Zaman, Turkey
Dec 15 2004

The Worrying Developments of the Debate in France
by Didier Billion
Deputy Director of IRIS

It is often said that the debates over Turkey’s application for
membership into the European Union (EU) reveal the fact that the
European project has come to a standstill and that they reflect a
lack of vision from its leaders. This remark is quite relevant but
does not explain why this issue has become so impassioned and
exacerbated in France. It is therefore necessary to assess the
reasons for such agitation, because many European observers are
having difficulties understanding why a country which has in recent
history shown Turkey real and frequent political support should have
these concerns.

Many analysts suggest that one reason for France’s reluctance could
be a result of religious matters. Although this case is acceptable,
it only partially reflects the complexity of this issue. It is
otherwise difficult to understand why other members of the European
Union, with strong religious beliefs, such as Spain, Italy and
Poland, are as far as they are concerned rather favourable to the
prospect of Turkish membership. When one considers the worrying
progression of Islamophobia in France, it is obvious that the
religious dimension explains, in part, some of the tensions. In
reality, the religious issue meets with such a negative response due
to the French political structure.

In France the Front National, a right wing extremist party, has grown
over the years and now obtains 15 to 18% of the ballots. This party
is followed closely by an affiliated faction of sovereignists, which
obtains 4-10% of the votes. These two political trends have made the
refusal of Turkey’s membership one of the main lines of their
political stance. They would try to make you believe that what is at
stake is the protection of a Christian West. The fact that such
totally idiotic remarks should be uttered in the homeland of the
Enlightenment, of the French Revolution and of human rights, shows
just how distressing the decline in standard of the political and
intellectual debate has become …

But worse can perhaps be found elsewhere! Opposition to Turkey’s
accession took a turn for the worst and spread among the ranks of the
right wing’s majority when Nicolas Sarkozy used it as a lever in his
fight with Jacques Chirac. One could then witness the UMP (i.e. Union
for Popular Movement, the largest French conservative party) members
changing sides and swinging over to the cons. The right wing parties
have therefore used Turkey’s issue as a strategic tool in the
political fight for purely mean electoral motives. The right wing
leaders chose an issue, which was supposed to curb the growing weight
and progress of the Front National while, they wrongly believed, at
the same time soothing the fears of part of the political opinion.
Such a populist drift clearly does not do justice to the historical
stakes involved in Turkey’s entry into the E.U. One can then
legitimately wonder about the second-rate quality of political
officials who prefer to feed what they believe to be fears generated
by the construction of the European Union, rather than drawing
constructive and stimulating prospects for the future in order to
strengthen the E.U. One also ought to consider the fact that some
leaders of the Socialist party are not doing any better to set
themselves apart. Although one must acknowledge the fact they do not
use the religious issue as a political tool, they are nonetheless
embarking on a kind of demagogic spiral, intensified by the Armenian
lobby’s pressures, known for its influence on some socialist
representatives.

Fortunately, contrary to this politicking abuse of the debate, the
State, and in particular the presidency of the Republic and the
ministry of Foreign Affairs, brings credit on itself by firmly
maintaining its stance, by giving its policy long term perspective,
and by underlining the advantages for the E.U to integrate Turkey at
the end of the negotiating period.

Such a drift was in fact possible in France because of the existence,
in the background, of a favourable environment as regards to the idea
itself of the European construction. This vision comes from a
fundamental contradiction regarding the issue of the E.U’s future and
the role France intends to have. Paris considers that it must play a
central role in the European process and that the E.U. ought to
reflect its own values, models and ways of life. Yet, with the
ongoing enlargement of the European Union, this stance becomes less
and less relevant. This explains how the French identity crisis, in
the face of the other European countries, is taking such a
considerable role in Turkey’s chances of accession. If France was
convinced to keep its central position in the E.U. it would be less
inclined to see Turkey’s application as an Anglo-Saxon plot aimed at
weakening its own vision of Europe. It is worrying to note that today
Turkey fills this particular need felt by some countries to form
their identity against the other and it is unbearable that she should
bear the brunt. Inopportunely it really seems that in the aftermath
of September 11, 2001, Islam has become the epitome of “Otherness” in
the French collective unconscious.

The debate about Turkey’s membership must be dignified and
dispassionate because it deals with the future of Europe and its role
in the future world.

(IRIS = Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques –
Paris)

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress