follows different sets of laws which are practiced and observed in different territories (Coe and Jones 89). English common law is mainly observed and practiced in England and Wales while Scottish law is a set of unique laws practiced in Scotland.
UK’s economy is mainly influenced by free market principles. Major sectors of the economy include agriculture, industrial and service sectors. The agricultural sector contributes less than 2 percent of the country’s GDP. However, it services more than 60 percent of local food demand in the country. Manufacturing industries contribute an estimated 22 percent of the country’s GDP. Automotive and aerospace components produced in the UK bring the country a lot of revenue every year.
The service sector is the largest economic sector and accounts for more than 75 percent of UK’s GDP. The country’s financial system is one of the largest in the world; dominated by the London Stock Exchange, Bank of England and the London Metal Exchange. The country also benefits from high tourism revenues because it receives more than 20 million visitors every year (Giudice, Kuenzel and Springbett 112). These high tourist numbers are beneficial to the country’s economy.
There are a lot of natural resources in the UK which are yet to be exploited fully. In the past, coal and iron ore were the most important minerals in the country because they were heavily utilized during the early years of the industrial revolution. Iron ore helps in the production of steel which is a crucial component in the manufacture of aerospace and vehicle parts (Giudice, Kuenzel and Springbett 116) . The UK ‘s economy faces various challenges because unemployment rates currently stand at an estimated 7 percent.
Works Cited
Burrell, Kathy. Polish Migration to the UK in the ‘New’ European Union: After 2004. Cornwall: TJ International, 2009. Print.
Coe, Neil, and Andrew Jones. The Economic Geography of the UK. Thousand Oaks : Sage, 2010.
Geddes, Andrew. Britain and the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Print.
Giudice, Gabriele, Robert Kuenzel, and Tom Springbett. UK Economy: The Crisis in Perspective. New York: Routledge, 2012. Print.
Gowland , David , Arthur Turner, and Alex Wright. Britain and European Integration since 1945: On the Sidelines. New York: Routledge, 2010. Print.
Mannin, Michael L. British Government and Politics: Balancing Europeanization and Independence. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield, 2010. Print.
McAnnula, Stuart. British Politics: A Critical Introduction. London: Continuum International Publishing, 2006. Print.
This paper will contain information that pertains to Turkey’s accession to the European Union. It will contain research questions, an explanation as to how the research questions will be of help to the topic in question; through answering the research questions the topic of the paper will be fully and critically answered.
The literature review that will contain written literature that will discuss the history of Turkey and the European Union and how Turkey came to be interested in the European Union as well as literature pertaining to the discussions held by members of the European Union towards the request of Turkey being a part of the European Union.
This paper will contain a hypothesis that would be proven and supported or discredited through conducted research relevant to the content of the topic question. Methodology to be used in the research will also be included in the paper and finally a conclusion and bibliography will be included in the paper as well.
Research question
What is the European Union?
When and why did Turkey join the European Union?
The above research questions when addressed will be able to give us a brief history of the European Union and how it came to be. These questions will also give a brief explanation of why the European Union was founded and its activities. These questions will also give us an overview of the activities of the European Union and how and when Turkey came to be a member of the European Union.
These research questions are important they it will critically and analytically trace Turkey’s interest in the European Union up to the point it joined the union and the activities that turkey has helped with and carried under the European Union. Through addressing the research question we will understand and find out the reasons as to why Turkey joined the European Union and how the other members of the union reacted to this addition.
The research questions will also be able to give the advantages and disadvantages of Turkey joining the European Union both on the Turkish side and the European Union. Through critically analyzing these advantages and disadvantages one will be able to draw conclusions and decide for one self if Turkey’s choice of joining the European Union was a right move or a wrong move.
Literature Review
Macapahil (2008 45) states that the ruling party in Turkey, AK, is still very much at the fore front to the full accession to the European Union, however the citizens of Turkey appear to be more reluctant to join the European Union. This tells us the citizens of turkey have come to the realization that the current headship of the European Union is against Turkey joining the Union.
This coupled with the Citizens of Turkey also not wanting to join the Union, shows there is a grim hope of Turkey ever joining the Union. Resentment for Turkey to join the European Union does not come from Turkish citizens but other European countries a well namely; France, Spain, Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, Belgium and the Netherlands. (Bilge, 2000 45).
