Suchergebnisse

This article concerns the current pre-accession process of Turkey and the question of its prospects. In order to answer this question the author conducts an in-depth analysis of factors that can influence the process on three main levels: EU (i.e. general political and economic situation, EU enlargement policy, EU institutions), member states and Turkey. He wants to verify the hypothesis that although the situation in this candidate country is crucial for the future of Turkey-EU relations, the decisive factors are in the EU and member states. The pre-accession process of Turkey will be continued but its pace and course will depend to a large extent on the position of the main Union's powers, the clear vision of the EU as well as the economic/political situation and public feelings in Europe. ; This article concerns the current pre-accession process of Turkey and the question of its prospects. In order to answer this question the author conducts an in-depth analysis of factors that can influence the process on three main levels: EU (i.e. general political and economic situation, EU enlargement policy, EU institutions), member states and Turkey. He wants to verify the hypothesis that although the situation in this candidate country is crucial for the future of Turkey-EU relations, the decisive factors are in the EU and member states. The pre-accession process of Turkey will be continued but its pace and course will depend to a large extent on the position of the main Union's powers, the clear vision of the EU as well as the economic/political situation and public feelings in Europe.

*This is an English version of an original article: Yavuz Yildirim, "Los Efectos Del Movimiento Del Parque Gezi En La Renovacion Del Debate Sobre La Democratizacion En Turquia" in: Un Retrato De La Turquia Contemporanea (eds. Federico Donelli, Alessia Chiriatti, Manuel Férez), Mexico: Universidad Anahuac Mexico, 2016, pp. 299-310.The text presents the history of attempts at democratization of the political system in Turkey, where despite the nominal presence of democratic institutions, changes traditionally have come from the top. Following a brief presentation of the unsuccessful civil movements from the 1970s onwards, it focuses on the 2010s transition in approaches to building democratic culture, and in particular on the Gezi Park resistance, where a relatively minor local issue sparked a country-wide citizens' protest against the conservative democracy of the ruling AK Party. The event is shown as an entirely new type of protest, a spontaneous civil movement with horizontal structure, inspired by the Occupy movements, and an expression of the new generation's approach to politics. It also gave rise to a movement which contributed to rethinking the Turkish democratization process by breaking with the established thinking with a bottom-to-top approach.

*This is an English version of an original article: Yavuz Yildirim, "Los Efectos Del Movimiento Del Parque Gezi En La Renovacion Del Debate Sobre La Democratizacion En Turquia" in: Un Retrato De La Turquia Contemporanea (eds. Federico Donelli, Alessia Chiriatti, Manuel Férez), Mexico: Universidad Anahuac Mexico, 2016, pp. 299-310.The text presents the history of attempts at democratization of the political system in Turkey, where despite the nominal presence of democratic institutions, changes traditionally have come from the top. Following a brief presentation of the unsuccessful civil movements from the 1970s onwards, it focuses on the 2010s transition in approaches to building democratic culture, and in particular on the Gezi Park resistance, where a relatively minor local issue sparked a country-wide citizens' protest against the conservative democracy of the ruling AK Party. The event is shown as an entirely new type of protest, a spontaneous civil movement with horizontal structure, inspired by the Occupy movements, and an expression of the new generation's approach to politics. It also gave rise to a movement which contributed to rethinking the Turkish democratization process by breaking with the established thinking with a bottom-to-top approach.

