Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) opublikował raport na temat Turcji. Wśród tekstów zamieszczonych w Conditionality, Impact and Prejudice in EU-Turkey Relations (red. Nathalie Tocci) ukazała się, przedstawiająca polską perspektywę, publikacja Andrzeja Ananicza. Polecamy!

Since 1999, EU-Turkey relations have become the focus of growing academic and policy interest in Europe. Yet the valuable research results produced have by and large failed to inform and influence the political, media and wider public debate on EU-Turkey relations. On a whole, the quality of the debate is rather poor. In some member states there is hardly a debate at all, while in other member states public debate is often poisoned by misperception, misinformation and at times by outright prejudice.
The underlying rationale of this project is precisely to begin filling the gap between research and public debate on EU-Turkey relations by unpacking the public discourses there where they exist and understanding factors underpinning these positions, debates or non-debates as the case may be. A major contention advanced here is that debates on EU-Turkey relations often act as proxies for views either on Turkey or the EU and its member states, rather than on the relationship between them. Stemming from this observation, we have selected two issues that occupy much of the space in the public debate on EU-Turkey relations, namely EU conditionality towards Turkey and the impact of Turkey’s EU accession. We analyse conditionality and impact by uncovering how different interests, perceptions and at times prejudices in different national contexts colour these debates, generating opinion both in favour and against Turkey’s accession.
The benefit of this exercise we believe is first and foremost that of gaining a deeper understanding of the motivations, assumptions and political  significance of these debates, including those which may appear as the most irrational, populist or even nonsensical. We hope this understanding can contribute to reversing the viscious circle of mistrust and miscommunication which has bedeviled EU-Turkey relations, particularly in recent years. Mistrust has hindered the effectiveness of EU conditionality towards Turkey and it has skewed ideas about the prospective impact of Turkey’s EU membership. If this debate can now be moulded into a more frank, open and enlightened discussion, it can however become beneficial to the future evolution of EU-Turkey relations. It can concomitantly desensitize the political climate surrounding the Turkey question and foster a greater sense of joint responsibility and destiny in both the EU and Turkey.
This publication features a report, which in turn draws from and organizes the arguments presented in the chapter that follow. The chapters discuss know and why the questions of conditionality and impact are or are not tackled in different member states and how interests, perceptions and prejudices influence these debates. The reports are authored by analysts whose expertise does not necessarily lie in Turkey or EU-Turkey relations; but who have a deep understanding of how the Turkey question has been debated in their specific national contexts. Rather than opting for a comprehensive coverage of each and every member state and EU institution, we have selected ten cases, of which many reflect a single member state, some more than one state, and one a view from Brussels. Collectively, we believe the arguments presented in these chapters are largely representative of the EU-wide debate on Turkey. By organizing these arguments, the report provides an analytical lens with which to decipher them and understand their political significance. In addition the report draws heavily from the debate in the workshop held in Rome in March 2007, at which the draft papers were presented and discussed amongst the members of the EU-Turkey network launched by the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) and the Turkish Economic Policy Research Institute (TEPAV) in 2007.