The main reason for this resentment comes down to the fact that Turkey is not in Europe and the members feel that its geographical position should be a reason as to why Turkey should not join the European Union as it was formed for the European Countries and not countries located outside Europe. The Turks feel and understand this discrimination hence why they do not want to join the European Union as they know they will be prejudiced against due to the fact that their country is not geographically located in Europe.
According to Schimmelfennig (2009 25), the resolution by the European Union to open up talks that would lead to the appointment of Turkey to the European Union was one of the topics that brought about great controversy. This was because rejection was extremely high among the influential people as well as the public as well. The question as to why Turkey was not invited to join the Union during the Brussels EU Council held in December 2004 by any of the Members Veto power was raised.
This is to show that the member states did not want Turkey to join the European Union; from this piece of literature we can easily conclude that the member states of the EU did not want new members and in addition they did not consider Turkey to be in Europe or want it as a member of the Union. The issue comes in the sense that not all veto wielding countries are in agreement of allowing Turkey to join the European Union.
Steinmo 2008 argues that the choices presented to the member states in the year 2004 had been inhibited by the resolutions made in the previous years. These decisions can be retraced to the verdict at the Helsinki summit to propose candidature to Turkey.
During the Helsinki summit the member states only agreed and consented to identify and be acquainted with Turkey as a candidate for membership. This in simple terms states that Turkey would have to go thorough a rigorous series of political and economic improvement that are up to the standards of the European Union member States so as to be accepted as a member of the union.
If Turkey was to fail or not comply with these political and economic standards then it means their proposed candidature to the European Union would be revoked taking away all the hopes of Turkey ever becoming a member of the European Union. The changes needed in the political and economic sectors would adequately affect the citizens of Turkey and it would force them to assimilate the political and economic ways of the European Union member states so as to be at par with them.
In reference to George and Bennett (2005 20-55). Turkey was offered candidacy to the European Union as a wide effect of variations brought forth by the end of the cold war. Some of these changes encompassed and inclined the guidelines of decisions to be made in this case the proposal of Turkey to be offered candidature seemed to be a brilliant idea and was thought to be essential.
With such an offer on the table the Turks were very much persuaded to undertake a serious domestic reform for the constitution and the relationship between Ankara and the EU was strengthened. The problem then came with the issue of the geographical area of Turkey with some of the members denying Turkey membership because it was not in Europe geographically.
During the cold war the eastern and western countries were at war of ideologies with each other. Each of the sides wanted to have the more allies than the other and therefore these countries offered economic assistance to the developing countries so as they could join one of the sides; capitalism or communism.
It is during this ideological war that the European Union saw a golden chance of offering candidacy to Turkey so as Turkey could join and become part and parcel of the capitalist countries. The candidacy was offered to Turkey so as the capitalism countries could continue to spread their ideas to this country. The European Union put in a lot of money in form of financial and economic assistance so as to ensure that Turkey was on the capitalist side.
According to Ankara-Hurriyet Daily News 2010 the British Prime ministers fully supports Turkeys bid to join the European Union and that he would fight for Turkey to be accepted into the union. The prime minister stated that the other members should look at the things Turkey has done including the Turkish soldiers in Afghanistan alongside the European troops keeping the peace, protecting Europe as it is a NATO ally.
All these aspects should be looked upon and considered alongside Turkey’s bid to the European Union. This simply shows that the British are fully supporting the bid by Turkey while at the same time some European countries that are member states of the union are not supporting this cause. This shows the reason as to why Britain feels the need to try and convince the other members to accept the bid by Turkey as it has to be a unilateral decision by all member states on order to accept a new member.
Prime Minister Cameron went ahead to state that there were three different groups of people who were championing the rejection of the bid by Turkey to join the European Union. The fist were the protectionist that viewed Turkey as an economic threat, the second were the polarized they based their rejection on the history of the country and a conflict of cultures and last but not least the prejudiced who based their rejection on religion.
The fact that majority of Turks are Muslims seems to be a hurdle to some of the member states of the European Union even though that Turkey is a secular and democratic state. Through these statements we are able to conclude that the European Union is a secular organization that is not run according to any particular religion, this drives home the fact that some member states of the European Union are clutching at any straws so as to deny Turkey membership in the European View.
