The Myths about Turkey: Part I
Apr 1st, 2011 | By Serkan Bulut | Tags: Enlargement, Foreign Policy, Islam, myths, Trojan Horse, Turkey
Myth I: Turkey will proof to be a Trojan horse !
The famous story of the Greeks’ capture of the city of Troy using the decoy of a wooden horse in which soldiers were hidden is a well-known one. It creates a powerful historical image in mind and this is why it is popular when it comes to describing the Turkish bid to the EU.
Turkey: Trojan horse of the Islam?
There are two aspects of this myth. On the one side are the people who believe that Turkey will be the Trojan Horse of the Islam in Europe and that through Turkish EU membership, Europe will be Islamized, meaning that Europe will become a “Muslim” continent. This group envisions a religious domination of Europe by Turks; a process which will turn Europe into Eurabia. Through conversion and high birthrates this groups believes that Muslims will finally overrun Europe. Of course this argument has its connections with arguments against Muslim immigrants of different origins, other than Turkish, as well. Articulating the already “high” number of Muslim immigrants in Europe, adding the incoming 70+ million Turkish Muslims, this argument paints a doomsday scenario for secular Europe. From this perspective Turkey is not or “no longer” a secular country and its “Islamic” nature is the dagger that aims at the heart of Europe. Just like in any other myth this claim lacks a solid base of evidence; mere rehashing of historical fears and production of a new generation of phobias.
I’m not saying that integration of a country with a large population will be a problem free process but the problems will not be of a religious nature. Turks have always had ambitions for the future. Whether realistic or unrealistic, rational or irrational they have always thought that they are destined to do great things. However, a religious domination of Europe is not part of the Turkish agenda. This goes especially when it concerns the youth.
Turkey: Trojan Horse of the U.S.?
The other aspect of this myth is the one that sees Turkey as a Trojan horse of the US in the EU. This group is skeptical of English policies as well and tends to see Turkey as a second England in the EU. There are several assumptions behind such a theory that creates this myth and as these assumptions are flawed: the whole theory is misguided.
First of all, claiming that Turkey will be an agent of the US within the EU implies that the EU and the US are experiencing significant clashes of interest and that Turkey will join England in undermining the EU against the US. When was the last biggest clash of interest/policy between the EU and the US since the fall of Soviet Union? It was the war in Iraq and there was no significant difference between the Franco-German attitude towards the war and American policies, and the Turkish. In fact, Turkish opposition to the war severely damaged the relations with the US which took years to normalize, while many European states contributed to the war efforts.
Secondly, English and Turkish ideas about integration and deepening of the Union are completely different. Britain prefers to limit its integration to continental Europe. Turkey, however, in fact desperately wants to integrate itself into Europe and turn itself and the EU as a viable actor in global politics and a counter-balance of the US, especially in the Middle East.
All in all, the argument that Turkey will be the Trojan horse of the US in the EU is problematic from the very assumptions it lays its foundation on. It assumes a tension between the two sides of the Atlantic which is neither inherent nor characteristic of this relationship. And it falls into the trap of comparing Britain which holds a “special” relationship with the US to Turkey, a country that strives to find a new refined role in its regional politics and sees the EU as an important platform to realize that wish.
Related posts:
- The Myths about Turkey: Part II
April 3rd, 2011 - The Myths about Turkey: Part III
April 5th, 2011 - The Myths about Turkey: Part IV
April 9th, 2011 - Rethinking the EU’s future: Two players of a game, Turkey and the EU
March 14th, 2012 - Turkey-EU Relations at Critical Crossroad
October 17th, 2012
Hi,
Naturally I have to disagree with you on certain points, especially the one on the effect of Islam in Europe. For someone who lives in a Western country your article might be convincing, however for someone like me who comes from Serbia and lives in Cyprus a completely different image arises.
Many people might be afraid to say it but it’s true, modern day Islam and predominantly Christian countries can not go together. This is clearly seen in certain European countries such as Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria and even recently in Germany.
