Human Rights Violations in Turkey

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Background
Options for Consideration
Recommendations
Reference List

Background

The relationship between the EU and Turkey is one where both parties have what the other wants: the EU has the capacity to let Turkey ascede into it while Turkey acts as a buffer state between the EU and the tumultuous Middle East. The desire for Turkey to join the EU is based on potential economic benefits as well as its cultural background. As a “middle ground” so to speak between Europe and the Middle East, Turkey can be described as a melting pot of both European and Middle Eastern influences (Glyptis 2005).

Due to its proximity to other European countries as well as its past as the Ottoman Empire, Turkey has a distinct European influene despite its main religion being Islam. Combined with the general instability found in its neighboring states in the Middle East, this makes the country far more inclined towards developing a relationship with its European rather than Middle Eastern counterparts (Wood & Quaisser 2005).

From an economic perspective, Europe possesses a vast market for Turkish goods and shows how being part of EU would greatly benefit Turkey’s economy. Combined, the aforementioned reasons help to explain why Turkey is seeking EU membership and the various steps it has taken to do so (ex: internal reform and oversight) (Redmond 2007). On the other end of the spectrum, resistance towards the inclusion of Turkey into the EU are based on economic and cultural reasons as well.

As evidenced by the debt crisis in Greece, the housing crisis in Spain and the decline of the Italian economy, the EU economy as it is known today is far from what can be deemed as being “stable”. The addition of another country, one who has been noted as having a significant lack of sufficient internal transparency (which is similar to the case of Greece) could potentially cause another economic issue within the EU.

From a cultural perspective, Turkey is viewed as being more Middle Eastern than European due the predominant religion within the country being Islam as well as social inclinations and traditions that are viewed as being far from the “European norm”. Aside from this, there are also issues related to restrictions in fundamental human freedoms, illegal detentions and even the unjust treatment of local minorities that further impede Turkey’s application into the EU.

However, it should be noted that the EU actually needs Turkey due to its status as a buffer state. The current Syrian refugee crisis, its actions against radical Islam elements such as the Islamic state as well as other similar threats shows that Turkey is a valuable resource for the EU to prevent such elements from spilling over into Europe.

It is due to this that the EU cannot outright disparage Turkey; however, it cannot accept it either due to the aforementioned reasons stated earlier, the most prominent of which are the country’s human right’s abuses. Turkey on the other hand cannot entirely dismiss the claims that the EU levels against it due to its desire to be part of it.

It is due to this that the current strategy of the EU is to seek to advance human rights in Turkey in such a way that the most detrimental aspects of preventing the country from acceding into the EU on moral grounds are addressed.

However, it must be questioned as to how the EU could potentially do so based on the current climate within Turkey where terrorist attacks and border security issues often require more stringent methods of protection that often entail violations of certain human rights in order to protect the greater whole of Turkish society.

Options for Consideration

Maintain the Current Status Quo Between the EU and Turkey

This course of action entails the EU and Turkey maintain its current level of diplomatic relations with no interference from the EU when it comes to the human rights abuses that are currently happening in Turkey. This is due to the current conflict that is happening in Syria and the escalating actions of the terrorist group known as “Islamic State”.

Due to its proximity to the various conflict zones in the Middle East as well as its stance against radical Islam forces in the region, Turkey has become a prime target for Middle Easter terrorists. This creates a unique situation in Turkey wherein its own internal security concerns are far greater than what is currently present in many EU countries.

It is due to this that Turkey has a greater needed for implementing harsher methods of not only maintaining public order but also preventing the escalation of terrorist attacks within its borders (Narbone & Tocci 2007). Implementing stricter human rights compliance at this point in time could result in more successful terrorist attacks within Turkey which have the potential to embolden ISIS to attack targets that are further away from the front lines of the war effort against them.

As seen in the case of the 2005 terrorist attacks in London, terrorists do have the capability and the willingness to attack targets far from conflict zones in an effort to create sufficient mass panic and show that they can attack areas that are deemed as being “safe” from direct conflict.

This shows that supporting the current war effort in Turkey while not directly tackling the case of human rights abuses in the country can help to ensure that terrorists are discouraged from attacking targets of opportunity in the EU due to successful attacks in Turkey (Burgin 2010). This position places security over human rights concerns due to the potential impact of the refugee crisis and terrorists on EU member states.

Increase Direct Intervention by Petitioning for the Placement of Human Rights Observers in Turkey

Another potential course of action is to petition Turkey to have EU observers within the country in order to observe its adherence to proper codes of conduct when it comes to the protection of human rights. The potential effectiveness of this lies in the fact that the observers would be able to gain a deeper understanding as to why certain human rights abuses are occurring within the country (Icduygu 2010).

This would help the EU to know what could potentially be done in the future in order to help stabilize Turkey to the extent that such abuses can be removed over time. However, the effectiveness of this method is doubtful since it is likely that Turkey create a means by which direct observations of human rights violations in progress would be impossible.

Threaten to Permanently Prevent EU Membership based on Human Rights Abuses

The next potential course of action would be to threaten Turkey with nullification of any potential for EU membership due to continued human right’s abuses within the country. The goal of this method is to force Turkey to implement new domestic policies that help to protect rather than constrain the rights of the general public.

Since Turkey wants to join the EU, it would take the necessary steps in order bring about the requested changes (Park 2015). Unfortunately, this particular course of action is unlikely to occur due to the internal security concerns within the country as well as the fact that states do not like their actions being dictated.

Combined, both reasons would be enough for talks between Turkey and the EU to breakdown considerably resulting in a greater likelihood of Turkey forgoing cooperation with EU member states when it comes to preventing the penetration of terrorist elements into the greater whole of the EU. This course of action places human rights over security concerns.