The Turkish history huge efforts aimed at modernization and determination to equal Western European countries in the fi eld of respecting human rights. The secularisation process carried out during the Mustafa Kemal Pasha resulted in Turkey being the only Muslim country, were the principle of separation of religion from the state is obligatory (at least formally). The last military coup (in 1980), activities of non-governmental organizations and the infl uence of the European Union in relation to the accession process resulted in gradual improvement of the situation of women in Turkey. The European Union indirectly supported opposition feminist's movement which emerged in new political situation. Nevertheless, gender segregation is still visible on the streets of Istanbul and in the workplaces - women are employed in places less exposed to social contacts, they are paid lower pay, and they often work in the informal sector without a benefi t of social security. Finally, it is worth to point out some similarities between Poland and Turkey. At the beginning of XX century agriculture and monotheistic religion dominated in both countries. Both countries, albeit for different reasons, reclaimed independence after World War I. In both countries strong leaders took over, reforming and modernizing the country. Both leaders, Józef Piłsudski and Mustafa Kemal sympathised with the postulates of female organizations in respect to voting rights and access to education35. For many years, in both countries the dominant role model for women was a mother (also mother of the nation) or a virgin. However, following different ideologies, equality of women in employment was promoted. In Poland and in Turkey gender inequality in marriage has never been opposed, while the phenomenon of domestic violence was concealed. Moreover, in the eighties and nineties of the XX century, both countries: Turkey and Poland underwent liberalizing political changes. Women have become their benefi - ciaries, but they also have been their motive power. ...

The aim of this article is the comprehensive analysis of possible benefits and disadvantages of Turkey's European Union membership from the point of view of both of the sides of the accession process, and the attempt to predict the probable consequences of two political scenarios: accession of Turkey to the EU which is equivalent to being a full member with the same rights as remaining 27 countries, or the fiasco of Turkey's accession process to the UE. The first part of this article contains the analysis of economic, political and sociocultural benefits that both of the sides will gain and the balance of the costs that each side will have to bear. The analysis that is being carried out in the second part of this article is concerned with possible consequences of 'worst and best scenario' fulfillment. However, as it is being shown in this part of article, between two mentioned above extremes there is one more possible way of progress of events: heavily supported by the chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Angela Merkel 'privileged partnership' for Turkey instead of full EU membership. How it has been repeatedly said by Turkish political leaders, none form of partnership should be even considered because offers of cooperation different from full EU membership are insult to Turkey. However, taking into consideration the fact that EU is still being affected by economic and political crisis, it may have not possibility to offer Turkey anything more than remaining the 'status quo'. Possible results of this progress of events like Turkey's turn to the Islamic neighbouring countries and European Union's loss of a chance of attaching great importance to global geopolitics, are also taken into consideration. ; The aim of this article is the comprehensive analysis of possible benefits and disadvantages of Turkey's European Union membership from the point of view of both of the sides of the accession process, and the attempt to predict the probable consequences of two political scenarios: accession of Turkey to the EU which is equivalent to being a full member with the same rights as remaining 27 countries, or the fiasco of Turkey's accession process to the UE. The first part of this article contains the analysis of economic, political and sociocultural benefits that both of the sides will gain and the balance of the costs that each side will have to bear. The analysis that is being carried out in the second part of this article is concerned with possible consequences of 'worst and best scenario' fulfillment. However, as it is being shown in this part of article, between two mentioned above extremes there is one more possible way of progress of events: heavily supported by the chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Angela Merkel 'privileged partnership' for Turkey instead of full EU membership. How it has been repeatedly said by Turkish political leaders, none form of partnership should be even considered because offers of cooperation different from full EU membership are insult to Turkey. However, taking into consideration the fact that EU is still being affected by economic and political crisis, it may have not possibility to offer Turkey anything more than remaining the 'status quo'. Possible results of this progress of events like Turkey's turn to the Islamic neighbouring countries and European Union's loss of a chance of attaching great importance to global geopolitics, are also taken into consideration.

The years 1903-1914 should be considered as the most interesting period in the activity of the great powers states in South-East Europe and Near East for a few reasons discussed below. In the final period of the formation of the antagonistic military-political alliances in Europe, the so called "Concert of Europe" mainly showed a great interest in maintaining the status quo and preventing any conflicts which could occupy their attention. These states also focused on Turkey and especially on its European dominion. As a result, they jointly conducted reforms in Macedonia or tried to prevent the outbreak of war between the High Porte and the Balkan allies in 1912. At the same time, the powers did not stop their endeavors to realize their own political or economic aims at the cost of Turkey (e.g. the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austro-Hungary in 1908, the occupation of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica by Italy in 1911). Their aim was to eliminate the influences and block the initiative of their competitors. ; The years 1903-1914 should be considered as the most interesting period in the activity of the great powers states in South-East Europe and Near East for a few reasons discussed below. In the final period of the formation of the antagonistic military-political alliances in Europe, the so called "Concert of Europe" mainly showed a great interest in maintaining the status quo and preventing any conflicts which could occupy their attention. These states also focused on Turkey and especially on its European dominion. As a result, they jointly conducted reforms in Macedonia or tried to prevent the outbreak of war between the High Porte and the Balkan allies in 1912. At the same time, the powers did not stop their endeavors to realize their own political or economic aims at the cost of Turkey (e.g. the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austro-Hungary in 1908, the occupation of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica by Italy in 1911). Their aim was to eliminate the influences and block the initiative of their competitors.

