ABHaber, Belgium
EU-Turkey News Network
Feb 2 2008
European Turkey in the EU!
We have read the article titled `La Turquie dans l’UE? C’est toujours
non!’ in your newspaper dated as of 29.01.08, not without a certain
amount of resignation. Our surprise and indignation at similar
comments has indeed been steadily decreasing since French politics
entered its era of Sarkozian domination.
The authors of the passionate letter begin by stating the need for
clear geographical borders for the EU to exist as a political entity.
They then go on to claim that Turkey is not geographically European
because some of her territory is located in Asia Minor. This is a
much utilised argument by those against Turkish membership to the EU.
However, a certain EU Member State is currently situated much more to
the East than most of Turkey’s territory. This detail seems to be
always deliberately left out. Furthermore, some Member States regard
this phenomenon simply as a geographical aberration and try to
correct the matter. For example, recent Euro coins will not feature
Turkey on the map. Southern Cyprus, which should also disappear from
the map in all logic, has been literally fictionally moved westwards
and squeezed into the map . These Orwellian efforts would have been
extremely entertaining if they were restricted to the realm of
comedy. Since they are not, these are sobering indicators of the
level of xenophobia and political manipulation in the EU.
Fortunately, it is currently impossible to make Turkey disappear.
That being said, Turkey’s sense of identity is distinctly European.
With all due respect, it is not up to any politician or the authors
of the aforementioned comment to define Turkey’s identity.
The geographical `question’ aside, the authors go on to base their
objections to Turkey’s membership on seemingly more tangible
subjects. To put it simply, it is all about money. The authors claim
that Turkey’s membership to the EU would cost too much and disqualify
some current EU regions from structural funds. These assertions would
be true if Turkey’s accession happened today. However Turkey is not
expected to become a member before the next financial perspective of
the EU is prepared. Therefore, the earliest date for accession is
projected as 2014. This target was also confirmed by the Turkish
government in its harmonisation program published in April 2007. In
the meantime, Turkey continues to record very high growth rates year
after year. Consequently, by the time of accession these numbers will
no longer hold any significant meaning. The time for those
considerations is still a long way away. Furthermore, one of the
foundations of the EU is solidarity. Those considerations were never
voiced this loud with previous enlargements and the fact that they
are done so now raises suspicions of some pathological enmity.
This brings us to other assertions in the unfortunate letter. The
authors claim that it is impossible to integrate a state which does
not recognize the `Armenian genocide’. There is no legal basis to
that claim in terms of EU treaties and agreements, so we perceive
this assertion as a moral issue. That period of history was extremely
painful for everybody involved regardless of ethnicity. Recent years
brought a resurgence of interest about the subject in the Turkish
society. However, the insistence of some EU member states on the
recognition of the events as `genocide’ is seriously detrimental to
the reconciliation of the societies. Moreover such seemingly moral
claims look especially groundless when contrasted against the
historical conduct of some member states. Mr. Sarkozy himself said
that `leaders should focus on the future and not beat their breasts’
on a recent visit to Algeria . According to Mr. Sarkozy, `the sons
should not be hold accountable for the mistakes of their fathers’ .
Comments like these makes one wonder about the source of Sarkozian
moral authority. `The Kurdish question’, as the authors put it, is
intimately tied to the larger democratization process ongoing in
Turkey. More representative politics and respect for minorities is
the main issue here. To that effect, there have been many reforms
since the recognition of Turkey as a candidate in 1999 and new reform
packages are on the way.
The authors also make a point of the Cyprus question. What they omit
is that the current situation is the result of EU’s faulty strategy.
This much was admitted by EU leaders and bureaucrats of the time. It
was the Turkish Cypriots who voted for the reunification of the
island and the Greek Cypriots who refused in the referenda for the
Annan Plan in 2004. The EU however, went on to accept Southern Cyprus
as a member representing the whole of the island. One of the
fundamental tenets of EU enlargement policy concerns relations with
neighbours. Yet S. Cyprus was made a member regardless of its
problems with its neighbours. Besides creating double standards,
today the EU is isolating some of its own citizens! Turkey is still
supportive of a UN sponsored solution to the problem.
The 301st article of the penal code is a disgrace. The government is
working on a reformulation which will prevent abuses of the article.
Moreover, a new constitution is currently being prepared which will
bring new freedoms. That being said, the existence of restrictions on
freedom of expression is not particular to Turkey. While this does
not diminish the disgraceful nature inherent to articles limiting
freedom of expression, many EU member states have similar articles in
their penal codes .
Turkey cannot become an EU member state without completing the
necessary democratic reforms anyway, so the anxiety of the authors
about integrating an undemocratic Turkey is simply unfounded. What is
more, the democratization process coincides with the accession
process and sometimes the promise of membership acts as a catalyst.
But it is never intended solely as a compromise in return for
membership. It is realized for Turkish citizens, first and foremost.
Prime Minister Erdoðan said it best when asked what would happen to
Turkey’s reform process if accession negotiations were halted: `We
will transform the Copenhagen criteria into Ankara criteria and
continue on our way’.
The signatories to the letter go on to state that `negotiations with
Turkey should end up in a privileged partnership because it is
necessary to have commercial relations with your immediate
neighbours’. The tone of this sentence permeates the whole letter.
What the signatories fail to mention is that this `necessity’ has
already been taken care of by the Customs Union which went into force
in 1996. Turkey has been a `privileged partner’ of the EU for 12
years now. In fact without accession, the rules governing the Customs
Union offer no net `privileges’ to Turkey in the long run. The
accession negotiations between Turkey and the EU are part and parcel
of the acquis communautaire. Going back on that 45 year old promise
now would be the real death of the European idea, as it has been
conceived by Robert Schumann and Jean Monnet.
Turkey is European. It is becoming even more European with every new
reform it adopts. But there is a part of Europe which is
short-sighted, intolerant and xenophobic. Turkey wants nothing to do
with that part.
Economic Development Foundation
Ýstanbul, TURKEY
ABHaber 02.02.2008 Ýstanbul