The Turkish EU question and the case of Greece
by Emiliano Alessandri
It is tempting to look at the trajectories of Greece and Turkey - two neighbours bound by a history of competition - and conclude that gaining European Union membership hurt Greece as much as not gaining it helped Turkey. Greece entered the European community in 1981 and joined the euro after the Maastricht Treaty. It is now Europe's weakest economy, and it might not be able to keep the common currency. Turkey, on the other hand, has sought and been denied EU membership since the 1960s, but its economy is now more dynamic than most in Europe. And its profile as a regional actor has risen in recent years while the EU's is said to be declining.
But while it appears possible to argue that EU membership ruined Greece and non-membership saved Turkey, this conclusion is as incorrect as it is intriguing. Above all, it fails to provide a reliable narrative to guide future international decisions. In truth, both countries need more involvement with Europe, now probably more than ever. International stakeholders should therefore be careful about insinuating - as some political forces in both countries have done - that the future may be brighter without the EU.
Greece's early accession to the EU and the euro induced a relaxed attitude toward further reform. But its failures would likely have been much bigger had it never attained EU membership. Reforms in the 1990s helped reduce Greece's oversized state, showing the transformative potential of integration. Greece also attained some economic diversification thanks to EU-driven reforms. Many forget that issues that concern Turkey - including its identity as a western state - were just as relevant for Greece until its EU accession; a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation member since 1952, like Turkey, Greece was cut across divisions between Orthodox 'traditionalists' and westernisers during the Cold War.
A sovereignty-conscious country in an unstable region, Greece maintained high defence budgets despite de-securitisation through Europeanisation - Greek-Turkish tensions attenuated as both got closer to the EU. That bloated its debt and mitigated efforts to downsize its public sector. But Greece's military expenditures would have been higher had it been denied the full benefits of the European peace. In short, EU integration brought advantages. Although, it is painfully clear that they were not enough.
Now Greece needs the European project more than ever. The country's difficulties are only partly related to the recent EU-imposed austerity. The deeper cause remains problems with Greek competitiveness that European integration may help solve. In contrast to the arguments of Greek nationalists, it is the European project's weakness - not its overbearing presence - that has cost Greece dearly. By the same token, Greece's exit from the common currency would be as much a failure for Greeks as a defeat for the EU as a transformative agent. It is, therefore, encouraging that under dire circumstances the Greek people voted for the European project last month and that, despite bilateral divergences, German leaders have been outspoken about the need to keep Greece in.
On the other side of the Aegean, Ankara seems to be looking at the unfolding Greek tragedy with the relief of those who missed a ship that sank. There is some truth to the notion that the promise of EU membership meant that Turks have worked harder than some of their neighbours to keep their economy competitive. But this is also implicit recognition that the EU perspective worked. The customs union with the EU in the mid-1990s triggered reforms that were followed by those undertaken to start accession talks that moved Turkey toward democratisation. In fact, democratic consolidation has become less clear a prospect after the most recent stalemate on EU accession. Tendencies that had characterised the Kemalist era - such as centralisation and tutelage - have resurfaced in the current situation of protracted political stability without the external pressure coming from EU engagement.
As counterintuitive as it may seem at a time of Turkey's rise and the EU's decline, the so-called New Turkey remains an experiment that requires Europe for its fulfilment. As Ankara aspires to Middle Eastern leadership, its history of western engagement should remind it of the difficulties it will have in dealing with a turbulent Arab world. Despite growing diversification, Turkey is and will remain a part of the larger European economy. Turkey also has a clear interest in the stability, democratisation and economic integration of south eastern Europe, from the Balkans to the Caucasus, which is taking place through Europeanisation.
Turkish reformers should, therefore, take advantage of the European crisis and the fluidity of EU balances to provide positive inputs to debates on the union's future - a discussion on which Turkey's future still depends. As big as they have been, the EU's recent failures should not lead to questions about the necessity of the European project. Rather, they should spur a serious discussion on what type of EU governance and leadership European countries need. Instead of feeding Euroscepticism, the contrasting tales of Greece and Turkey should remind leaders in both countries and in the EU of the lasting relevance of a common European future.
Emiliano Alessandri is a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States think-tank, which originally published this paper as part of its Transatlantic Take series
The demonstrators in Turkey are of different political backgrounds, lifestyles, and identities and have displayed an untypical level of tolerance that could have far-reaching consequences, write Emiliano Alessandri and Özgür Ünlühisarcıklı
Has this article been written in a vacuum? Greece is not a fair player in the region and has absolutely no spirit of cooperation with its neighbours. It always wants to be part of the club, but wants to exclude other countries with which it has political, bilateral disputes.
Greece wants to exclude Turkey from the EU over the Cyprus issue, just as it wants to exclude the Republic of Macedonia over that country's legitimate constitutional name. Greeks deny the existence of a Macedonian people and nation.