Bilateral relations between the Republic of Turkey and the individual successor states of former Yugoslavia differ, after thirty years since its dissolution, in form and in substance. While just after the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Turkey managed to establish and sustain cordial ties with such countries as, for instance, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, relations with Serbia (Serbia and Montenegro) remained tense and the two countries perceived themselves, in the best case, as traditional opponents. The basic aim of this paper is to analyse the bilateral relations of these two states and Turkish foreign policy towards Serbia, a country currently perceived as a 'neighbour,' despite the fact that they do not share common border. The paper argues that rapprochement of two countries, so clearly visible in several dimensions after 2002, marks a new phase in Turkey's general foreign policy. The paper will trace the thirty-year evolution of bilateral contacts while arguing that the current positive relations have their source also in the domestic arena, both of Turkey and Serbia, which is willing to increase influence in the Western Balkans and institutionalise her international position. Thus, the two states for the first time share similar foreign policy goals. The whole analysis is theoretically anchored in the behavioural approach of the 'middle power' paradigm. An author-applied qualitative content analysis is the main research technique. The main sources are official documents, selected monographs, academic articles, and analytical reports.

Publikacja recenzowana / Peer-reviewed publication ; Artykuł poświęcony zmieniającym się uwarunkowaniom wewnętrznym Turcji oraz jej polityce zagranicznej od czasu przejęcia władzy przez konserwatywny obóz Partii Sprawiedliwości i Rozwoju (AKP) z Recepem Tayyipem Erdoğanem na czele. Okres pierwszej dekady rządów AKP doprowadził do zaskakującego skoku cywilizacyjnego, co zbliżyło państwo do Unii Europejskiej i uczyniło z Turcji liczący się podmiot stosunków międzynarodowych. Równolegle Erdoğan wykazywał coraz silniejsze aspiracje autorytarne, które stopniowo urzeczywistniał na mocy planu przebudowy starego kemalistowskiego porządku wewnętrznego. Wojna syryjska, kryzys migracyjny, reorientacja polityki zagranicznej Turcji, napięcia wewnętrzne po nieudanych puczu wojskowym oraz planowane reformy konstytucyjne w Turcji to nowe determinanty stosunków Turcja−Europa. Głównym celem analizy jest próba zrozumienia wyzwań, przed jakimi stoją obie strony oraz określenie potencjalnych perspektyw i scenariuszy przyszłych relacji w tych nowych realiach politycznych. ; First part of the paper is focused on changing domestic conditions of Turkey and its foreign policy since conservative Justice and Development Party (AKP) with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in the lead, came to power. First decade of their rules led to surprising civilization jump, therefore Turkey – as significant international actor – started to cooperate more closely with European Union. However, at the same time Erdoğan started to demonstrate stronger authoritarian aspirations, fulfilling his plan of rebuilding an old Kemelist state architecture. Syrian war, migration crises, reorientation of Turkish foreign policy, consequences of failed military coup and constitutional reforms in Turkey are the new determinants of Turkey-Europe relations. For that reason, main objective of the following analysis is to present and understand the perspectives and challenges of their future cooperation within new political order.