According to Bilge (2000, 63), the European Union did not act accordingly in the Greek-Turkish conflict when this took place. These two countries were historical rivals and its resolution involved leaders of both countries holding talks and coming up with general collective characteristics that both countries shared, and also entertain ideas of a union between Greece and turkey to be called Greek-Turkish union. The idea of the Greek-Turkish union however happened way before the formation of the European Economic Community which was converted to European Community which eventually became the European Union.
Greece and Turkey both applied to join the EEC in 1959 when the relations between the two countries were already unpleasant because of Cyprus. Due to this dispute over Cyprus, the rejection by other members of the union came into play. The nature of conflict was to escalate after a while whereby, the member states would be forced to ally themselves with either of the countries and this is why the member states rejected both countries as they did not want to be forced to choose sides.
The European Union watched as these two countries fought over Cyprus and border disputes. The European was expected to set in and offer a solution to this conflict but they choose to stay at the sidelines. Despite the fact that both countries were candidates to the European Union and they both maintained close ties with the Union while the relationship between the two countries remained hostile to each other. (Hurriyet Daily News 2007)
The European Union proved to be unsuccessful as it did not have any optimistic influence on the conflicts between these two states. This was due to the fact during the conflicts the European Union did not act out its part and only started getting actively involved on such matters after 1999 in both countries.
However the Unions involvements in dispute settling have been quite limited and development on Turkey’s membership has been connected to the resolving of the border dispute with Greece. This resolution put in place a structure and an agenda that would be used by both parties when disputes arose in the future.
Hypothesis
H1-Turkey does not possess the right qualities to be a member state of the European Union.
Methodology
In order to prove the above hypothesis, case studies, written literature and research articles will be used. These methods will provide a good strong base whereby one can draw conclusions pertaining to either way. Sources that are to be used to answer the research question and prove the hypothesis will range form E-books, internet articles, case studies and literature reviews previously conducted on the relevant topics. Through answering the research question one will be able to test the hypothesis and draw conclusions from the research carried out.
Literatures reviews concerning the topics have been critiqued therefore leaving it open for any person to draw their own conclusions on the topic of Turkey joining the European Union.
Then again the literature reviews give insight on the process of the application by Turkey to be part of the union since 1959 when the Union was known as EEC. From 1959, debates by member state have been carried out so as to know if it would be advantageous to add Turkey to the union. This shows us that there are some member states that are relentless when it comes to opposing the membership of Turkey.
In conclusion there are different reasons as to why the European Union would integrate or reject Turkey. This all depends on the member states and how they vote. The debates whether to include Turkey have been active since 1959 and these debates are still on going. The Member states of the union need be on the same page when it comes to Turkey’s integration and this has proven difficult in the application of turkey.
Some member states that are rejecting Turkey are basing their arguments on the geographical area of Turkey. The fact that Turkey is not located in Europe yet it wants to join the European Union seems to be a challenge to some of the member states. Another factor that seems to be a basis for rejection of Turkey is the economic activities that the European Union will undertake if Turkey becomes a full member. Some of the members argue that it would be a loss to allow turkey to join them, hence the rejection based on financial abilities.
This paper has come up with research questions that when fully answered will prove or disapprove the hypotheses of this paper. With the help of literature reviews on the relevant topics that are concerned with and linked with the topic in question one would be able to know if Turkey has what it takes to be a full member of the European Union and if the advantages will be experience on the Turkey side or on the European Union side.
References
Bilge, A.S., 2000., Buyuk Dus: Turk-Yunan Siyasi Iliskileri [Megali Idea: Turkish-Greek Political Relations], Ankara: Yuzyil Yayinlari.
George, A. & Bennett, A., 2005. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. London: MIT Press.
Hurriyet Daily News, British PM says he will ‘Passionately fight’ for Turkey’s EU bid. Ankara –Hurriyet Daily News. 2010. Web.
Macapahil, B., 2008. Turks to EU: Never Mind. Web.
Schimmelfennig, F., 2009. Entrapped again: The way to EU membership negotiations with Turkey. International Politics 46:4, pp 413-431.
Steinmo S., 2008. Historical Institutionalism in Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences.” London: Cambridge University Press Cambridge.