Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

April 22nd, 2005

Tags

,

Comments

8 Comments so far.
Add yours.

The Eastern Question: Part I

If one heard the phrase “Eastern Question” one or two hundred years ago, he’d know that this so-called problem encompassed the diplomatic and political issues arising from the slow decay of the Ottoman empire. Today, the Eastern Question is not about the decay of an empire but rather the integration of the Ottoman’s historical heir, modern day Turkey, into Europe.

While many see Turkey’s eventual accession to the European Union as an unparalleled step in history, there are in fact parallels. As early as 1693, there were already calls for the Ottomans to be accepted into the “European family of nations.” The author of these words was non other than William Penn, founder of Philadelphia and the US state of Pennsylvania.

Ironically enough, once Sultan Abd-ul-Mejid I began a period of Tanzimat, or reorganization, from 1839 to 1876, the Ottomans came to be considered a member of the community of nations. In 1841, during the convention of the Straits whereby the European powers that be intervened to affirm Ottoman sovereignty over the Bosphorus and sea of Marmara, due to Russia having recently gained control of Crimea, the Ottoman Empire finally gained recognition from Europe. During the Crimean war of 1853 to 1856, the Ottomans were finally formally accepted into the Concert of Europe, whose aim was to maintain the balance of power, discuss problems of war and peace and generally maintain the European order established during the Congress of Vienna. It included Britain, Austria-Hungary, Prussia, Russia and later France (after the Bourbons were reinstalled). Thus, it can be said be one of the first international organizations and therefore forerunners of the United Nations and European Union.

Perhaps most important was the long-awaited recognition of the Ottomans as a (partially) European based power with influence on the European continent and as a legitimate state with which other European powers could deal. Ironically, the decay of the Ottoman empire lead to the series of European “Great Power conferences” which aimed to maintain stability and balance as the Ottomans lost territory.

Today, the Ottoman empire is long gone but Atatürk’s Republic of Turkey finds itself again on the doorstep of Europe. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union and it’s accompanying major territorial losses, the European Union has been rapidly expanding to quickly bring former Communist states into their sphere of influence. Today’s “Eastern Question” is rather: “How far east?”

Comments to this entry

Curzon
April 22, 2005
1:55 pm
Zbigniew Brzezinski talked about this -- how far can the EU go? Optimists today suggest Turkey, but why not the Caucasus? Ukraine, long seen as a pipe dream, may be signing up for permanent membership in the next few years. Even Kazakhstan has EU ambitions I hear (impossible as they may be, but ambitions nonetheless).
Sir Ignatius Valentine Chirol
April 22, 2005
2:43 pm
Yes, it's amazing how quickly these things can change. Turkey and now suddenly, the Ukraine is a likely candidate. I'll be covering this as well as NATO expansion in Part II.
mark safranski
April 22, 2005
4:57 pm
An interesting set of questions will be if Turkey can maintain its adherence to secularism or will grow more Islamist. Secondly if Turkish involvement will lead to a revival of " *Pan-Turkism*" and investment in the Turkish identity among the Turks or if a " *Pan-Turanism*" is established that makes Turkey a synthesizing transmission belt of European and Western ideas to their cousins further East.

In re: to Sir Iggy but what is NATO ? It is no longer what it once was and few leaders are willing to have a debate over what it actually is or could be ? A NATO that includes, say, Turkmenistan, is not what Truman and Acheson had envisioned. Not to say it would be all bad but we are talking about something closer to perhaps the UN than NATO of old.
Chirol
April 22, 2005
5:15 pm
I don't think Turkey should have a problem maintaining its secular identity. In fact, secularism is the cornerstone of the Turkish Republic and you'd be hardpressed to find a Turk who wants to do away with it. Turks take pride in their secular republic and see it as one of the biggest factors that separates them from the Arabs who they see as backwards and old fashioned.

If you look back at Turkish history to the coups that have taken place, they have never been coups in the classic sense, but the military stepping in to protect Atatürks legacy and maintain the separation of church and state.

As for NATO, I don't see the actual purpose being as important here as the membership. Everyone, including NATO members, agree that the current organization is a far cry from the early days and that it lacks a clear objective. However, the real importance is that these countries are brough into the western orbit. It will not only increase military cooperation, but connectivity in general. It will boost their international standing and force them to play with the adults. That has the added benefit of increased regional stability and conflict prevention. Plus, membership sends the message that we aren't excluding them, that we are ready and willing to extend membership to countries not traditionally counted among our ranks. What NATO actually does is another question entirely.
Curzon
April 22, 2005
5:22 pm
"Â? Pan-Turanism"Â? is established that makes Turkey a synthesizing transmission belt of European and Western ideas to their cousins further East.

A truly awesome prospect indeed.

I don't see any future for Islamists in Turkey. There's no history of it, no culture to strictly following religion like that (actually, in the whole Turkic world). The incumbent AK Party is labeled Islamist which is a total crock -- rather, they're pro-EU, anti-corruption, and about as Islamist as Al Gore is fundamentalist Christian.

But I take issue with Chirol here: As for NATO, I don't see the actual purpose being as important here as the membership... the real importance is that these countries are brough into the western orbit.

Fine, but NATO will either die from 1.) mission creep or 2.) meaningless expansion whereas it becomes so bloated it ceases to work.
Chirol
April 22, 2005
5:26 pm
As I said, I wasn't discussing the future of NATO. I don't disagree with your comments either. My point was that the gesture itself and results of membership are what's important.
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Apropos NATO
April 23, 2005
10:58 am
[...] Apropos NATO With regard to the discussion on NATO here ,Le Monde (via WatchingAmerica) has an interesting ar [...]
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » The Eastern Question: Part III
May 3, 2005
11:35 pm
[...] t Post: Previous Post: « Happy B-day Nicky! Related Th [...]