Another point that drove attention at that time was about Turkey's overreliance on the United States. Many political analysts, especially in the United States, warned that being a NATO member did not mean that one could automatically rely on, above all, America's help at all times. It was therefore indispensable that Turkey become EU member in order to guarantee its future security. However, they advised, for this it needed to continue its efforts at proving that it was moving towards the goal of establishing a modern "European state". The core of the whole debate was that NATO could tie Europe to the USA for one more generation to come, but the dynamics of future Trans-Atlantic relations were uncertain.


Obviously, the direction and tone of the debate is more positive--now that Turkey has been granted a date for the start of accession negotiations set for October of the current year. Was it still true that Turkey is going to be the sole beneficiary of this prospective partnership with the EU? Are not there any points of convergence and mutual benefit? What first has to be born in mind is that Turkey's final place in the EU has mostly to do with strategic and security factors. The two major contributions Turkey could make to the EU in these areas would be as follows: By becoming the full member of the Union it would give the best answer to the instigating arguments of the sorts of "civilization clashes" founded on religious antagonisms. Accepting a Muslim country would alleviate concerns that the EU is a Christian club and demonstrate the compatibility of Islam with liberal democracy, while serving as a brilliant example for the whole Muslim world. Next, it is the opportunity and advantage that Turkey--as a geopolitical and geoeconomic pivot--would give Europe to become much more influential in the Middle East, and post-Soviet Caucasus and Central Asia, considering historical, cultural and religious ties and geographical proximity.