The events of the Arab Spring in Syria have led to the re-evaluation of the regional policy of the Republic of Turkey, which has faced two options. One involves acting in compliance with the expectations of its Western allies, and promoting the principles of democracy in the Middle East by firmly reacting against any cases of human rights' violations, simultaneously showing the direction of the changes necessary in the region. Another refers to the principles included in the definition of the international policy of "Strategic Depth": avoiding problems with neighbors, which excludes all interference in the internal politics of other countries, and means the continuation of pragmatic co-operation with all political centers, including authoritarian regimes. In the face of the violent struggle between the opposition and Al-Assad supporters, a policy of the protection of democracy and human rights has been chosen. This decision, on the one hand, strengthens Turkey's relations with Western structures. On the other hand, it may lead to open conflict with a direct neighbor, Syria, which constitutes a serious threat to Turkey's security, and may result in negative consequences for its energy security and economic relations with its Middle East partners. The Republic of Turkey does not exclude direct engagement in a potential military intervention in three cases. Firstly, if Turkey's NATO allies decide to start military operations in Syria. Secondly, should it become necessary to protect its people and its territory. Thirdly, in the case of the conflict's escalation or its spread outside Syria's borders. ; Wybuch Arabskiej Wiosny w Syrii spowodował przewartościowanie polityki regionalnej Turcji. Stanęła ona przed wyborem. Czy promować w Syrii i w całym regionie Bliskiego Wschodu zasady demokracji i reagować na przypadki łamania praw człowieka, wskazując tym samym kierunek niezbędnych przemian. Czy nawiązując do zasady tzw. zero problemów z sąsiadami kontynuować pragmatyczną współpracę z reżimem. Zwyciężyła polityka ochrony demokracji i praw człowieka. Wybór ten, z jednej strony zacieśnia relacje Turcji ze strukturami zachodnimi. Z drugiej, naraża na otwarty konflikt z Syrią oraz pogorszenie relacji z Iranem, które mogą mieć negatywne konsekwencje dlajej bezpieczeństwa i powiązań gospodarczych z Bliskim Wschodem. Uwzględniając złożoną sytuację na Bliskim Wschodzie, przywódcy Republiki Turcji za optymalne uznają: utrzymanie integralności terytorialnej Syrii; zapobieżenie wybuchowi konfliktu wyznaniowego, który może rozprzestrzenić się na obszar całego Bliskiego Wschodu oraz stopniową demokratyzację ogarniętego walkami państwa. Jednocześnie nie wykluczają oni bezpośredniego zaangażowania w konflikt w trzech przypadkach. Po pierwsze, przystąpienia do interwencji zbrojnej członków Sojuszu Północnoatlantyckiego. Po drugie, konieczności ochrony własnej ludności i terytorium. Po trzecie, eskalacji walk, bądź ich przeniesienia poza granice Syrii.

