Gulf News, United Arab Emirates
Aug 6 2004
Luc Debieuvre: Turkey’s admission to EU is a matter of grave concern
The Turkish are very good people” said the Prince of Metternich 150
years ago after the Chio massacres in Greece. “They slaughter the
Greeks and the Greeks behead them. It is a matter of civilisation.”
The question of Turkey joining the European Union (actually, in a
first step which may last up to 15 years, negotiating it) is thus not
a new issue. It officially started 40 years ago and was marked by a
series of successive European Council’s rulings, which never said no
but made believe that a yes could come provided some unclear
conditions allow for it.
The latest one defined a precise deadline, December 2004, when it
should be decided whether Turkey meets the so-called Copenhagen
criteria. These are the respect of the state of law, democracy and
human rights, and the achievement of a modernised economy able to
address open competition. This is how political leaders frenetically
started exchanging “scientific” arguments over the past months.
These cover history and civilisation, democracy, economy and
international relations. A first salve came from those who consider
Turkey is not part of Europe, nor geographically (95 per cent of its
territory in Asia), nor historically.
The former Ottoman Empire in Europe was always linked to invasion,
destruction and economical drawback such as in the Balkans or in
Cyprus. With its civilisation being different, its values would not
be those upon which the EU was built.
Not a Christian club
Turkey hit back at Europe claiming it not to be a “Christian Club”
and the need for it to accept members of other religions (98 per cent
of its 70 million population is Muslim). “Turkey is at the doorstep
of Europe and wants to be part of the family” said Turkish Prime
Minister Recep Erdogan.
How could one dismiss a country which has been part of all the major
treaties regarding Europe? What about the basilicas of Bezants, the
colossus of Rhodes or the temples of Ephesus? “We see the EU as a
union of political values. A place where civilisations can be
harmonised and coexist in peace” added Erdogan, “not a place for a
clashing of civilisations.
Turkey would be a bridge between Asia and Europe. For others, its
heterogeneous population (including Kurdish tribes), the risk to
jeopardise any balance in the EU and the refusal to recognise the
Armenian genocide are enough to prove that Turkey is too far apart.”
Regarding democracy, free elections, neutral army and secularism, the
progress achieved by the Erdogan government is amazing and its march
towards democracy, including the status of women, is emphasised.
Much remains to be done: attitudes of overzealous civil servants,
lack of application decrees for a judicial system which still is not
protective (editors put in jail for opinion offences). So many
reforms made so swiftly cannot be implemented over night. And if the
role of the Turkish army hardly goes with the view one has of a
liberal democracy, it is agreed that it behave more positively than
negatively in recent years.
Positions however sharply contrast as to the place of religion versus
secularism and Turkey may not have played it very smartly. Once it
said the membership was crucial to bridging divide between west and
Muslim worlds or promoted its future role as the only “Muslim
democracy”.
It leant on blackmail if the answer was negative: civil unrest,
disappearance of “moderate Muslims”, expansion of Islamism. Excluding
Turkey would be a terrible mistake in Muslim eyes.
Yet, as long as five schoolgirls are allowed to drown in front of
schoolmates who are not authorised to save them “because they would
have to touch them”, or the only training centre for Orthodox popes
remains closed, there is still a long road to go.
The concept of secularism means everybody is free to practice its
religion: this can hardly be respected when 98 per cent of the local
clerics are on the state’s payroll.
Economic arguments are not persuasive, even though the living
standards in Turkey are 25 per cent of those in the EU. The risk of
workers migrations is remote when low costs in Turkey may open new
job opportunities (as with former eastern blocs).
The Turkish economy has probably more trumps than figures show and
still 10-15 years to run before subsidies enjoyed by European farmers
fully apply to it. The well-known deficiencies (high inflation
notably) may be more than compensated by the qualities of a hard
working population, whose number will be equal to the German one in
2015, as well as by prospects linked to oil transportation (Ceyhan
pipe) and water availability.
On the international field, the debate was spoilt by the way America
behaved (any “savoir-faire” being considered by this administration
as a sign of weakness).
Its overwhelming support in favour of Turkey, when everybody knows of
the good Bush wishes Europe, was enough to raise doubts; hence
President Chirac’s comments “The US would not want to hear France’s
views on its relations with Mexico”.
Staunchest ally
Turkey, a staunch ally of Israel, never maintained such friendly
links with other Arab states. But a fact remains that Turkey has been
an ally since 1952; its belonging to the EU would be a stabilising
element in the region as well as a peace strengthening element.
And the need for the EU to reinforce its links with its other
partners of the Mediterranean area surely does not oppose the joining
of Turkey. Considering such contradictions, it is not surprising that
some rushed enthusiastically to German opposition leader Angela
Merkel’s proposal for a ‘privileged partnership’, a way to maintain
links with Turkey whilst avoiding the risk of its joining
transforming the EU into an international organisation only.
The idea is bright but came too late because the EU has already
become something which has little to do with what the founding
members hoped for. The original concept of Europe is now dead.
What could not be achieved at 12 with a strong Franco-German axis
will not be achievable at 27 or 32 and the political vision where
cohesion was necessary to an efficient powerful Europe with an
autonomous strategy doesn’t exist any more.
The only way to part away from an open single market under the
commending of the US is to start working on ‘reinforced co
operations’ in some fields with those states which are prepared to
move further ahead together.
But for the time being, as Philip Stephens said in the Financial
Times, “there are risks, of course, in giving Turkey its route map
into modern Europe-serious ones. But the dangers of raising the
drawbridge are infinitely greater” whereas in the meantime,
negotiations will allow to keep pressure on Turkey for it to go on
reforming.
Luc Debieuvre is a French political analyst and writer on economic
issues and is also a board member of IRIS (Institut de Relations
Internationales et Stratégiques)