The Greek-American lobby in the United States works daily to block both countries from European integration. It doesn't even want the US to build a special relationship with Turkey. Greece is the spoiled baby of Europe, wanting all kinds of help and support for itself, but denying the development and destiny of its neighbors.
James - Dearborn, Michigan
To James - Dearbor, MI. It is you, who are in a vacuum about the events regarding Greece and its neighbours. Greece always had a policy of helping Turkey into the EU. The reason for this was by bringing Turkey into the EU, Turkey would be obligated by EU and international rules to stop acting provacatively in the Aegean - military overflights of islands, denial of EEZ rights etc. And also to respect the international rules with respect to the sovereignty of Cyprus, quite the opposite of what you stated. It was, therefore, in Greece's favour to promote Turkey's accesion to the EU.
With repsect to FYR Macedonia, it was clearly stated by NATO in the 2008 Bucharest summit that FYROM would be allowed into the alliance when a solution to the dispute with Greece was reached. Greece made a huge compromise at the time by allowing the use of 'Macedonia' with a qualifier like 'New' or 'North', going against its previous policy of no use of the term 'Macedonia' for FYROM. Did FYROM compromise?
No. In fact, the revisionist and irridentist behavior against Greece only increased. Why would NATO or any other organisation, want a country that behaves in this manner toward a member of its alliance; an alliance that the offending country is trying to join. It is in Greece's favour to promote the development of its neighbours and, I believe, has substantial trade relations with both Turkey and FYROM. But it cannot do so at its own expense by turning a blind eye to these flagrant provacations.
AHamilton - Chicago
AHamilton - Chicago: Who is offending who? On December 5, 2011, the International Court of Justice at The Hague by a 15 to 1 verdict ruled that Greece breached the 1995 Interim accord with Macedonia by blocking/obstructing Macedonia's accession to NATO at the 2008 Bucharest Summit. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Incidentally, the sole dissenting judge was Greek, who should have recused himself from the case. Are the Greeks above the rule of law and the international agreements that they sign?
As for Greece's supposedly huge compromise, Greece already accepted the term "Macedonia" from the very outset for the new country, under the appellation "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Greeks have simply gone on to use the insulting term "FYROM" in order to bury the Macedonia component to the name and hoodwink people.
The whole "irredentist" criticism is nothing but a red herring constantly employed by Greece in order to distract from Greece's ongoing non-recognition of its large Macedonian minority. If the Greeks pretend this to be true, then how do they think Macedonia, with one-fifth the population of Greece and a tiny military, expects to accomplish this?? Absurdity in the extreme.
And who are the modern Greeks? Do they have any direct genealogical lineage from the ancient Greeks? None at all. Modern Greeks are an ethnic blend of Albanians - or, "Arvanites", Vlahs, Slavs and Turkic-Christian settlers from Asia Minor who came to Greece during the population exchanges of the 1920s. Many Greek national heroes from the War of Independence, and subsequent prime ministers, were Albanian.
As for Turkey, Greek diaspora and advocacy websites are all against Turkey joining the EU, and try to discredit the country in every possible way. So your comment that "Greece always had a policy of helping Turkey into the EU" is completely false. Again, Greece tries to manipulate its position within organisations to which it belongs in order to obstruct countries with which it has political, bilateral disputes. This is immoral in the extreme.
James - Dearborn, Michigan
@ James:
Let me get this: The 'Macedonians' who speak a Slavic language not heard in the time of ancient Macedonia, and whose identity first became 'Macedonian' in the 20th century are genetically pure, but the Greeks, who speak a language directly descendant from the language of ancient Macedonia, Sparta, and Athens, and who fought the invading Nazis 70 years ago as they fought the invading Persians, are the ones who need to prove their identity? Your pathetic attempt is without merit. And as for Turkey, she has gotten away with ethnic cleansing on Cyprus for too long, and UN resolutions are overdue for implementation. Neither Turkey, nor the Former Yugoslav Republic north of Greece, are suitable for European Union membership.
Leonardo - Toronto
@ Leonardo - Oh really? Macedonian identity came into being in the 20th century? In 1903, the Macedonians fought a rebellion against Ottoman rule called the Ilinden Uprising, does this mean that the Macedonian people appeared overnight?
For centuries, Macedonians have been a subjugated people, first under the Ottomans then under the Greeks, Serbians and Bulgarians after the Balkan Wars of 1912-13. It is only since 1991 that the Macedonians have finally enjoyed an independent state, which is anathema to the Greeks.
Greece's pathetic, asinine denial of Macedonian identity and nationhood is a moral outrage. And, yes, it is fair game to question and discuss the ethnic identity of the modern Greeks - this is something the Greeks strenuously try to avoid in order to perpetuate the myth of direct descent from the ancient Greeks. At the time of Greek independence, Athens was a predominantly Turkish and Albanian settlement, and the majority of the Peloponnese was Albanian.