Wybuch Arabskiej Wiosny w Syrii spowodował przewartościowanie polityki regionalnej Turcji. Stanęła ona przed wyborem. Czy promować w Syrii i w całym regionie Bliskiego Wschodu zasady demokracji i reagować na przypadki łamania praw człowieka, wskazując tym samym kierunek niezbędnych przemian. Czy nawiązując do zasady tzw. zero problemów z sąsiadami kontynuować pragmatyczną współpracę z reżimem. Zwyciężyła polityka ochrony demokracji i praw człowieka. Wybór ten, z jednej strony zacieśnia relacje Turcji ze strukturami zachodnimi. Z drugiej, naraża na otwarty konflikt z Syrią oraz pogorszenie relacji z Iranem, które mogą mieć negatywne konsekwencje dla jej bezpieczeństwa i powiązań gospodarczych z Bliskim Wschodem. Uwzględniając złożoną sytuację na Bliskim Wschodzie, przywódcy Republiki Turcji za optymalne uznają: utrzymanie integralności terytorialnej Syrii; zapobieżenie wybuchowi konfliktu wyznaniowego, który może rozprzestrzenić się na obszar całego Bliskiego Wschodu oraz stopniową demokratyzację ogarniętego walkami państwa. Jednocześnie nie wykluczają oni bezpośredniego zaangażowania w konflikt w trzech przypadkach. Po pierwsze, przystąpienia do interwencji zbrojnej członków Sojuszu Północnoatlantyckiego. Po drugie, konieczności ochrony własnej ludności i terytorium. Po trzecie, eskalacji walk, bądź ich przeniesienia poza granice Syrii. ; The events of the Arab Spring in Syria have led to the re-evaluation of the regional policy of the Republic of Turkey, which has faced two options. One involves acting in compliance with the expectations of its Western allies, and promoting the principles of democracy in the Middle East by firmly reacting against any cases of human rights' violations, simultaneously showing the direction of the changes necessary in the region. Another refers to the principles included in the definition of the international policy of "Strategic Depth": avoiding problems with neighbors, which excludes all interference in the internal politics of other countries, and means the continuation of pragmatic co-operation with all political centers, including authoritarian regimes. In the face of the violent struggle between the opposition and Al-Assad supporters, a policy of the protection of democracy and human rights has been chosen. This decision, on the one hand, strengthens Turkey's relations with Western structures. On the other hand, it may lead to open conflict with a direct neighbor, Syria, which constitutes a serious threat to Turkey's security, and may result in negative consequences for its energy security and economic relations with its Middle East partners. The Republic of Turkey does not exclude direct engagement in a potential military intervention in three cases. Firstly, if Turkey's NATO allies decide to start military operations in Syria. Secondly, should it become necessary to protect its people and its territory. Thirdly, in the case of the conflict's escalation or its spread outside Syria's borders.

Since the founding of the republic in 1923, Turkey has been geared towards westernization and building close contacts with European states. Even after the end of World War II and the emergence of the bipolar system, it decided on membership of the capitalist bloc as an ally within NATO and aspired to membership in the European Communities. The disintegration of the Yalta system and the creation of the multipolar system became a challenge for shaping new directions in Turkey's foreign policy, and at the same time weakened its links with the Western allies. Ankara has started to believe uncritically in its own potential and capacity to act as a regional power and Eurasian state that was building its influence in the area of the former Ottoman Empire. It seems, however, that uncritical self-esteem and excessive ambition have outstripped the possibilities of Turkish politicians ; Turcja od czasu powstania republiki w 1923 r. ukierunkowana była na westernizację i budowanie ścisłych kontaktów z państwami europejskimi. Także po zakończeniu drugiej wojny światowej i powstaniu systemu dwublokowego zadecydowała o członkostwie w bloku państw kapitalistycznych jako sojusznik w ramach NATO oraz aspirant do członkostwa we Wspólnotach Europejskich. Rozpad systemu jałtańskiego i powstanie układu multipolarnego stał się wyzwaniem dla kształtowania nowych kierunków w polityce zagranicznej Turcji, osłabił równocześnie jej związki z Zachodem. Ankara uwierzyła bezkrytycznie we własny potencjał i możliwości pełnienia roli mocarstwa regionalnego i państwa euroazjatyckiego budującego swoje wpływy na obszarze dawnego Imperium Otomańskiego. Wydaje się jednak, że bezkrytyczna samoocena i wygórowane ambicje przerosły możliwości polityków tureckich.

Turcja od czasu powstania republiki w 1923 r. ukierunkowana była na westernizację i budowanie ścisłych kontaktów z państwami europejskimi. Także po zakończeniu drugiej wojny światowej i powstaniu systemu dwublokowego zadecydowała o członkostwie w bloku państw kapitalistycznych jako sojusznik w ramach NATO oraz aspirant do członkostwa we Wspólnotach Europejskich. Rozpad systemu jałtańskiego i powstanie układu multipolarnego stał się wyzwaniem dla kształtowania nowych kierunków w polityce zagranicznej Turcji, osłabił równocześnie jej związki z Zachodem. Ankara uwierzyła bezkrytycznie we własny potencjał i możliwości pełnienia roli mocarstwa regionalnego i państwa euroazjatyckiego budującego swoje wpływy na obszarze dawnego Imperium Otomańskiego. Wydaje się jednak, że bezkrytyczna samoocena i wygórowane ambicje przerosły możliwości polityków tureckich. ; Since the founding of the republic in 1923, Turkey has been geared towards westernization and building close contacts with European states. Even after the end of World War II and the emergence of the bipolar system, it decided on membership of the capitalist bloc as an ally within NATO and aspired to membership in the European Communities. The disintegration of the Yalta system and the creation of the multipolar system became a challenge for shaping new directions in Turkey's foreign policy, and at the same time weakened its links with the Western allies. Ankara has started to believe uncritically in its own potential and capacity to act as a regional power and Eurasian state that was building its influence in the area of the former Ottoman Empire. It seems, however, that uncritical self-esteem and excessive ambition have outstripped the possibilities of Turkish politicians.

