Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘identity’

Excerpt from Ziya Onis (2009) “Contesting for the ‘Center’: Domestic Politics, Identity Conflicts and The Controversy over EU Membership in Turkey”, Bilgi University European Institute Working Paper No: 2 EU/2/2010, [online]: http://eu.bilgi.edu.tr/docs/working%20paper2_101209.pdf

The current constitutional crisis in the EU may ironically create an opportunity space for Turkey. Clearly what is at stake in the constitutional debate is the future direction of the European project. If the outcome of the constitutional crisis is the development of the EU more in the direction of what Jan Zielonka calls a loosely structured “medieval empire”, which is broadly consistent with the British vision rather than the kind of deep integration project favored by the French, this will naturally embody very significant implications for the future place of Turkey in the European context. If the future path of the EU involves a British style integration process of a relatively loose, intergovernmental Europe with relatively flexible boundaries which allows significant scope for national autonomy, the prospects for Turkish accession will be considerably improved. In contrast, if the dominant style of integration is based on the French project of deep integration- the idea of Europe as a “place” with fixed boundaries as opposed to a flexible “space”-the natural inclination will be to include Turkey as an “important outsider” rather than a “natural insider” in a special partnership style arrangement. Our interpretation of the current constitutional impasse in Europe having reached a peak with the negative vote in Irish referendum of June 2008 is that the dominant tendency in the foreseeable future is likely to be the first scenario of flexible integration which clearly constitutes a development in Turkey’s favor.

What we increasingly observe in the current era is the emergence of an implicit broad and mutually reinforcing coalition for “special partnership”, which seems to be deeply rooted, but for rather different reasons, both in the European and Turkish contexts. This constitutes a significant danger from the point of Turkey’s full-membership prospects. The proponents of Turkish membership both at home and abroad appear to be increasingly less vocal and enthusiastic compared to their Turko-skeptic and Euro-skeptic counterparts. The retreat to “loose Europeanization” certainly does not signify the abandonment of the Europeanization project altogether. What it means, however, is that the EU will no longer be at the center-stage of Turkey’s external relations or foreign policy efforts. This, in turn, is likely to have dramatic repercussions for the depth and intensity of the democratization process in Turkey especially in key areas such as a complete reordering of military-civilian relations, an extension of minority rights and a democratic solution to the Kurdish problem, as well as counteracting the deeply embedded problem of gender inequality. There exist key elements within the Turkish state and Turkish society, which would be quite content with the loose Europeanization solution given the perceived threats posed by a combination of deep Europeanization and deep democratization for national sovereignty and political stability. The fears of deep Europeanization are not simply confined to the defensive nationalist camp. There also exists considerable conservatism even in the much more globally oriented AKP circles, when it comes to deep democratization agenda, as it is clearly evident from the resistance to the repealing of the article 301 of the penal code.

A final question to raise in this context is whether the drift towards loose Europeanization is likely to be reversed. The likelihood of a major reversal in the immediate term appears to be rather low. From a longer-term perspective, two possibly mutually reinforcing developments may facilitate a renewed impetus to the deep Europeanization agenda. The first element of such a scenario would involve a new enlargement wave in Europe, which would incorporate the Balkans and Eastern Europe. Turkey as a country, which has already reached the point of accession negotiations will not be immune to such a process. The second element of such a scenario would involve the emergence of a strong counter-movement from the more liberal and Western-oriented segments of the Turkish society, who will place Europeanization and reform firmly on its political agenda.

Read Full Post »

[Excerpt from Vamik D. Volkan (2008), “Trauma, Identity and Search for a Solution in Cyprus”, Insight Turkey, vol. 10, no.4, pp. 95-110]

Historical developments after the summer of 1974 have continued to trauma­tize Cypriot Turks in a slow and often unrecognized fashion. A world opinion ac­cepting the Cypriot Greeks as victims and the Cypriot Turks (or Turks in general) as aggressors has been established. Although this was perhaps due to the failure of Turkish diplomacy, psychologically speaking it might also be due to the West­ern World’s stereotypical perceptions of Turks as the heirs to the Ottomans, who were the enemies of the West. Whatever the cause, the Greek side of the island was recognized legally as a state by all nations, except Turkey, while only Turkey accepted the Turkish side as a legal entity. This reality created an invisible enclave for the Cypriot Turks.

Cypriot Greeks managed to convince international organizations to impose severe embargoes on the Cypriot Turks. Accordingly, trading directly with foreign countries became impossible, and travel documents issued to the Cypriot Turks by the northern Cypriot Turkish authorities were not recognized by the international community. No direct flights to the Turkish side of the island were permitted, and mail to and from the Turkish side could only travel through Turkey. Cypriot Turks were not allowed to compete in sports in foreign countries (except in Turkey.)… After living in actual enclaves for eleven years [between 1963-1974], the Cypriot Turks from 1974 to the present time have continued to live in an invisible enclave.­

Official diplomacy makes little room for noticing and caring about emotions. The people in international organizations do not even consider feel­ing ashamed about treating the Cypriot Turks as second-class world citizens for decades while accepting the Greeks in the south of the island as regular human beings…

The results of my interviews surprised me. All of the young people I interviewed seemed unaware of their ancestors’ recent history. I also learned that, since the opening of the borders between the Greek and Turkish sides after the Greek side became a member of the European Union, more than 250 Turkish Cypriot families began sending their children to secondary or higher schools on the Greek side where no lessons are given on the massive and chronic Cypriot Turkish trauma. I was also informed that 10-20 Cypriot Turkish children are also attending Cypriot Greek elementary schools. The Cypriot Turkish parents’ justification for sending their children to schools on the Cypriot Greek side is their perception that the Cypriot Turkish schools are inferior to the schools in the south, which are part of the EU system. Some parents were aware that their children might experience humili­ations after crossing the border to the Cypriot Greek side, but in spite of this they continued to send them there…

How did the younger generation of Cypriot Turks – again I am generalizing here – begin to “forget” the history and the dramatic nature of their recent ances­tors’ experience? First, let me suggest that strong external pressure and political propaganda have played a significant role in the denial and repression of the mas­sive trauma of their ancestors…

For some time now, especially after the failure of the Annan Plan, Americans and other foreigners who are assigned the task of finding a solution for the “Cy­prus problem” have become more and more aware that the “logical solution” of creating “Cypriotism” described above is only an illusion. The present focus seems to be on a more realistic strategy to find a way for Cypriot Greeks and Cypriot Turks to hold on to their national identities while living side by side. Neverthe­less, the influence of the long-lasting illusionary strategy to get rid of the “Cyprus problem” through an emphasis on “Cypriotism” has had an impact on the Cy­priot Turks who were hungry for a legal identity that would not be humiliating. It helped to create identity confusion among the Cypriot Turks, especially the younger generation, which Cypriot Greeks were spared.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 589 other followers

%d bloggers like this: