Table Of ContentDiscourse, iDentity anD the Question of
turkish accession to the eu
For Martha, Gabriel and Daniel MacMillan
Discourse, identity and the
Question of turkish accession
to the eu
through the Looking Glass
catherine MacMiLLan
Yeditepe University, Turkey
© catherine MacMillan 2013
all rights reserved. no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.
catherine MacMillan has asserted her right under the copyright, Designs and Patents act,
1988, to be identified as the author of this work.
Published by
ashgate Publishing Limited ashgate Publishing company
Wey court east 110 cherry street
union road suite 3-1
farnham Burlington, Vt 05401-3818
surrey, Gu9 7Pt usa
england
www.ashgate.com
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
a catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
The Library of Congress has cataloged the printed edition as follows:
Macmillan, catherine, author.
Discourse, identity and the question of turkish accession to the eu : through the looking
glass / by catherine MacMillan.
pages cm
includes bibliographical references and index.
isBn 978-1-4094-5559-2 (hardback) – isBn 978-1-4094-5560-8 (ebook) – isBn 978-1-
4724-0743-6 (epub) 1. european union–turkey–Membership. i. title.
hc241.25.t9M32 2013
341.242'209561–dc23
2013005981
isBn 9781409455592 (hbk)
isBn 9781409455608 (ebk-PDf)
isBn 9781472407436 (ebk-ePuB)
IV
Contents
Acknowledgements vii
Introduction 1
1 The Construction of Self and Other: A Conceptual Framework 7
2 Images of the Turk in Europe: A Historical Overview 29
3 Constitutional Patriots or Inhabitants of ‘Fortress Europe’?
Public Attitudes to Europe, the EU and Turkish Accession 49
4 A Deliberative Approach to EU Enlargement: The Case of
Turkish Accession 71
5 The Application of Foreign Policy Discourse Analysis to
British, French and Turkish Discourse on Turkish Accession
to the EU 111
Conclusion 151
Bibliography 155
Index 181
This page has been left blank intentionally
Acknowledgements
This book would not have been possible without many discussions with friends and
colleagues at different stages in its preparation, including Dr Adriana Raducanu and
other colleagues at Yeditepe University, Dr. Armağan Emre Çakır and participants
at the various conferences where the ideas of this book were presented, especially
the Workshop on Europe and Islam at the 13th Mediterranean Research Meeting at
Montecatini Terme in March 2013. Other friends and colleagues whose work over
the years has been a particular inspiration for this book include Professor Nedret
Kuran-Burçoğlu, Dr. Çiğdem Nas and Dr. Selcen Öner.
I also wish to thank the staff at Ashgate for their support of the project and for
all their hard work, in particular Social Sciences editor Rob Sorsby. Thanks are
also due to the anonymous reviewer who suggested chapter 2 of this book. I would
also like to thank the editors of the Journal of Contemporary European Studies,
and Dr. Clara Sarmento who edited articles where some of the ideas included in
this book were first developed.
Although there are too many of them to thank individually, I also wish to thank
all those friends and colleagues who have provided much needed moral support
during the writing of this book. Special thanks are due to my family, in particular
to my parents Ian and Susanne MacMillan, for their support over the years and
their enthusiasm for this project.
Istanbul, December 2012
This page has been left blank intentionally
Introduction
Turkey’s accession process, the longest in the history of the European Union (EU),
has been likened to the myth of Sisyphus, condemned to the torture of repeatedly
rolling a boulder up a hill only to watch it roll back down again (Çakır 2011:
166). Despite making its first application for associate membership in 1959,
Turkey remains in the waiting room for accession, although in the meantime
at least 21 other countries have ‘jumped the queue’ for membership. In this
context, Paul describes Turkey’s accession process as ‘a story of misperceptions,
misunderstandings, prejudices, and irrational expectations’ (Paul 2012: 25).
According to the 1963 Ankara Agreement signed between Turkey and the EU,
a customs union would be set up in three stages: a preparatory stage, a transitional
stage and a final stage (Yılmaz 2009: 2). The Ankara agreement was potentially
seen as a step towards full membership: in fact, both the preamble and article 28
of this agreement clearly mention the prospect of Turkey eventually becoming a
member of the European Community (EC), although no commitment is made in
this respect (Diez 2011: 170). In this context, Turkey’s intention to accede to the
European Economic Community (EEC) at an unspecified later date was officially
recognised, with then Commission President Walter Hallstein declaring that
‘Turkey is part of Europe’ (Dorronsoro 2004: 49).
The Turkish military coup of 12 September 1980 naturally postponed both
the development of the customs union and Turkey’s bid for full membership still
further. In effect, European Community (EC)–Turkey relations were frozen1. The
military regime in Turkey lasted for two years, during which the political system
was completely redesigned, curbing freedom of speech and political participation
(Yılmaz 2009: 3). This regime formally ended in November 1983, when elections
took place and a new civilian government led by Turgut Özal was elected.
Following the restoration of democracy, the EC’s suspension of its relations
with Turkey, which had come into force in January 1982, was eventually lifted
in September 1986 when the EC-Turkey Association Council resumed meetings
(Yılmaz 2009: 3).
In 1987, following the reestablishment of relations with the EC, Turkey
submitted another application for full membership. While only Greece opposed
Turkish accession from the outset (Sümer 2009: 127), its application was eventually
1 Other factors which contributed to delaying the implementation of the Ankara
Agreement include Greece’s veto of a financial aid packet of 600 ECU and the German
government’s blocking of the provisions of the Agreement related to the free movement of
persons (Sümer 2009 :126).
