Can Baydarol
In my last article entitled Comparison, I attempted to compare the conditions of the economic crisis we experienced in the early 2000s with those of the economic crisis we are currently experiencing, emphasising that the conditions are not the same. To briefly recap, the financial crisis that began with the late President Ahmet Necdet Sezer throwing the constitution booklet at the late Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit was overcome, albeit not entirely willingly, thanks to reforms implemented with the inclusion of the late Kemal Derviş, then Vice President of the World Bank, as the fourth partner in the system (DSP-ANAP-MHP) as its fourth partner, the crisis was overcome, albeit reluctantly, through the reforms that were implemented. The Derviş reforms, particularly in the banking sector, were revolutionary in nature. These reforms, which we refer to as structural reforms, along with other building blocks that brought autonomy to the economy, paved the way for Turkey’s emergence from the crisis. However, it would be an incomplete narrative to attribute the way out solely to the Derviş reforms. Turkey also had a very important story during the process leading up to the 2 November 2002 elections: the story of full membership in the EU. This story was essentially seen as a guarantee that, regardless of who came to power in Turkey on the path to the EU, there would be no deviation from a state structure respectful of democracy and the rule of law. Thanks to this perception, the early years of the AKP government would go down in history as a success story.
Before moving on to the question ‘What about now?’, it seems essential to provide a brief overview of the international context.
Let’s go back to the early 2000s and briefly look at the Turkey-EU negotiation framework document of 3 October 2004. We can conclude that the EU was not very keen on making Turkey a full member, but that, on the other hand, a significant majority within the European Parliament, for example, viewed Turkey’s membership positively. The negotiation framework document briefly stated that the negotiations were open-ended and that even if Turkey did not become a full member, it absolutely had to anchor itself in the EU harbour. Although somewhat disappointing, the EU’s goal was clear, and negotiations began on 3 October 2004 as previously promised. (In fact, the actual start date of the negotiations should be recorded as 4 October. The final decision was to be made at 01:00 on 4 October 2004, and 25 hours would pass before the promise was kept that day.)
We then witnessed the negative interventions of Sarkozy’s France and Merkel’s Germany in the process. Both heads of state declared their intention that ‘as long as we are here, Turkey cannot become a full member!’ France even went so far as to amend its constitution, bringing to the fore the fact that a referendum would henceforth be held on full EU membership. These developments, on the one hand, led to the erosion of Turkey’s belief in the process and, on the other hand, brought about the erosion of the guarantees we mentioned at the beginning regarding full membership, namely the guarantees of ‘democracy and the rule of law’. Unfortunately, the approach of ‘If there are no 1993 Copenhagen criteria, there are Ankara criteria!’ would not prevent the erosion of guarantees.
There is much to say about the process, but let us come to the present day.
We must emphasise that the global conditions at the beginning of the 2000s are not the same as today’s global conditions, and that the current perception of Turkey is also very different. While there was still the goal and excitement of achieving ‘political union’ on the EU front, today that goal is gradually being forgotten. The Copenhagen political criteria and EU values have been severely damaged. In practice, Turkey’s status has been reduced from candidate membership to good neighbourly relations. The EU as a whole has no response to the new world disorder caused by the objectives of the US and Israel.
What about us?
In this state of disorder, it is a fact that our importance in terms of real politics has increased. It is a fact that the Russia-Ukraine war will not end easily. It is also understood that the Israel-Hamas war will not end in the foreseeable future. Both wars bring risks and advantages for our country. Turkey is becoming very important for the security of energy transit routes, the security of the supply chain and, ultimately, the military security of Europe. But does this importance bring with it the concept of sustainability, which forms the title of this article?
The uncertainties we experience in domestic politics, combined with the uncertainties brought about by events outside our borders, present us with a tangle of problems that is almost impossible to untangle.
Under the current conditions, how possible is it to break out of this vicious cycle without writing a new story for the sustainability of the economy and politics?
There is an old saying: ‘We are riding a sign, heading for the apocalypse!’ While I do not wish to say that, it is clear that the situation is not very encouraging.
If you still have the strength, I hope you will not lose heart…
CHP: Republican People’s Party
AKP: Justice and Development Party
MHP: Nationalist Movement Party
DSP: Democratic Left Party
ANAP: Motherland Party