And speaking of "ethnic cleansing", that is precisely what Greece has been doing to the Macedonians within Greece since 1913: forced assimilation, changing of toponyms from Macedonian to Greek ones, expulsions, imprisonment etc. This is all documented fact.
James - Dearborn, Michigan
James, the minority ethnic Slavs of the region undoubtedly suffered like all ethnic groups during the Balkan wars, and assimilation happened. But please don't equate that with Turkey's violent occupation in 1974 - where 6,000 Cypriots were killed, women were raped, and children buried alive as NATO member Turkey expelled a third of the population from their ancestral homes to make room for illegal colonists.
As for your newly independent country, your very first Prime Minister admitted acknowleged that Alexander the Great was Greek. Yet today, your impoverished country is wasting millions building statues of ancient Greeks in a misguided attempt to make links to a heritage that doesn't belong to you. Remember this: identity theft is a crime and is punishable by EU and NATO exclusion.
Leonardo - Canada
@ Leonardo - I really don't think Macedonia needs to be lectured by a bankrupt state that has used more than 120 million euros of EU money to fight a propaganda war against Macedonia. And look at who is now impoverished? I just read a headline today that Greece will run out of money by August 20.
And in case you didn't know, Macedonia is now the most business-friendly country in the Balkans in which to invest. Macedonia is on the rise, Greece is on a rapid decline. The Greek position is always to admit nothing and accept nothing when it comes to the Macedonians. It's your right if you don't want to address any of my points concerning Greece - I'll let others make their own conclusions.
James - Dearborn, Michigan
Anyone with even a rudimenary understanding of ancient history is aware that "Macedonians" were a Greek people, and those in the Greek province of Madedonia may legitimately refer to themselves as "Macedonian". Residents in the former Yugoslav republic with the constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia" may call themselves whatever they want, but the historical legitimacy of identifying themselves in this way does not exist.
Incidentally, Greece, despite the current eurozone crisis, remains an important player in regional geopolitical developments and will recover as it did in the past. I do detect a bit of gloating on your part for the misery poorer Greeks are presently enduring.
leonardo - Canada
The so-called Greek province of Macedonia was named Macedonia only in 1988 when the breakup of Yugoslavia was imminent and Greece became alarmed at the prospect of an independent Macedonian state. Before 1988, the Greek province of 'Macedonia' was called 'Northern Territory'. As long as Macedonia subsumed under another nation state, and had no recognition or international expression of identity, Greece paid no attention to it. Before 1988, the Greeks would claim that there was no such thing as Macedonia or a Macedonian people.
Now suddenly, as if overnight, Greeks claim great attachment to and consciousness over Macedonia. What a complete farce. History is coming back to haunt them, so the Greek strategy is to claim Macedonia as Greek. Greek policy toward the ethnic Macedonians after the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 is the Achilles heel of modern Greek history.
James - Dearborn, Michigan
Hey James - you make all sorts of facinating historical claims about Greeks (while simultaneously hiding FYROM's ethnic Bulgarians past). Unfortunately, the accredited historians of the world disagree with your narrative that Greeks are unrelated to ancient Greeks - which is backed up by geography, culture, language and even modern DNA testing contrary to your claims.
Demetri
Oh really Demetri? If what you claim is true, then why doesn't Greece recognise any ethnic minorities within Greece? Modern, organic societies of the 21st century recognise ethnic minorities; the majority ethnic group is supposed to be comfortable in its own skin. This is not the case with Greece and modern Greeks. I guess modern Greeks have something to hide.
James - Dearborn, Michigan
@James? Pure red herring. France doesn't recognise minorities either. Do you claim French aren't 'real' French either? The fact remains our language, culture, location are Greek in more than just name. And although there is no such thing as pure ethnic races, modern DNA testing also indisputably shows a biological connection to ancient Greeks - 180 contrary to claims of our critics.
I find it fascinating how your former self-identifying ethnic Bulgarians of FYROM, who now have suddenly turned ito decendents of ancient Macedonians right in front of everyone's eyes: deny the identity of Greeks while simultaneously claiming your right to recognition an absolute. Why so if you claim ancient Macedonians weren't Greeks?
Demetri
Hey James what did your government officials mean when they use to claim: 'We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian.' Or: 'We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century. We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians. We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great.'
Demetri
Look, Demetri, I learned a long time ago that Greece will never own up to the horrible wrongs it has committed against the Macedonians ever since Greece acquired 51 per cent of Macedonian territory following the Balkan Wars of 1912-13. Greeks are arguably the worst nationalists on the planet.
And it was your own former Prime Minister Mitsotakis who stated in 1995 that the "name dispute" with Macedonia was not about the name Macedonia at all, but rather about the logical conclusion of Greece then having to recognise the large Macedonian minority within Greece. So, if truth be told, Greece really doesn't care about the name Macedonia.
James - Dearborn, Michigan