In Serbia, the south has a considerable amount of Muslims. These people refuse to be integrated into the Serbian system but would rather look towards Istanbul and wait for directions from Ankara. This starts to create serious social issues where young Christians living in the southern cities start to feel threatened by these religious extremists.
On a recent visit to Serbia by Erdogan, he visited the region and through his speeches he was just adding oil to the fire. He even went a step further to open a Turkish cultural centre in Novi Pazar in addition to asking for the opening of a new mosque in Belgrade. I just wonder where he finds the courage to ask for a second mosque in the city when numerous churces on Turkish lands are still closed. Not to mention the numerous cases where Christian churches have been converted into mosques as is the case in north Cyprus.
These social issues are present in south-east Bulgaria where numerous Turks live and who also refuse to be integrated into the Bulgarian system and in such a way create a serious gap between the two societies.
Turkey needs to understand that the European Union is a ”Christian club” (as the vast majority is Christian) and until they can respect that religion they have no place in the European Union or Europe for that matter. 3% of it’s land mass does not qualify it as European.
I do not know what is on the mind of the Turkish population? Do they think that they can just keep on disrespecting Christianity while at the same time ask to become members of the EU? In France out of the 300 registered Imams 150 are Turkish citizens. It is interesting since according to you, Turkey is a secular country which has nothing to do with these alegations coming from unreasonable Europeans. It’s worth mentioning that these Imams (just like most of the Turkish diaspora across Europe) can not or barely speaks the local language and refuses to be integrated into the local society.
Let us not forget the rather bad record Turkey has with the human rights, something Europe finds very important.
To conclude there are numerous orthodox states in the EU today (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania) and countries with a large orthodox population (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) which means that they have reasons to push for Turkey’s change in attitutude when it comes to the Christian sites.
Let us not forget one of the most important edificies for orthodox Christians, Agia Sophia, which was converted into a mosque back in 1453 and which today is a museum, where orthodox Christians have to pay to enter. These are just few cases of why Turkey should not be allowed into the European Union and this is why I disagree with you that these fears are nothing but myths. Also you claim that there are no facts, yet there are too many facts which support my argument as well as the facts justifying the fears of the European population- just look at Erdogan’s speeches.
Finally, I do not see the link of the Troyan horse and Turkey as at that time Ottoman Turks were not anywhere close to Europe. Those lands were populated by Greeks, who, let’s not forget were expulsed from their homes in the first half of the past century. Over 300.000 Greeks were expulsed from Smyrna alone.
Regards from cold Helsinki and looking forward to reading your reply.
Thank you very much for your comments. I truly appreciate your feedback and respect your views. It is only natural that people have different opinions on topics that are difficult to swallow. I will try my best to address your comments and present my views in the light of your concerns.
I think the argument that “modern day Islam and predominantly Christian countries cannot go together” is misleading. Integration problems of immigrant communities should not be confused with the religious background of the minorities. Minorities in Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria and even Germany are suffering from integration issues not because they are Muslim, but because of various reasons starting from problematic assimilation policies to social-cultural-political background of the minorities.
I would like to learn more about what it means to “refuse to be integrated into the Serbian system” actually. I am not very well informed about the specific details of the situation in the South of Serbia, but if Muslims living in the South are enjoying all the rights (I mean all; political, cultural, religious, economic etc..) to the degree that Serbs and other groups do, but still are threatening “young Christians” I think those Muslims are seriously mistaken then.
I will be honest and blunt; your description of the situation in the South and your attitude about it terrified me a little bit. You are very angry just because a Turkish cultural center was opened at Novi Pazar. You are infuriated that a second mosque is demanded in Belgrade. Yet in the following parts you (I think rightfully) criticize Turkey for closed churches. For me your analysis of the situation is deeply contradicting. On the one hand you are skeptical of Turkey because of its attitude about the historical churches which most of the time do not really have any practicing congregation; on the other hand you are angry at a Muslim minority for demanding a place of worship, I am sorry demanding a second one!
