In the post-Cold War era, there was an optimistic anticipation that the liberal world order would serve as a remedy for the malaise of the international system. The notion of globalization was expected to diminish states' agency in shaping power balances. Unfortunately, this optimism proved unfounded. Instead, a multipolar world order has emerged, characterized by the surfacing of "great power rivalry" in various realms and geographic spaces.

In this evolving system, nations such as Russia, China and the European Union are grappling to define their strategic positions. New multilateral blocs, like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), have been established by middle powers to fortify their relative interests. Recent conflicts have crystallized these power dynamics, revealing the EU's dependency on the United States for its strategic security paradigm, particularly evident in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Against this backdrop, the stalled membership journey of Türkiye, now somewhat lost in the mortuary of diplomatic processes, demands the EU's attention. Türkiye, once a country seeking EU membership six decades ago, has transformed into a regional powerhouse. Under strong political leadership, boasting a vibrant economy, effective diplomatic influence and a game-changing military, modern Türkiye is an independent actor keen on safeguarding and maximizing the long-term interests of its citizens globally.

Türkiye’s stance on regional and global disputes, and its positioning in the new world order, significantly impacts international affairs. This influence has been palpable in Syria, Libya, the South Caucasus, mediation between Ukraine and Russia, the Horn of Africa, balances in the Gulf region and the Balkans.

Despite the closure of many relatively weak EU application dossiers, there is currently no positive political approach to Türkiye's membership in Brussels. This lack of willingness to restart talks is fueled by anti-Erdoğanism and discomfort toward Türkiye’s free agency.

"Does the EU want to make Türkiye a member or not? That is the exact question. So the question is not one to ask us," said Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan on Sunday during a televised interview in response to a question related to the current situation of Türkiye-EU relations. "The EU needs to decide this," he added.

EU's stance on Türkiye: Lack of vision and identity-based rhetoric

For Fidan, the EU’s negative position on Türkiye is a result of the absence of a long-term strategic vision that sees the big picture. Fidan blames the EU decision-makers for having instrumentalized identity-based rhetoric against Türkiye for domestic political consumption since former French President Nicolas Sarkozy was elected. He adds, meanwhile, that they have actually become successful in this matter.

"It has seemed to work in bringing certain parties to power in European states," Fidan says. Here, it is important to highlight that, the anti-Türkiye rhetoric is, of course, not limited to a scope that stands against Türkiye as a sovereign state. Instead, while this position is against Türkiye as an independent actor, and fails to understand and accept this matter as a fact, also it is a matter of Eurocentric, xenophobic and Islamophobic discourse that is exposed through relations with Türkiye. The rise of the far-right in Europe is, in fact, a clear example of this.

On the flip side, Fidan contends that strained relations with Ankara have cost the EU opportunities to strengthen its global strategic position.

"Today, they could be a more independent actor in the Euro-Atlantic security equation. Today, they could be more effective in preventing problem areas in the Middle East and Africa with preventive diplomacy or preventive action. However, they currently have no tools for many issues, including migration. Whenever they enter into a strategic balance of power, America needs to be by their side," Fidan said.

Whether Türkiye will ever become an EU member or not is no longer a matter that occupies the Turkish people’s debates and agenda as it did in the 1990s. Yet, as Türkiye diversified its partners and made sure not all the eggs were put in one basket through its multidimensional and compartmentalized foreign policy; its willingness to keep the traditional ties with the West has always remained strong. Moreover, in some counterterrorism disputes between Ankara and Brussels, Türkiye has put the security of its citizens and borders first, while the EU has ignored terrorist groups that directly target the country.

As the war in Ukraine continues, the Middle East is once again on the verge of regional turmoil due to Israel’s massacres in Gaza. Tensions are building in Asia-Pacific, and the importance of Türkiye for the EU should become clearer for the decision-makers in Brussels. Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to visit Türkiye and meet President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in the coming days where two are likely to discuss revitalizing the grain deal. Türkiye’s active mediation for grain, as well as when it comes to energy, are other examples of its strategic role for the EU, in addition to many others, including migration.

At a time when Türkiye is normalizing ties with regional actors, including Greece, and engaging in diplomacy to rebuild trust with the U.S., the EU must adopt a more realistic approach toward Ankara. Overcoming the EU's concerns about Türkiye's membership requires dialogue, which is currently hindered by a narrow identity-based approach. If EU decision-makers can transcend these barriers and see the "big strategic picture," as Fidan described it, they might grasp the strategic significance of Türkiye for the EU's broader interests and become partners with Ankara in a win-win relationship.