RevUE de la conférence de Bahar Rumelili proposé par Ayhan Eren Babayigit

« The EU and its Others: Constructing European Identity through Enlargement Policy », le 19 février 2025 avec Frédéric Mérand (Université de Montréal).

Although the idea of Europe predates the European Union (EU), the EU has played an important role in defining the boundaries and values of European identity. The European integration project has secured its legitimacy and cohesion through this European identity, but it has also actively defined who is European. The Union is not only a supranational organization for the integration of the countries in Europe but also a force that gives the peoples of the member states a “European” identity. One of the most important instruments of this process is the EU enlargement policy. Although enlargement is a political process, it has been legitimized on identity-based grounds and has acquired a symbolic meaning. The rejection of Morocco’s candidacy application in the most negative tone possible is a case in point.

One of the points emphasized in the speech is that EU enlargement has forced the boundaries of European identity to be more clearly defined. In this process, the EU has used the strategy of ‘Othering’ in different ways by positioning different countries outside its own identity. This process of identity formation has two distinct dimensions: inclusion and exclusion. European identity is defined in terms of geography, history, and culture, and an external Other is created (i.e., Morocco). The internal dimension concerns the countries that can be admitted to accession with some political and economic reforms (i.e., Eastern European countries).

However, the main point emphasized in the speech was the situation of Türkiye. Türkiye has long been positioned as a ‘liminal Other,’ neither fully inside nor completely outside the European identity. In different periods, different actors of the EU have produced contradictory discourses on Türkiye’s place within the European identity, making Türkiye’s accession process even more controversial. This flexible identity construction, while at times encouraging cooperation and normative convergence, has also led to conflicts. This reminded me of the famous Turkish writer Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar’s words about time: “I am neither within time nor completely outside of it.” If we apply that to this situation: Türkiye is neither within Europe nor completely outside of it. I think this saying explains this liminal situation quite well. Türkiye’s case proves that European identity is neither entirely exclusive nor entirely inclusive and that there are intermediate positions.

What could be done differently was also discussed. It was pointed out that this ambiguity increases the burden and complicates fruitful cooperation. It was noted that, like the change in post-2005 integration mentioned by Daniel C. Thomas (2021), the EU has now moved towards a legitimization based on geopolitical interests rather than identity. The difficulty for Europe in maintaining its internal cohesion and external influence without a ‘European’ identity was mentioned. In this case, whether geopolitical concerns will permanently override European identity and whether this is sustainable is an issue that needs to be considered.

Ayhan Eren Babayigit.