Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spent considerable time on EU negotiations and reforms with her Turkish counterpart, Ali Babacan, in Washington last week. These are clear signs of how much the US government cares about Turkey's EU membership. But is that enough? I'm afraid not. More can and should be done, especially during these crucial times. The US has always been a catalyst in Turkey's EU process, with most of the action coming behind the scenes. We know the ongoing reform process is a US goal in itself, because it transforms the Turkish system into a more Western and globalization friendly one. Before Turkey finally started full membership negotiations in 2005, the EU dream never seemed to be so tangible. However, it might turn into a nightmare, given the current domestic opposition trends in the EU and Turkey. Therefore, it is high time for supporters of Turkey's EU process to put their utmost energy behind the bid, and that certainly includes the US.
The Justice and Development Party (AK Party) may have disappointed reformers by losing focus on the issue, especially after the shock of Cyprus's admission as a full member in 2004. But the resentment toward the Erdoğan government should not keep the US and other supporters of EU process from seeing a more serious, perhaps fatal, blow to Turkey's modernization path -- namely the Turkish establishment's masterminded process against political and economic liberalization that would eventually harm the country's chances of becoming a full EU member.
Many people in the West might think the current political crisis in Turkey is essentially about a conflict over secularism and religion. That's not exactly true. At the heart of the deep conflict in Turkey lie efforts to halt Turkey's EU process, which acts as an anti-Christ to illiberal political-economic-social designs of the Turkish statist establishment.
Military coup plans by several top generals in 2003-04 were proven by credible press reports and police investigations. Was it a coincidence those plans were prepared, but luckily unsuccessful, during a period when Turkey was undergoing the most aggressive EU reforms? An explicit military intervention would not only kill the Turkish support for the Annan plan in Cyprus, which was the reason put forward, but more importantly shut Turkey's doors to full membership negotiations for the foreseeable future.
Why does the statist establishment not like the European Union project? If you listen to them, they would say they fear that Turkey's national sovereignty would be undermined. In fact, what they mostly hesitate to give up is their own sovereignty. Tell me, how many European democracies have such a "sovereign" military, judiciary and the like?
Bureaucratic sovereignty from democratic control, facilitated by monopolistic business barons, has been the major problem with the Republic of Turkey from the outset. Many domestic crises are a result of the clash between bureaucratic sovereigns and democratic forces. Turkey's bureaucratic sovereigns are committed to blocking the EU path because in the West bureaucracies are less relevant and more accountable to elected officials. Ironically, they do everything in the name of a distorted and outdated interpretation of the ideas of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who, I'm sure, would enthusiastically support Turkey's EU membership as a major milestone in his modernization project if he were alive today.
The AK Party's major sin in the eyes of the bureaucratic sovereigns is less about their religiosity. There are religious groups who are beloved by the secularist establishment because they don't challenge the oligarchic sovereignty. The AK Party frustrated the oligarchs by committing to irreversible EU reforms. Furthermore, the newcomer elite, who are from formerly underrepresented segments of society, have now started claiming bureaucratic and other important positions in the system, first and foremost the office of the presidency. The bureaucratic sovereigns feel state institutions, as if they own them, are being infiltrated or captured. Perhaps the AK Party stepped on the brakes in the EU process because they didn't want to further intimidate these circles. But if that's the strategy, obviously it didn't work, because bureaucratic sovereigns seem dedicated to killing the slightest idea of democratic reforms once and for all.
The European Union is more courageous and frank when it comes to acknowledging Turkey's systemic problems. Yet the EU's insincere attitude (at least some of the member countries, such as France and Germany) vis-à-vis Turkey's membership diminishes their credibility and impact. The US, on the other hand, which still enjoys great influence in Turkey as the global leader despite deep resentment, plays a whole different game. It wants to have it both ways. Pursuing realpolitik goals, they refrain from being seen as clearly choosing sides between bureaucratic sovereigns and democratic forces in Turkey. I'm sure most of the American hearts go out to democracy, but they are still hedging their bets.
Turkey is now stuck with a desperate cycle of crisis and is faced with the serious risk of the EU ending negotiations. Anyone who takes Turkey's reformation process as seriously as the US should be more proactive. The direness of the situation might require using more assertive language, which includes criticism of Turkish bureaucratic sovereigns and their comrades. That should be done before we hit the point of no return, to which we are getting closer.