Commit Towards a Slow Gradual Change in Domestic Policies within Turkey

The last potential course of action that can be taken would be for the EU to commit towards a slow and gradual change in Turkey. This particular process involves taking into consideration the present day security concerns of the country and, as such, focusing on change that does not happen all at once (Zucconi 2009). This can be accomplished through the implementation of institutions that would help to gradually shift Turkey towards a path of better human rights protection.

Recommendations

Utilizing Institutions to Address Human Rights Abuses

After examining all four potential courses of action, the 4^th seems to be the best when it comes to compromising on the need for security as well as the need to ensure the implementation of proper human rights protections.

One of the problems when it comes to advocating for changes in the domestic affairs of a state is that, based on the theory of realism, with states acting as the primary actors in international relations, it would take either military or economic actions to actually have such recommendations be absolutely implemented (Karagiannis 2013).

It is unlikely that the EU would take such a stand to enforce human rights within Turkey while it is also true that Turkey is unlikely to implement all of the recommendations that the EU is advocating for. This is due to the fact that the government of a state is entrusted with the survival of the state through whatever means that it can implement (Sterling-Folker 2000).

Some of these methods, as seen in the case of Turkey, comes in the form of the denial of certain human rights in order to implement greater protective measures in order to ensure the continued safety of the majority (Solingen 2008). Thus, from the perspective of Turkey’s domestic agenda of protecting itself from terrorist attacks and radical Islam, human right violations are a necessity. It is unlikely that Turkey will change its stance on this issue simply because the EU is asking, this is despite the fact that it wants to be part of the EU.

Turkey is unlikely to compromise on this despite its potential EU membership being irrevocably removed. It is due to this that one option for consideration is to implement the theory of neoliberal institutionalism in order to subtly “correct” Turkey’s actions over time instead of outright demanding that they change (Ploom 2014).

The logic behind this set of actions is based on the neoliberal institutionalist belief that institutions can play an important role when it comes to assisting in international cooperation (Ruggie 1998). In this case, international cooperation takes the form of implementing a means by which Turkey’s internal human rights record becomes more in line with current EU doctrine. To bring this about, it is recommended that the EU create a council for integration that involves Turkey (Sungjoon 2014).

Through the council, the EU would create institutions for integration and cooperation between itself and Turkey that focus on constraining particular activities (i.e. denial of certain human rights), shaping the expectations of Turkey towards integration in the EU (i.e. stating that without certain safeguards in place Turkey will be enable to ascede into the EU) and helping to shape the behavior of the Turkish government so that it will be more in line with what is needed to be part of the EU (Grieco 1988).

The advantage of implementing this type of strategy is that it can be done in stages while taking into account the current issue of domestic terrorism within Turkey. Since it is unlikely that Turkey will change overnight due to its domestic security concerns, the goal of the implemented institutions is to help Turkey slowly commit to a particular stance when it comes to human rights concerns.

This method of slow commitment as well as implementing methods of shaping expectations, will enable Turkey to realize the need to undertake the necessary internal changes if it wants to commit to being part of the EU and, as such, will undertake the changes themselves.

Through such a process, the Turkish government will be more amenable towards implementing the necessary human rights protections without the EU having to outright demand that they put in place. This creates a far more feasible means of future EU integration as well as the protection of human rights within the region.

Reference List

Burgin, A 2010, ‘Ongoing opposition in the West, new options in the East: is Turkey’s EU accession process reversible?’, Journal Of Balkan & Near Eastern Studies, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 417-435

Glyptis, L 2005, ‘Which side of the fence? turkey’s uncertain place in thE EU’, Alternatives: Turkish Journal Of International Relations, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 108-139

Grieco, JM 1988, ‘Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism’, International Organization, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 485-507

Icduygu, A 2010, ‘The politics of demography and international migration: implications for the EU-Turkey relationship’, Journal Of Balkan & Near Eastern Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 59-71

Karagiannis, Y 2013, ‘The Élysée Treaty and European Integration Theory’, German Politics & Society, vol. 31, no. 1, p. 48

Narbone, L, & Tocci, N 2007, ‘Running around in circles? The cyclical relationship between Turkey and the European Union’, Journal Of Southern Europe & The Balkans, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 233-245

Park 2015, ‘Turkey’s isolated stance: an ally no more, or just the usual turbulence?’, International Affairs, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 581-600

Ploom, I 2014, ‘Towards Neoliberal Imperialism? Discussing the Implications of the New European Governance Emerging from the Fiscal Crisis and Administrative Reforms for the Identity of the EU’, Administrative Culture, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 21

Redmond, J 2007, ‘Turkey and the European Union: troubled European or European trouble?’, International Affairs, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 305-317

Ruggie, JG 1998, ‘What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge’, International Organization, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 855-885

Solingen, E 2008, ‘The Genesis, Design and Effects of Regional Institutions: Lessons from East Asia and the Middle East’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 261-294

Sterling-Folker, J 2000, ‘Competing paradigms or birds of a feather? Constructivism and neoliberal institutionalism..’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 1, p. 97

Sungjoon, C 2014, ‘An International Organization’s Identity Crisis’, Northwestern Journal Of International Law & Business, vol. 34, no. 3, p. 359

Wood, S, & Quaisser, W 2005, ‘Turkey’s Road to the EU: Political Dynamics, Strategic Context and Implications for Europe’, European Foreign Affairs Review, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 147-173

Zucconi, M 2009, ‘The Impact of the EU Connection on Turkey’s Domestic and ForeignPolicy’, Turkish Studies, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 25-36

Click Here To Order Now!