Next week’s summit of European Union leaders faces an important choice on Turkey. Should the EU toughen existing measures that are holding up Turkey’s EU accession talks, because of Ankara’s refusal to open its ports and airports to Greek Cypriot traffic? Or should the EU recognise that this would send completely the wrong message, just when Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders are trying to reach a comprehensive settlement of the long-standing Cyprus dispute?
Precisely because the EU is divided on the Turkish question – the Greek Cypriot-run government of Cyprus wants a strong line, and other countries are split between supporters and opponents of Turkey’s entry into the EU – it seems unlikely that a consensus can be reached in favour of placing additional obstacles in the path of Turkey’s negotiations.
But the fact that Turkey’s membership prospects are being framed in these terms is a bad sign in itself. It is draining public support in Turkey for joining the EU. It is encouraging the ruling Justice and Development party to pursue its policy of broadening Turkey’s foreign policy horizons beyond Europe and beyond the Nato alliance - to the Middle East, the Caucasus, Russia and central Asia.
That, of course, is by no means a bad thing. Turkey’s revived engagement with its non-European neighbours, and its mediation in disputes such as that between Israel and Syria, are positive developments.
But an analysis written by Amanda Akcakoca of the European Policy Centre think-tank sums up the other side of the picture nicely. “The old notion that Turkey is a country linked exclusively to the West has been set aside. The common vital interests that tied Ankara and Washington together during the Cold War have significantly weakened, and Turkey will no longer toe the US foreign policy line when this goes against its own strategic interests. Neither will it feel obliged to align itself to every EU foreign policy action or statement as long as Brussels persists in its ambiguous attitude towards Turkey’s eventual membership,” she writes.
One can agree with all of this – except perhaps the notion that it is “Brussels” that has an ambiguous attitude. Actually, it is the inability of the EU’s 27 governments to form a common position on Turkey that is the heart of the problem. The EU’s Lisbon treaty is meant to strengthen the EU’s common foreign policy and help the EU project its influence more convincingly around the world. No policy issue will be more important than the Turkey dossier in demonstrating whether these fine aspirations are just hot air.
Across the globe: Gideon Rachman and his FT colleagues debate international affairs on