Zaman Online, Turkey
Nov 25 2004

[COMMENTARY]
Return to Reason

by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing

The prospect of Turkey’s entry into the European Union has prompted a
passionate debate. The most varied arguments have been put forward:
those in favour of entry refer to the promises dating back several
decades, the insult a negative response would represent to the
Islamic world, the progress achieved by Turkey, the risk of poisoning
further the clash between different civilisations; those against
membership bring up the fact that five-sixths of Turkey’s territory,
including its capital, are located outside of Europe, the size of its
population, the economic and social consequences of the inclusion of
the poorest country in the Union, the existence of a widespread
Turkish speaking community outside of Turkey and the oddity of Europe
discovering one day that it shares a common border with Syria, Iraq
and Iran.

In short, there are many arguments, which divide public opinion. In
France itself, at the same time as the President of the Republic
declared in Berlin, on 26 October 2004, that “my dearest wish is that
EU membership talks, which will last around ten to fifteen years,
conclude in the possibility of full membership”, 64 percent of the
French declared in an opinion poll that they were opposed to Turkey
becoming a member.

Is it wishful thinking to hope that some reason will be introduced
into this debate? France can contribute to this enlightenment. It is
a discussion which must be held without prejudice and without
passions, with an attempt to broach the essential ideas: what is the
fairest manner, adapted in accordance with objective information, in
which to organise relations between Turkey and the European Union in
the coming decades?

***

Let us start by examining the first two arguments: the promises made
to Turkey and the refusal to accept a Muslim state into the European
Union.

The pledges made in the 1960s must be considered within a different
historical context. They involved the possible entry of Turkey into
the “Single Market”, which was exclusively economic in nature at the
time. It can be said that these commitments were respected since the
European Union signed a Customs Union treaty in 1995 with Turkey,
which gave it access to this market.

As for the refusal to consider European Union membership for Turkey
for religious reasons, this is an ulterior motive ascribed by the
partisans of Turkish membership to their adversaries. On this point,
a categorical response must be given: the religion of the majority of
Turks is not an argument which shall determine the acceptance or
rejection of Turkey’s candidacy! Besides, it is likely that the
European Union shall be led to welcome a state with an Islamic
culture, for example Bosnia-Herzegovina, when civic peace and
democratic maturity have become the reality in the former Yugoslavia.

If reference to religion is not an argument to be used against
Turkey’s candidacy, neither should it be considered, on the other
hand, as an argument justifying its entry. Would acceptance of Turkey
into the European Union prevent this country from sliding towards
Islamic fundamentalism? We cannot know. The intensity of religious
faith will depend not only on internal factors, but on the solidarity
of ties with the neighbouring Islamic countries as well, which to the
Turks might seem to be more natural than changing their laws to fit
the model set up by remote authorities in distant Brussels.

Let us therefore set aside this muddle of contradictory questions.

*

Article I-57 of the Treaty of the European Union States provides that
“Any European State which wishes to become a member of the Union
shall address its application to the Council of Ministers. […] The
Council of Ministers shall act unanimously”. Each Member State
therefore reserves the right to veto the entry of a candidate state.
These terms are also provided in the Draft Constitution.

Is Turkey a “European State”? The Atlas of the magazine “National
Geographic” includes Turkey in its section focusing on Asia. While it
is true that Turkey still possesses a small European enclave, this
portion only represents 5% of its territory and 8% of its population.
The rest of the country is located in Asia, on the Anatolia plateau,
where the founder of modern-day Turkey, Kemal Atatürk, chose to
relocate the country’s capital.

Turkey shares a small border with each of its two European
neighbours, Greece and Bulgaria; it has a very long border with the
Middle Eastern countries which were once part of the Ottoman Empire,
Syria and Iraq; and lastly, it shares a border with Iran and Armenia.
Turkey has its own language and culture. The Turkish language does
not share the same roots as those found in the large family of
Indo-European languages.

Today, Turkey’s population numbers around 73 million inhabitants. It
is more populous than any of the European States, with the exception
of Germany. The United Nations’ demographic projections estimate
that, in twenty years, Turkey shall be the largest state in the
European Union in terms of population, which could reach up to 89
million. For the same period, Germany, France and Great Britain
should have populations of, respectively, 82, 64, and 63 million
inhabitants. It should also be borne in mind that the Turkish
population is part of a much larger community with Turkish roots
which remains united through ties of solidarity, and which extends to
the East, notably the Central Asian States, for example Turkmenistan.

Living standards in Turkey remain a long way off from the ones
enjoyed throughout most of Europe. The average income per inhabitant
is only half the level of that of the ten new Member States and
one-fifth that of the Europe of fifteen. The structure of its
economy, although it has made noticeable progress in recent years, is
still a far cry from the European “norm”. Agricultural production
still accounts for 14percent of its GDP, a figure which led the
European Commissioner in charge of Agriculture to declare “the costs
to the European budget of the entry of Turkish agriculture alone
would dwarf the costs of the entry of the ten new members”.

***

The current wavering of the European project, the scepticism towards
it expressed by European citizens – confirmed by the high abstention
rates in the last European elections – can be explained by the lack
of clarity of this project. Which Europe is at stake? The successive
enlargements have increased the uncertainty of people’s opinions.
Where will it end – this turning away from a Europe that is still
unorganised, ineffective in its results, and which is losing the
democratic support of its population?

Europeans need to strengthen their sense of identity. “European
patriotism” can only begin to exist when European citizens become
conscious of belonging to a common whole.