Let’s move on to another point. If the population in South of Serbia is “looking towards Istanbul and waiting for directions from Ankara” I still fail to see the connection with Islam. If this minority in South is looking elsewhere “for directions” because of their religious background it would have made more sense to see them look at Saudi Arabia or Iran which would clearly qualify more Islamic than Turkey. If this minority is looking towards Istanbul, I think it is most likely because of political problems in Serbia and the unfortunate history between the minorities and Serbian majority which I do not want to go into detail. I believe tracing the origins of the problems Serbia is experiencing with the “Muslim” minority to Islam, is only a (mis)representation of political problems and the haunting history between these groups.
I have the same comments about Bulgarian case. If the Turks or Muslims living in Bulgaria are enjoying the same degree of political, cultural, religious and social freedom as Bulgarian majority does, and if they are still creating problems (which one needs to define what kind of problems, as I do not think it is possible to see a group of people creating problems, even though they have high income, freely practicing their faith, participating in the political process without any obstruction and expressing their indigenous culture), I think they are gravely wrong as well. This sounds like a Turk saying that “Kurds are all fine everything is great for them but they are still creating problems, they are refusing to integrate into Turkish society. Who would be naïve enough to believe that? If Kurds were enjoying all the freedoms to the degree that they deserve just like any other citizen of Turkey, why would they create problem or why would they resist to integration? I think if the minorities you mentioned throughout your comment were enjoying the freedoms they deserve, they would have little or no motive to “create problems”.
I will not go into “EU as a Christian Club” idea but I would love to hear what other “Europeans” think about this claim. I will only invite you and anyone who thinks it is a good idea to categorize EU on religious grounds to think about political, economic and security implications of this modus operandi. Anyway, if the EU is a Christian club, then it does not matter what percentage of Turkey is in Europe or not. But the “percentage” discussion is an interesting one and a further interesting point would be to discuss what percentage of Cyprus is in Europe.
About respecting Christianity, as a young scholar who is intensively invested and interested in inter-faith dialogue activities, I am a firm believer that people should respect faith, any faith. It does not have to be organized religion either. But if we are truly sincere in our demand for respect, then we should demand it for all not for one. We should demand it not just for the faith of the majority just because they are the majority.
France has approximately a population of 5 million Muslims, and compared to this number 300 registered imams does not seem high. Obviously there is a demand for clergy to lead religious ceremonies and this demand is supplied by Turkey to some extent. Secularism in state system does not mean anti-religionism. I would suggest a little research of how Catholic schools in France are funded at this point. You would be surprised.
All in all, I understand your concerns but I also believe that most of the arguments still fall short of providing solid ground of evidence in favor. I think Turkey has its own problems and the EU accession process is the key factor to work on these issues and improve them. I stand by my arguments; Turkey will not be the Trojan horse of Islam in Europe nor will its membership turn Europe into Eurabia.
I do not find it productive to compare what church is open in Turkey to what mosque is open in Europe because there will always be cases for each side. If one gives the example of Hagia Sophia someone else will respond with Great Mosque of Córdoba. If you think it would help, I would invite you to search and compare number of mosques in South and South East of Europe and churches in Turkey. After 300-400 years of Ottoman rule how many mosques can you find in Balkans? How many were built by Ottomans and the local populations and how many of them remain now? How many of them are open?
I am always ready to campaign for members of any faith if they are experiencing problems in enjoying their religious freedoms and I will always be against anyone/any group if they think they can limit the rights and practices of a minority; be it Muslims doing it to Christians, Christians doing it to Muslims or Sunnis doing it to Shia or Alevis in Turkish case. The key is to demand the same things you want for yourself, for all others around you; religious respect, political freedom, cultural expression, social unity…
Greetings to cold Helsinki from a relatively warm Delaware, US and thank you very much for your comments and views.
