Butterfly Effect in Turkey-European Union Relations: Turkey’s Candidacy Process

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 3, 1942 - 1955, 21.07.2020

Ekrem Yaşar Akçay , İdris Turan

https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.648805

Cited By: 1

Öz

From the beginning up to now, Turkey – European Union
(EU) relations have been quite problematic. With the Ankara Agreement signed in
1963, the relations were set on a legal basis and continued within the
framework of this agreement. However, then-Prime Minister Turgut Özal applied
for full membership on April 14, 1987 before reaching the final chapter and the
EU-Turkey relations entered a new dimension. After the application for full
membership, the EU adopted a partnership model in its relations with Turkey
rather than full membership, arguing that it would be useful to sustain
relations with this model in the fields of Customs Union, technical area, trade
and industry. In this process, when the decision was taken at Agenda 2000 and
Luxemburg Summits to negotiate with the former Eastern Bloc countries, Turkey
could not even obtain candidacy status. However, Turkey suddenly gained the
status of candidate country with the Helsinki Summit held in 1999. Although the
capture of Abdullah Öcalan in Kenya embassy of Greece, the US pressures and
many other factors such as the 1999 earthquake are stated to be effective in
obtaining the candidacy status, the main factor was the correspondence between
Bülent Ecevit and Gerard Schröder. After obtaining the candidacy status, the
relations between the two parties considerably improved and negotiations
between the EU and Turkey started on October 3, 2005. In this vein, this study
is designed to elaborate on the EU-Turkey relations from the application for
full membership to the process of negotiations. The study is tackled by means
of the Butterfly Effect theory and it will be revealed that simple
correspondence has had a major role in the development of the relations between
the two sides.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Turkey-European Union Relations, Foreignn Policy, Butterfly Effect, Candidacy Process, Negotiations

Türkiye-Avrupa Birliği İlişkilerinde Kelebek Etkisi: Türkiye’nin Adaylık Süreci

Öz

Türkiye-Avrupa
Birliği (AB) ilişkileri başından sonuna kadar sorunlar yaşamıştır. 1963 yılında
imzalanan Ankara Anlaşması ile ilişkiler hukuki bir zemine oturmuş ve bu
anlaşma çerçevesinde ilişkiler devam etmiştir. Ancak 14 Nisan 1987’de dönemin
Başbakanı Turgut Özal, son aşamaya geçmenden tam üyelik başvurusunda bulunmuş
ve ilişkiler farklı bir boyuttan devam etmiştir. Tam üyelik başvurusundan sonra
AB, Türkiye ile ilişkilerinde tam üyelikten çok ortaklık ilişkisi üzerinden
devam etmiş ve Gümrük Birliği, teknik, ticari, sanayi alanlarında ilişkilerin
sürdürülmesinin daha faydalı olacağını söylemiştir. Bu süreçte Gündem 2000 ve
Lüksemburg Zirvelerinde Eski Doğu Bloku ülkeleri ile müzakerelere başlama
kararı alınırken Türkiye adaylık statüsünü bile alamamıştır. Ancak 1999’da
yapılan Helsinki Zirvesi ile Türkiye bir anda aday ülke statüsünü kazanmıştır.
Bu durumla ilgili olarak Abdullah Öcalan’ın Yunanistan’ın Kenya Büyükelçiliğinde
yakalanışı, ABD’nin baskıları, 1999 Depremi gibi birçok unsurun adaylık
statüsünün elde edilmesinde etkisi olduğu söylense de, esas unsur, Bülent
Ecevit ve Gerard Schröder arasındaki mektuplaşmalar olmuştur. Adaylık
statüsünden sonra da iki taraf arasındaki ilişkiler önemli ölçüde gelişmiş ve
Türkiye ile AB arasında 3 Ekim 2005’te müzakereler başlamıştır. Bu anlamda söz
konusu bu çalışma, tam üyelik başvurundan müzakere sürecine kadar Türkiye-AB
ilişkilerini ele alacaktır. Çalışma Kelebek Etkisi Yaklaşımı ile ele alınacak
ve basit bir mektuplaşmanın iki taraf arasındaki ilişkilerinde gelişmesinde
büyük rol oynadığı ileri sürülecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Türkiye-Avrupa Birliği İlişkileri, Dış Politika, Kelebek Etkisi, Adaylık Süreci, Müzakereler