The European Convention sought to better define the basic foundation
of this common whole: the cultural contributions of ancient Greece
and Rome, the religious heritage which permeates European life, the
creative impetus of the Renaissance, the philosophy of the Age of
Enlightenment, the input of rational and scientific thought. Turkey
did not share any part of this heritage. This simple statement of
fact does not imply a pejorative judgement! Turkey developed its own
history and culture in parallel, which merits respect. However, it
must be noted objectively that the foundations on which identity is
built, an essential element today in establishing the cohesion of the
European Union, are different.

Turkey’s accession, whenever it should take place, would make it the
primary decision-maker of the European Union. It would change the
nature of the European project.

First of all, this accession could not remain an isolated event.

Already, the queue of possible members is forming, both in the East
and the West. The electoral debate in Ukraine is focused on the
eventuality of its joining the European Union. It is also likely that
Morocco will be tempted to follow the same path opened up by Turkey.
The result is a permanent enlargement process, destabilising the
functioning of the system and causing it to lose its original
rationale.

Secondly, the population level is a key element in regulating the
functioning of the European Institutions, the European Parliament and
the Council of Ministers.

As regards the Parliament, the maximum number of Members has already
been set at 750, and it is provided that the breakdown of its
membership be divided up among the States in proportion with its
population size, with an adjustment in favour of the smaller states,
and a maximum number of 96 members per state. If Turkey were to join
the European Union, it would account for a little over 15 percent of
its population. It would therefore have 96 members, at a parity with
Germany. To make room for these new members, the number of other
States’ representatives, notably those of Great Britain, France and
Italy, would have to be reduced.

As regards the Council of Ministers, the Constitution provides for
recourse to a double majority: for a decision to be adopted, it must
receive the support of at least 55% of the States, representing at
least 65 percent of the Union’s population. With its 15%, Turkey
becomes a key factor in the decision-making process. It is hard to
forget Spain and Poland’s recent opposition to voting by a double
majority, even though it was only a matter of being at a disadvantage
in terms of a few points. The entry of Turkey would result in a
disadvantage of fifteen points!

In order to avoid the situation where the last State to join the
Union – and as a result, unfamiliar with its functioning – would
become the primary decision-maker, it would be necessary to rewrite
the Constitution and to institute a maximum limit with respect to how
the population of Member States is taken into account. The debate
triggered by this issue at the Convention should be remembered: the
chances of ending up with a new draft acceptable to all are
questionable.

Please do not misunderstand me. As far as Turkey is concerned, it
does not have to be merely a question of rejection or contempt.
Rather, the reverse is true.

Indeed, it is because of the fact that it has become a large nation
in terms of its size and demography that it represents a sizeable
problem to Europe. It is already a weighty presence and will continue
to be one, one so considerable that its entry would strike at the
foundations of the still fragile community edifice, which was
conceived with other ends in mind. Constitutions are not all-purpose
forms to which it merely suffices to add the name of the latest
member. All Constitutions – the American, French and European ones –
are meticulous constructions resulting from compromises imposed by
the necessities of the moment. The fact remains that the European
Constitution submitted today for ratification was not conceived to
take in a power the size of Turkey.

***

When tackling this issue, the most surprising finding is the way in
which most European leaders have let themselves be caught in a
simplistic impasse: either say yes to the opening of negotiations
with a view towards the full membership of Turkey in the European
Union or shut the door in its face. How did this choice end up being
one of such paltry, extreme simplification? Other countries know how
to manage these problems better: the United States, Canada and Mexico
share as many similarities, perhaps even more, as those existing
between Europe and Turkey. No one talks of joining them together.
Instead, they have patiently constructed a free-trade zone and
established bilateral ties of co-operation.

Europe needs to reintroduce creativity and imagination in its
approach to defining its relations with its neighbours: Turkey,
naturally, but with Russia and the Mediterranean countries as well.
If the only solution being contemplated is either entry into the EU
or running the risk of antagonising its partners, the European Union
is doomed to become a regional organisation of the United Nations, a
structure allowing for meetings, dialogue and a few specialised areas
of co-operation. But, in this case, a common identity, will and role
to play cannot exist. The world will evolve without Europe, which
will thus be left marginalised.

Future negotiations with Turkey should therefore not be centred on
membership, but should explore the nature of the ties that the
European Union should form with its large neighbours. Let us try to
speak in concrete terms: as regards the economy, anything is
possible, but it can only be a gradual process; as regards politics,
nothing other than co-operation is possible, which must be organised
in such a way as to satisfy all involved. The European Union must
prove that it is capable of making a proposal to Turkey, without
delay, which is highly structured, honourable and specific in its
terms.

It is not simple chance which led the European Convention to propose
the insertion of Article 57 in the Constitution, which provides the
European Union with the possibility of negotiating privileged
partnership agreements with its neighbours. This text is the end
result of extensive discussions on the manner in which the European
Union could respond to the legitimate requests of its neighbours – to
the East, Southeast and South – without diluting its own underlying
principles.

The conclusion resulting from the foregoing is thus clear: in
December, the European Council should take the decision to open
negotiations aimed at establishing a common zone of economic
prosperity and setting up permanent structures of political
co-operation, key components of a privileged partnership between
Turkey and the European Union.

This is, in my opinion, the constructive and realistic attitude to be
adopted which would enable progress by responding to Turkey’s
expectations without placing at risk the fragile construction of the
European Union, which has not yet been able to completely handle the
impact on the institutions and the budget ensuing from the last
enlargement.

Of course, this proposal should be actively supported by France –
endowed, along with its partners, with the wisdom of the founders –
in view of a decision which, it must be borne in mind, can only be
taken unanimously.

While we have recently heard a great deal on the question, “What
about Turkey?” perhaps the moment has come to raise another one:
“What about Europe?”

–Boundary_(ID_L3y8/NdqMXqf20wKmJjI6A)–