Hi,
First of all the muslims living in south Serbia have even more rights than the actual Serbs. My friends dad is a high ranking official in the army and he told me how much the muslim minority is favorized in the region, just to be kept calm. So to answer your question, they have more rights than Serbs.
Of course I criticize Turkey’s demand for a new mosque in Belgrade. How can they ask for another place of worship for their people, when the people of the country in which he is in can not practice their own religion freely in Turkey. It just doesn’t make sense.
Also the fact that you fail to understand the gravity of his statement (the one related to the mosque) is simply driven by your lack of knowledge in the Balkan issues. Muslims have caused numerous problems in the past couple of decades. Wether it was the launch of brutalities in Bosnia when a muslim extremist group entered a Serbian wedding and massacred everyone- resulting in the siege of Sarajevo. Other examples are the Muslim extremists in Kosovo who among other things sold 300 Serbian women, children and men into spare parts. The operations which took place in Albania were actually carried out by a Turkish doctor. Then numerous Serbian monasteries dating back to the 12th and 13th century were completely destroyed by the UCK which was led by the current prime minister of Kosovo Hashim Taci. The independence of Kosovo was supported by Turkey, which if I am not mistaken was the second country in the world to recognize them. Shortly after Erdogan went to Srebrenica while completely ignoring Bratunac which was very close from there and where a comemoration to the Serbian victims took place. He was extremly undiplomatic at that time.
His visit culminated when he visited Novi Pazar where he was greeted by Turkish and Islamic flags and where he opened that famous cultural centre. If it was the president of any other muslim country it would not matter, but as I mentioned above Turkey has a rather bad record in Serbia.
I am actually quite happy that you are not going to go into details when it comes to the relationship of Serbia and its Islamic minorities because I can’t be bothered to correct you and explain you what actually happened. However, once again I will have to correct you. If you actually bothered to read up on the Serbian (see Yugoslav) history you would see why these groups can not turn to bigger Islamic states such as Iran or Saudi Arabia. First of all, Serbia was the founder state of the non-aligned movement and today enjoys extremly good relations with countries like Iran, Syra, Egypt, Pakistan… These good bilateral relations are best portrayed in the refusal of these countries to recognize Kosovo. No big, non-american influenced country had recognized Kosovo. That is why these Muslims in the south can not look towards those countries. Turkey which tries to regain its lost influence in the Balkans is naturally supporting these religious extremists in the south. Turkey has been hiding for too long behind its secularism, however now big cracks are starting to appear.
As for Saudi Arabia, they will not give their support to these Muslims simply because America doesn’t want them to. First of all, America is not a fan of the new Turkish policies in the Balkans and second the US is trying to distance itself from Kosovo and the muslims in the south. The muslims in the south (mostly Albanians) have shown how capable they in successfully running a country since the support for the independence of Kosovo has gone down from 95% to just over 65%. That says a lot.
Cyprus is not in Europe, that is a fact that everyone knows. However Cyprus is more European than Turkey could ever dream of being. The entry of Cyprus should only show that Europe is a Christian club that tends to bend the rules when it favors it. On the other hand it would be really interesting to see the result of a pan-European vote on wether Turkey should enter the EU.
Doesn’t matter how the French catholic schools are funded since they are on French territories. No one is questioning Turkish religious schools and their funding which are located in Turkey. We are talking about Islamic institutions outside their native lands.
All that I am saying is that Turks just like other muslim minorities living in Europe are demanding more rights when their own countries fail to provide the same for Christians. There should be more mosques in Europe when Christians can worship freely in certain countries which do not make it possible for them likeSaudi Arabia, and when women will not have to cover up completely when travelling to certain Islamic states.
Actually most of the mosques in the Balkans remain fully functional. Please check your facts first. For example in Banja Luka all the mosques have been rebuilt just like in the other cities in Republika Srpska, where as only a few churches have been rebuild in the federation.
