They pushed for EU membership when their economy was in shambles. It seemed like an economic necessity for which they were (sort of) willing to make changes.
The opinions within the EU itself were always diverse, but what counted is that Turkey was a strategic and economic asset. Moreover it was a place where the EU could 'do good' with their superior moral values (sarcasm intended).
The first contribution of the EU was to keep the AKP in power. Every previous Islamic party was either outlawed of removed from power by the military. Both the army and the supreme court decided against that, because that would mean Turkey would never join the EU (which they needed at that time).
Turkey dragged its feet in making changes, likely because they were not so convinced the EU has superior morality. Meanwhile Turkey rebounded economically and the role within the region grew. It also saw Romania a Bulgaria admitted into the EU while these countries did not even live up to the economic demands of joining.
When Erdogan took full control, several things happened. Corruption went rampant and civil liberties were restricted. The country is being islamized. These things led to the Gezi Park protests and a diminished confidence from investors. Funny thing is that the more progressive part of the population only now starts to realize that EU membership could result in better civil rights.
Meanwhile the EU keeps broadcasting mixed signals. They criticized Erdogan but let him get away with attacking and lying to him own people. France and Sweden are among the strongest advocates of Turkish membership. Sweden has the strongest civil rights tradition and France has the strongest separation of church and state. The idea still seems to be: "when they come into contact with our superior standards, they will change accordingly".
My opinion? That is an arrogant thought and it will not work. It did not work for immigration waves and it certainly won't work for 75 million Turks. The EU will not change Turkey, but Turkey will change the EU.
Thanks, you wrote a couple of interesting comments.
As a Swede, I think you shouldn't try to apply logic to Sweden's position. Most [foreign] policy are decided because of economic interests and/or internal Swedish (politically correct) politics.
And about changing a society -- it takes a few generations to modernize. But it has to come. Sure, it might be harder for muslim countries (e.g. there is no real demand to execute people leaving the religion in Christianity!). Since a liberal and open society seems to be needed to e.g. get rid of corruption. With rampant corruption you just have, well, a pile of shit (see Romania and Bulgaria, which you mentioned; I work in Romania right now).
The previous paragraph is, I believe, the thinking in West Europe. I tend to agree. China is the obvious counter argument to this position, we'll see where they end up when the Chinese GNP/capita gets closer to a rich country.
The EU commission (which is the unelected organisation that actually decides) simply wants power, so if Turkey wants to join and play Trojan horse, they will certainly let them.
Because of this, and regardless of the Turkey issue, can we please stop referrring to Europa, or the European Union as "democratic" ? It's not. Let's just stop pretending.
> The EU commission (which is the unelected organisation
What are you talking about? It's elected, maybe not by the people directly, but by their (elected) representatives. That's the same as saying that the US president isn't elected, because s/he isn't elected directly by the population.
In practice, the US president is directly elected by the population. Every state has a law declaring that their electors (the representatives that really 'elect' the president) will follow the majority vote counted within that state.
Granted, if you look at wikipedia it'll say its an indirect system, but that's only a technicality.
Ok, then I was wrong. I've previously heard that in theory, the electors could change their mind, so that's why the parties only nominated their most senior, most trusted members for electors.
Euhm no. The distance between the commissars and elected officials is much bigger.
They're appointed by vote by foreign ministers of the member states (as a group, they can't include or exclude individuals), who are elected as a group (again, no apointing individuals) by the local parliaments. By that standard, the new CEO of Microsoft is an elected official. Also note that most European commissars are not appointed by the current governments of the member states.
As if that's not bad enough, why don't you look at the results of European referenda, how the people voted on the creation of Europe in the one instance they were asked.
The European Parliament has neither serious power nor a mandate. Most voters don't bother to show up. It's a circus act, not a congress of people's representatives.
In fact, it's very existence doesn't have a mandate. We never agreed to surrender our national sovereignty to a European government.
When the people in my country where asked in the only major referendum ever held in our history, our answer was a loud and clear "no". The EU has zero democratic legitimacy.
Forgive me for calling out your comment shallow. As a former Turkish resident, I did try and make an effort in reading up and understanding about Turkey.
While it is not fair to say I have no idea about Turkish history, I might have missed the mark. Please feel free to correct me, I can take criticism. I take it better than an offhand remark that I am clueless.
The thing is I am sick and tired of correcting simple mistakes. Basically almost all your comments requires at least a paragraph of explanation - correction - counter arguments, and to be honest I don't think there is a point of doing it.
It's not about you, only just couldn't hold myself, sorry about non constructive reply.
I know in 1974 Turkey invaded a European country and is still holding its land. Now you will say it was a peace keeping operation which might not be true but in case it is, its 2014, and Turkish military is still occupying the land of another country. An EU country which obviously veto's its accession to the EU.
When I said shallow, I exactly meant comments like this. What was the circumstances? How about 1974 Cypriot coup d'état by EOKA-B by the support of Greek military Junta? Nikos Samson's nice words about joining homeland? Death of hundreds of civilians? Sorry but nothing is as simple as it seems.
They pushed for EU membership when their economy was in shambles. It seemed like an economic necessity for which they were (sort of) willing to make changes.
The opinions within the EU itself were always diverse, but what counted is that Turkey was a strategic and economic asset. Moreover it was a place where the EU could 'do good' with their superior moral values (sarcasm intended).
The first contribution of the EU was to keep the AKP in power. Every previous Islamic party was either outlawed of removed from power by the military. Both the army and the supreme court decided against that, because that would mean Turkey would never join the EU (which they needed at that time).
Turkey dragged its feet in making changes, likely because they were not so convinced the EU has superior morality. Meanwhile Turkey rebounded economically and the role within the region grew. It also saw Romania a Bulgaria admitted into the EU while these countries did not even live up to the economic demands of joining.
When Erdogan took full control, several things happened. Corruption went rampant and civil liberties were restricted. The country is being islamized. These things led to the Gezi Park protests and a diminished confidence from investors. Funny thing is that the more progressive part of the population only now starts to realize that EU membership could result in better civil rights.
Meanwhile the EU keeps broadcasting mixed signals. They criticized Erdogan but let him get away with attacking and lying to him own people. France and Sweden are among the strongest advocates of Turkish membership. Sweden has the strongest civil rights tradition and France has the strongest separation of church and state. The idea still seems to be: "when they come into contact with our superior standards, they will change accordingly".
My opinion? That is an arrogant thought and it will not work. It did not work for immigration waves and it certainly won't work for 75 million Turks. The EU will not change Turkey, but Turkey will change the EU.