Most of the time, our responses to this campaign are weak and timid: “There’s no detaching from the West. How can a country that has agreed to make all of its legislation compatible with the EU acquis in order to become an EU member break off from the West?” “Isn’t it irrational to claim that a NATO member country has detached from the West?” or “Turning towards the West is Turkey’s historical preference. Aren’t we a country that has been moving toward Westernization for 200 years?” The list of defensive arguments is long.Instead of trying to come up with responses to this claim, we should be asking questions. For example, we could start with the following: How serious is Turkey about partnership with the West? How sincere and fair is it in its actions? Is it that the West, including America and Europe, is trying to embrace Turkey but Turkey stubbornly wants to turn away? The most recent examples in particular prove that these questions are valid. Turkey’s ongoing 50-year-old EU process offers an explanation to the subject. Let’s take the early 2000s as a reference. More than 70 percent of the people enthusiastically supported membership, and the government was ready to implement any kind of reform to ensure a successful process. But despite Turkey’s desire to join the EU, critical European actors stated that Turkey was not European enough, that it was too Muslim and too big in size. They launched an open-ended negotiation process, and then in what seemed like a handicapped race they virtually made it impossible to negotiate the chapters. While Turkey continues to move along very slowly on a journey it began 50 years ago, former enemies but Christian countries in Eastern Europe and the Balkans have been quickly put on a pedestal.
The Cyprus problem is another example which clearly shows that it is the West and not Turkey that is reluctant about establishing a proper relationship. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government took every risk and changed Ankara and Rauf Denktaş’s ineffective policy and adopted a stance in favor of finding a solution. It is for this reason that at a time when coup plans were being made against the government, the Annan plan, which emerged as a result of intense negotiations by the government, was put to a referendum on the island. Turkey supported finding a solution, and the Turks on the island voted in favor of a solution. The side that rejected the solution was the Greek Cypriots. But in the end the Turkish side paid the price. Europe’s response to Turkey’s attitude in favor of a solution was accepting the Greek Cypriots as members and turning the Cyprus problem into an impediment for Turkey’s EU bid.
Another example showing that Turkey isn’t pushing itself away from the West but that the West is trying to exclude Turkey is the genocide allegations that the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs recently approved. Let’s say that in the past Turkey did not even want to open this subject up to discussion and so the West had a negative attitude. But in 2005 with a letter written by the prime minister to Yerevan and a decision taken by the Turkish Parliament, Turkey offered to have historians debate the subject. This suggestion ultimately entered the protocols signed between Turkey and Armenia. But in a move suggesting disregard to Turkey’s efforts, the US committee voted 23-22 to recognize the genocide. The sad part is that those who voted “no” to the bill actually accept the genocide but opposed it for strategic reasons. Another anomaly is that the parliaments and congresses of 19 other mainly European countries have made similar decisions. It’s even stranger that France, who defends that what happened in Algeria can only be determined by historians, is among these countries. Another absurdity is that these countries, which claim to be sensitive to history, say nothing about Armenia’s continued occupation of Azerbaijan. Sweden is the newest country on this list. By a one-vote margin the Swedish Parliament agreed that the events of 1915 were “genocide.” What that means is that if there had been one more vote in favor of Turkey, an event in history would have been identified differently. Isn’t this ridiculous?
By mentioning all of this, I am not saying we should break off all of our ties with the West. No, of course we shouldn’t do that. These relations give Turkey power. But please, with the West’s rudeness so evident, let’s not take claims about “Turkey breaking off from the West” seriously.