On the other hand your argument on Cordoba and other similar lands does not fly. Those lands in South Spain were taken from the ”Spanish” through war and violence. What the Spanish did at a later stage was just to take back what was taken from them. The same happened in 1453 when Constantinople fell. Today they Christians living in Turkey can not practice their religion freely in the lands which one can argue were stolen from them.
So my point being here is that Turkey should not be arguing for more religious rights for their own people until all the religious minorities living within the Turkish borders enjoy all the basic freedom.
Regards from Finland
Interesting blog, but I think this is not the problem. The problem is the continuous crackdown on the free press, internal violence going on against the Kurds, denying the Armenian genocide, dangerous nationalism etc. A country like this should not be part of the EU, not because its religion.
Hello Nemanja,
I think we are severely off-topic now. My blog writing was about the unwarranted fear that when Turkey joins the EU, Europe will turn into an Islamic continent. So your point being here “which is that Turkey should not be arguing for more religious rights for their own people until all the religious minorities living within the Turkish borders enjoy all the basic freedom” is an entirely different one.
So if we go back to my original point: religious conversion of Europe is not a future goal for Turkey and the EU membership will work positively for the minorities living in Turkey; be it religious or ethnic.
I respect your opinion but at this point I am feeling that we need to move beyond and look at the bigger picture. How would Turkish membership influence the Muslim communities within the EU? Would this make any positive impact on integration problems? If the EU is a Christian club then what does this mean for the Muslim citizens of the EU? These are some of the many critical questions that I will be thinking more about.
In any case, I appreciate that you are commenting on the writings and I will think more about these questions and will try to write more about them.
Best regards
Matthijs,
I can agree with your point of view. In my opinion aspirant-member countries should fulfill all the Copenhagen criteria before they join the EU. However, the Union doesn’t seem to take its own criteria seriously. Bulgaria and Romania, two countries with a track record that’s arguably worse than Turkey’s, were able to join the EU without significant problems. That’s why I can imagine it’s hard for the Turks to understand why those two backward countries, concerning both Human Rights and economic standards, were quite easily allowed to join whilst their country is systematically refused. On a sidenote: I understand your point of view concerning the Armenian genocide and I can agree with that, but in Europe we also have countries that have committed grave acts in the near-past but never publicly excused themselves for it (e.g. The Dutch with their ‘police actions’ in Indonesia).
I very often have the impression that we are discussing matters that are of lesser relevance to Turkey joining the EU. Whenever it seems only slightly possible that somebody might advocate again FOR a Turkish membership of the EU somebody else will play the religious card and claim that the EU is a Christian club. Indeed, most countries in the EU are Christian, yet I am not sure if any of them would actually define itself as a Christian country in the first place.
However, there is another question that needs to be answered first before you actually discuss EU membership for Turkey. What is the EU? I believe I have a rather pragmatic definition of what the EU is for me. First and foremost it is an economic club – because if you want to tell me that it’s a club bound together by a common culture I would be very much interested how many links you can make between the various countries in the EU. Yes, throughout history there has been interaction between them and there might be a shared belief in the values of the EU, yet their application and even their appreciation is very different in Rome or Warsaw or London. If you define the EU as an economic union then there’s little reason why Turkey should not join (btw, this would apply to Ukraine too!). Yes, maybe parts of the country are poor and underdeveloped and it would require a lot of financial efforts to bring those to the level of Western European economies. However, economically speaking Turkey would probably be more of a desirable partner than Bulgaria or Romania and yet these are in [I do not object to Bulgaria’s or Romania’s membership, however, I think in contrast to Turkey, their future economic outlook is rather bleak).
There are a number of reasons though that come to my mind why Turkey (and this again applies to Ukraine) will not be admitted to the EU any time soon:
- consider its population and think where Turkey would rank among EU member states – behind Germany, yet above the UK or France. Do the maths and find that Turkey would have almost the same voting power in the EU as Germany.