In this analysis, the Turkish Stream pipeline project infrastructure will be presented.We will concentrate on the gas transportation route from Russia to the Turkish energy market and then to the Southern European states. The Russian Federation, as the main exporter of the energy resources in the global scale, is interested to restore its strategic position in its relations with Turkey and the Southern European states. Such policy is corresponding with Turkish aspirations, to be much more influential in the region. Therefore, the joint strategic energy project will combine the interests of Russia and Turkey and will be important for both countries in terms of strengthening their position not only in the energy market, but also in the geostrategic dimension. ; Przedmiotem analizy artykułu jest budowa Turkish Stream, gazociągu eksportowego z Rosji, który będzie docierał na rynek energetyczny Turcji, a następnie ma przekroczyć granicę tego państwa z Grecją i kierować się do Europy Południowej. Działania Federacji Rosyjskiej demonstrują chęć odzyskania strategicznej pozycji w relacjach z T urcją i państwami Europy Południowej kosztem Unii Europejskiej. Propozycje Rosji są zgodne z polityką Turcji, która dąży do wzmocnienia swojej roli w regionie. Wspólny strategiczny projekt energetyczny połączy znacząco interesy Rosji i Turcji pomimo wielu sprzeczności oraz zwiększy znaczenie tych państw nie tylko w wymiarze energetycznym, lecz także geostrategicznym.

Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie stanowiska Angeli Merkel wobec członkostwa Turcji w Unii Europejskiej w latach 2005–2015. Podzielony został na 6 części, które przybliżają historię stosunków unijno-tureckich oraz najczęściej pojawiające się kwestie podejmowane przez kanclerz w związku z tureckimi staraniami o akcesję. Autorka zdaje sobie sprawę, iż nie przedstawiła całego wachlarza zagadnień związanych z staraniami o członkostwo tegoż państwa, niemniej zarysowała ważne kwestie, które najbardziej wpłynęły na postawę A. Merkel w ostatnich 10 latach. ; The aim of the article is to present the position of Angela Merkel to Turkey's membership in the European Union in years 2005–2015. It has been divided into 6 parts, which introduces the history of relations between the EU and Turkey, and Chancellor's most pronounced concerns in connection with the efforts of Turkish accession. The author realizes that she did not present the whole range of issues related to the Turkey's efforts, but outlined the important issues thatinfluenced the most Angela Merkel's attitude in the past 10 years.

Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie stanowiska Angeli Merkel wobec członkostwa Turcji w Unii Europejskiej w latach 2005–2015. Podzielony został na 6 części, które przybliżają historię stosunków unijno-tureckich oraz najczęściej pojawiające się kwestie podejmowane przez kanclerz w związku z tureckimi staraniami o akcesję. Autorka zdaje sobie sprawę, iż nie przedstawiła całego wachlarza zagadnień związanych z staraniami o członkostwo tegoż państwa, niemniej zarysowała ważne kwestie, które najbardziej wpłynęły na postawę A. Merkel w ostatnich 10 latach. ; The aim of the article is to present the position of Angela Merkel to Turkey's membership in the European Union in years 2005–2015. It has been divided into 6 parts, which introduces the history of relations between the EU and Turkey, and Chancellor's most pronounced concerns in connection with the efforts of Turkish accession. The author realizes that she did not present the whole range of issues related to the Turkey's efforts, but outlined the important issues that influenced the most Angela Merkel's attitude in the past 10 years.