Kaynakça

• Aksu, K. (2012). A historical background to Turkey-Europe relations. Kenan Aksu (ed.), Turkey-EU relations: Power, politics and the future. (ss. 1-18). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Pub.
• Alisoglu, B. (2012) Turkey and EU: What does the society think?. Norderstedt: Grin Verlag.
• Archick, K. (2004). European Union enlargement. CRS Report for Congress. (13), 1-23.
• Arıkan, H. (2006). Turkey and the EU: An awkward candidate for EU membership?. London: Ashgate.
• Ataman, M. (2002). Leadership change: Ozal leadership and restructing in Turkish Foreign Policy. Alternatives: Turkish journal of International Relations (1), 102-153.
• Aybey, A. (2004). Turkey and the European Union relations: A historical assessment. Ankara Review of European Studies. (4), 19-38.
• Bolkestein, F. (2004). The limits of Europe. Tielt: Lannaoo Pub.
• Brooking Institute. (2011). The Arap awakening, America and the transformation of the Middle East, Washington: Brookings Institute Press.
• Commission of the European Communities. (2004). Isues arising from Turkey’s membership perspective. url’si http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/key_documents/2004/isues_paper_eS.pdf.
• Commission of the European Communities. (1989). Commision opinion on Turkey’s request for accesion to the Community. url’si http://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/2005/2/4/4cc1acf8-06b2-40c5-bb1e-bb3d4860e7c1/publishable_eS.pdf.
• Commission of the European Communities. (1998). European strategy for Turkey: the Commision's initial operational proposals communication from the Commision to the Council. COM (98) 124 final. url’si http://aei.pitt.edu/4356/
• Çakır, A. E. (2011). Fifty years of EU-Turkey relations: A sisyphean story. New York: Routledge.
• Danforth, N. (2008). Ideology and pragmatism in Turkish Foreign Policy: From Atatürk to the AKP. Turkish Policy Quarterly. (7), 83-95.
• Dışişleri Bakanlığı. (1997). Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Dışişleri Bakanlığı’nın AB Lüksemburg kararı ile ilgili açıklaması 14 Aralık 1997. url’si http://www.mfa.gov.tr/turkiye-cumhuriyeti-_disisleri-bakanliginin_-ab-luksemburg-karari-ile-ilgili-aciklamasi_-14-aralik-1997.tr.mfa.
• Eralp, A. (2000). Turkey in the enlargement process: From Luxembourg to Helsinki. Private View. (8), 1-9.
• Eur-Lex. (2004). European Parliament resolution on the 2004 regular report and the recommendation of the European Commission on Turkey's progress towards accession (COM(2004)0656 — C6-0148/2004 — 2004/2182(INI)). url’si https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52004IP0096(01):EN:HTML.
• Eur-Lex (2003). Strategy paper and report from the European Commission on the progress towards accession by Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey 2003. url’si http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0676:FIN:EN:PDF.
• European Commission. (1993). European Council in Copenhagen conclusions of the presidency. url’si http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/presData/en/ec/72921.pdf.
• European Commission (1997). Agenda 2000: For a stronger and wider Europe. url’si http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lux1_eS.htm#agenda2000.
• European Commission. (2004). Brussels European Council presidency conclusion. url’si http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/presData/en/ec/83201.pdf.
• European Commission. (1998). Cardiff European Council presidency conclusion. url’si http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/presdata/en/ec/54315.pdf.
• European Commission. (2002). Copenhagen European Council presidency conclusion. url’si http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/presData/en/ec/73842.pdf.
• European Commission. (1998). Regular report from Commision on the Turkey’s progres towards accession.url’si http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/key_documents/1998/turkey_eS.pdf.
• European Commission. (2004). Regular report on Turkey’s progres towards accession. url’si http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/key_documents/2004/rr_tr_2004_eS.pdf.
• European Parliament. (1963). Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey. url’si https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:f8e2f9f4-75c8-4f62-ae3f-b86ca5842eee.0008.02/DOC_2&format=PDF.