- consider the investments necessary to bring large parts of Turkey’s economic on track with other EU economies. A lot of countries would lose out here and will certainly not agree to share the cake with yet another big country.
You are certainly right to mention the Armenian genocide and the human rights situation in Turkey, and I think that the EU is right to refuse Turkish membership as long as these issues aren’t dealt with properly. However, do you really believe that Turkey would be given a fair chance to join once it resolved those problems? I doubt it.
First of all, sorry for the late reply I was away from internet for the past few days.
Serkan,
Of course that I understand that the official agenda of Ankara is not the conversion of Europe into Islam. However, if we look the recent trend in Turkey and the pro-Islamic shift, not to mention the pro-Iranian policies of the Turkish government one should wonder what does the future hold for Turkey.
Personally, I am not shocked that Turkey has began acting in such a way. For too long Europe have been pulling them around and by blindly following them Turkey has been only embarassing itself.
Turkey should do what they did with Turkish Airlines, become a bridge between Europe and the Middle-East. Let’s not forget that if they do join the EU a lot of their policies will have to be changed, so they should really ask themselves what do they gain by becoming an EU member state. Unfortuntely this is again off-topic so I will not discuss it further.
David,
You argue that the EU is more of an economic club, yet if you read what you wrote you prove my point that the EU is more of a Christian club rather than an economic one. Like you said, and you are completely right, Bulgaria and Romania are far less desired in the Union than Turkey but…
On the other hand, Serbia and Croatia are far more developped and the levels of corruption are far less than in Bulgaria and Romania yet both countries are just like Turkey, pushed around. However the EU will pay the price as these two countries have found an alternative to Brussels, just like Turkey did.
Like I mentioned previously, the EU is not an economic club but much more, it’s a Christian club. Even if a lot of countries today are secular, the majority of Europe is Christian and that plays a big role. Sure countries like Albania could become a member one day but that is because they are small and they would not have a great impact on Europe, something we can not say for Turkey.
Best regards from sunny Helsinki!
The larger and more important issue is how laws are made in these Euro countries: not by referring to God’s law, but by intelligent understanding of sociological evidence, debated among peers.
Turkey, as you know, is kept secular by its military. It seems clear that Turkey would be the hub of a caliphate in ten seconds without the Turkish military carrying out the will of Ataturk that it should stay secular.
The problem with Islamic countries is that the tendencies are always toward theocracy, laws made by a god that are interpreted by unelected priests. That is a dead end in this interconnected world. Theocratic tendencies versus democratic tendencies. Where are the democracies with Muslim majorities, and NOT tending toward theocracy?
@ ormondotvos: this is a very simplistic view of reality. Turkey has a democratically elected government and the ruling ‘Islamic’ party is not advocating any sort of caliphate.
Actually, I do not see many countries tending toward theocracy. I do see almost exclusively authoritarian countries in the Islamic world, but that is something else than theocracy.
Haven’t been accused of being simplistic lately. You didn’t respond to the hard concept, which is that both theocratic and autocratic governments rule by fiat, not sociology (which is what democracy is supposed to exemplify). Going from an autocratic government to a theocratic government is not an improvement, to my simplistic mind. Enlighten me on this. Don’t just ignore it. It’s the key determinant of governmental stability.
Islam can be seen as harmless or harmful. I go by the monstrous crowds killing people because some jerk in Florida burns a Koran, fatwahs against writers, thousands of people banging their heads against the ground five times daily about some skygod whose positive dictates are easily duplicated by merely thinking about human nature and societal stability. Islam has a poor record for social stability.
Perhaps Naipaul could provide a sufficiently subtle approach for you. Me, I get tired of stories about honor killings, suppression of women, brainwashing of children, violent demonstrations. They exist. Explain them to me. I don’t think it’s societal. I think Islam develops very bad habits from a stable governance viewpoint. I don’t like the whole idea of submission. And no, I don’t respect religion, especially the ones currently violent.