Tweet
Austrian defense expert argues against Turkey's EU membership
Kurier, Vienna
5 Oct 04
The issue of Turkey's EU membership has now entered the intensive
phase of the debate. Irrespective of any arguments for or against, it
is somehow regarded as a fact that Turkey joining the EU will be of
considerable advantage in security-policy and strategic terms.
Turkey's geostrategic position and large armed forces, the argument
goes, give the European Union greater influence and security
benefits. This argument is entirely inappropriate. The opposite is
true. A NATO member, Turkey is firmly integrated in the Euro-Atlantic
security system. There is no need to act out of security policy
concerns.
Let us look at Turkey's geostrategic position. Turkey shares borders
with Georgia, Armenia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, among others. Relations
with these countries may be called problematic. Turkey has no respect
for minority rights, although it is a country with considerable
minorities. Because of its strategic partnership with Israel and/or
the strategic triangle with the United States and Israel, Turkey is
not only a player in the Middle East, but it is directly and
indirectly involved in Mideast problems. The European Union would have
external borders with Iraq and Iran, thus becoming a frontline state
in the largest crisis region in the world.
As a result, the European Union would not, as it hopes, reach the
status of objective mediator in the Middle East as a result of
Turkey's membership, but become itself part of the Middle East
problems. Turkey is confronted to a great extent with problems of
transnational terrorism and organized crime and would bring these
problems into the EU. On top of this, Turkey is a kind of "natural"
competitor of Russia when it comes to influencing the Caucasus and, in
particular, Central Asia. Its accession would contribute nothing at
all to the EU in security policy terms, if the European Union wants to
develop its own security policy profile alongside NATO.
[Passage omitted]
Kurier, Vienna
5 Oct 04
The issue of Turkey's EU membership has now entered the intensive
phase of the debate. Irrespective of any arguments for or against, it
is somehow regarded as a fact that Turkey joining the EU will be of
considerable advantage in security-policy and strategic terms.
Turkey's geostrategic position and large armed forces, the argument
goes, give the European Union greater influence and security
benefits. This argument is entirely inappropriate. The opposite is
true. A NATO member, Turkey is firmly integrated in the Euro-Atlantic
security system. There is no need to act out of security policy
concerns.
Let us look at Turkey's geostrategic position. Turkey shares borders
with Georgia, Armenia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, among others. Relations
with these countries may be called problematic. Turkey has no respect
for minority rights, although it is a country with considerable
minorities. Because of its strategic partnership with Israel and/or
the strategic triangle with the United States and Israel, Turkey is
not only a player in the Middle East, but it is directly and
indirectly involved in Mideast problems. The European Union would have
external borders with Iraq and Iran, thus becoming a frontline state
in the largest crisis region in the world.
As a result, the European Union would not, as it hopes, reach the
status of objective mediator in the Middle East as a result of
Turkey's membership, but become itself part of the Middle East
problems. Turkey is confronted to a great extent with problems of
transnational terrorism and organized crime and would bring these
problems into the EU. On top of this, Turkey is a kind of "natural"
competitor of Russia when it comes to influencing the Caucasus and, in
particular, Central Asia. Its accession would contribute nothing at
all to the EU in security policy terms, if the European Union wants to
develop its own security policy profile alongside NATO.
[Passage omitted]