• European Parliament. (1997). Luxembourg European Council 12 and 13 December 1997 presidency conclusions. url’si http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lux1_eS.htm#enlarge.
• Faucompret, E. and Konings, J. (2008). Turkish accession to the EU: Satisfying the Copenhagen Criteria. New York: Routledge.
• G7 Information Centre. (1999). Stability pact for South Eastern Europe. url’si http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/summit/1999koln/pact.htm.
• Ghys, E. (2019). The butterfly effect. url’si http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/ghys/articles/butterflyeffect.pdf.
• Harpern, P. (2018). Chaos theory, the butterfly effect, and the computer glitch that started it all. url’si https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/02/13/chaos-theory-the-butterfly-effect-and-the-computer-glitch-that-started-it-all/#45545b6c69f6.
• Hillion, C. (2010). The creeping nationalisation of the EU enlargement policy. Seips Working Paper. (6), 1-62.
• Hong, Z. and Sun, Y. (2000). The butterfly effect and the making Ping pong Diplomacy. Journal of Contemporary China. (9), 429-448.
• Hürriyet. (1999). Tarihi mektuplar. url’si http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/index/ArsivNews.aspx?id=-83722.
• Kabaalioğlu, H. (1999). Turkey and the European Union: Converging or drifting apart?. Marmara Journal of European Studies. (7), 109-166.
• Kirisci, K. (2006). Turkey’s Foreign Policy in turbulent times. Chaillot Paper. (92), 1-112.
• Kissane, D. (2010). Mapping international chaos. Suvremene Teme. (3), 17-27.
• Kramer, H. (1996). The EU-Turkey Customs Union: Economic integration avids political turmoil. Mediterranean Politics. (2), 60-75.
• Kubicek, P. (2001). The earthquake Europe and prospects for Political change in Turkey. MERIA. (5), 34-47.
• Kuniholm, B. (2001). Turkey’s accesion to the European Union: Differences in European and US attitudes and challenges for Turkey. Turkish Studies. (2), 25-53.
• Maresceau, M. (2006). Biliteral agreemnets concluded by the European Community. Boston: Martinus Nuhoff Publishers.
• Martin, N. (2015) Security and the Turkey-EU Accession Process: Norms, Reforms and the Cyprus Issue. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Müftüler Baç, M. (2000). Turkey’s role in the EU’s security and Foreign Policies. Security Dialogue. (31), 489-502.
• Narbone, L. and Tocci, N. (2005). Running around in circles?: The cyclical relationship between Turkey and European Union. CESPI. (9), 1-12.
• Official Gazzette. (2003). National programmes for the adaption of the Acquis 2003. url’si http://www.abgs.gov.tr/index.php?p=196.
• Official Journal of the European Union. (2003). Revised accession partnership document for Turkey, 2003. url’si http://www.abgs.gov.tr/files/AB_Iliskileri/Tur_En_Realitons/Apd/turkey_apd_2008.pdf.
• Official Journal oft he European Communities. (2001). Council decision of 8 March 2001 on the principles, priorities, intermediate objectives and conditions contained in the Accession Partnership with the Republic of Turkey. url’si https://www.ab.gov.tr/files/AB_Iliskileri/Tur_En_Realitons/Apd/Turkey_APD_2001.pdf.
• Onis, Z. (2004). Turgut Ozal and his economic legacy: Turkish Neo-Liberalism in critical perspective. Middle Eastern Studies. (40), 113-134.
• Ramadan, T. (2010). The Arab awekening. London: Penguin Books.
• Rumford, C. (2002). Turkey’s European Union candidature and the issue of democratic reform. Journal of Istanbul Kultur University. (2), 35-46.
• Schattle, H. (2012). Globalisation &Citizenship. London: Littlefield Pub.
• State Planning Organization. (2001). Decision S. 1/93 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council of 8 November 1993. Turkey-European Union Association Council Decisions (1964-2000). Ankara: SPO.
• Strother, S. C. (2016). Butterfly theory of crisis management. A. Farazmand (ed.). Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. (ss. 883-891). Berlin: Springer International Pub.
• Tanlak, P. (2002). Turkey-EU relations in the Post Helsinki phase and the EU harmonisation laws adopted by the Turkish Grand National Assembly in August 2002. SEI Working Paper. (55), 1-18.
• Usul, A. R. (2011). Democracy in Turkey: The impact of EU conditionality. New York: Routledge.