TURKEY’S EU MEMBERSHIP “POLITICALLY UNATTAINABLE OBJECTIVE” – NATO’S LELLOUCHE
Liberation, Paris, in French
26 Sep 05
Text of commentary by Pierre Lellouche, chairman of NATO Parliamentary
Assembly, entitled “Turkey’s missed appointment” published by French
newspaper Liberation website on 26 September
Turkey’s EU membership negotiations, which are due to start on 3
October, raise a fundamental question in two respects: for Turkey,
a great Muslim country, the question of its European destiny; and
for each of the EU member states, that of our vision of Europe,
its founding values and its proper borders.
The prospect of Europe’s engaging – almost underhand and without
any democratic consultation – in a mechanism that would lead,
almost automatically, to Turkey’s accession probably contributed
to the victory of the “No” vote in the referendum [on the European
Constitution]. Not that the opening of these negotiations, scheduled
following a European Council decision, has been any more or less
transparent than in the case of other EU enlargements. The reasons
for the very negative perception that many people in France form
of Turkey’s candidacy in most cases has nothing to do with the real
nature of that country today. It has to do first and foremost with
fear of Islam, which is linked to the failure or difficulty of the
integration of our Arab-Maghrebi communities in our own city areas.
At a time when France is becoming aware of the scale of the Muslim
minority in the country (at least 10 per cent of the population,)
when it is worried about jihadists groups recruiting on its own
territory, when it is difficult to ensure observance of the law even
in our schools, and when immigration seems to be increasingly “out of
control” in a Europe that no longer really knows where its borders
lie, was it really impossible to find anything better to do than to
allow a further 70 million – soon to be 100 million – Muslims in?
Voters could not understand it, since our government failed to realize
the scale of the problem properly and, even more, failed to prepare
the public in advance for decisions that had long been scheduled, since
the Helsinki Council session of 1999 and that of 2002 in Copenhagen.
I was among those in favour of the principle of launching negotiations
with Turkey and, in time, if the conditions were met, of its possible
membership. I thought that it was a question of civilization: either
we thought, a priori, that there is no place for the Muslims in Europe,
irrespective of what they might do and irrespective of their political,
economic and social system and accepted in advance – even within our
own societies – the “conflict of civilizations” that some predict;
or we decided to attempt the experiment, in order to establish
democracy in that secular Muslim country, and tried to promote, in
opposition to the regressive model that the Bin-Ladins, al-Zawahiris
and other all-Zarqawi-type murderers were trying to impose by means
of terror, the alternative model of an open, tolerant Islam, confined
to the private sphere and compatible with our own values. This still
remains a challenge of prime importance for us, following the attacks
in Madrid and then those in London this July. And in this worldwide
struggle against terrorism and jihadist radicalism, we need the help
of a pro-Western Turkey living in accordance with European values.
But in order for such a politically and social sensitive process to be
conducted successfully in the long term, at least two key factors had
to be satisfied: Turkey had to join the negotiations on our conditions
and not its own, that is, without ambiguities and while adopting the
European democratic spirit and attitude; and, second, Europe itself had
to be able to manage such an enlargement, as great in demographic scale
(not to mention the cultural and religious differences) as that which
we have recently accomplished with the 80 million East Europeans. It
must be acknowledged that neither of these conditions has yet been met.
It is of course undeniable that Mr Erdogan’s Turkey has, within the
space of a few years, accomplished real progress in terms of democratic
development and human rights observance, the famous “Copenhagen
criteria”. The adoption in 2003-2004 of a number of constitutional
and legislative changes and the transposition of communitaire gains,
have considerably strengthened Turkey’s candidacy.
The European Council, on the [European] Commission’s recommendation,
therefore decided in Brussels last December to start membership
negotiations in October 2005 – on certain conditions, however. In
particular, the Presidency’s conclusions mentioned the need for Turkey,
following the latest EU enlargement, “to sign the additional protocol
to the Ankara agreement, so as to take account of the accession of 10
new member states” – including Cyprus – and this, “before the actual
start of membership negotiations”. Now, Turkey did indeed sign the
additional protocol on 29 June, but it did so under conditions that,
politically if not juridically, undermined the significance of that
move. Indeed, in a unilateral declaration tantamount to a reservation,
Turkey said that its signature “did not at all signify any recognition
of the Republic of Cyprus, as mentioned in the protocol”.
So the recognition of Cyprus expected by Europe has not occurred.
This is disappointing, particularly in view of the constructive
attitude that Mr Erdogan’s government had maintained in facilitating
the talks conducted under UN auspices, which resulted in the “Annan
plan” for the island’s reunification. The fact that the majority of
Greek Cypriots rejected that plan, in a referendum in April 2004,
and therefore prevented the solution of the Cyprus conflict, cannot
however free Ankara from its obligation to normalize its relations
with Nicosia. And despite the counter-declarations formulated at
the last moment in Brussels, can we really imagine the Twenty-Five
engaging in negotiations – on the issue of membership, moreover –
with a state that does not recognize one of their own number? Can
we be satisfied with such contortions, whereas in the case of little
Croatia Europe has decided to set back the start of negotiations until
the Croatian government has handed over a war criminal wanted by the
ICTY [International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia],
[fugitive General] Ante Gotovina? The difference of treatment would
be truly shocking..
But this is not the most serious point. The European public, especially
in France, expected – again rightly – a gesture from Turkey in
connection with the Armenian genocide of 1915 and relations with
independent Armenia. Turkey can indeed say that such a gesture is
not mentioned – and I regret the fact – in the conditions expressly
set by the European Council. But we cannot build the future on a
denial of history and a negotiation of past crimes, even if they were
committed by previous generations and under a different political
regime, in this instance the Ottoman Empire. There is no point in
evading responsibilities towards History: better to acknowledge, to
mend and to be reconciled. Germany fully realized this following 1945
and this is what made possible its involvement, with equal rights,
in European building.
Of course a great deal of political courage is needed in order to
surmount the burden of mentalities, taboos or state lies, which in
fact now undermines the interests of this state and its inhabitants.
Some first steps are probably necessary, such as the holding in
Turkey of an initial conference mainly devoted to the issue of the
Armenian genocide, such as that which was originally cancelled at
the authorities’ request and which was at last able to materialize
in Istanbul this weekend. But it is necessary to go much further, to
have the courage at last to recognize the reality of what occurred,
with no trickery, no false pride and no ill-placed arrogance. Rather
than harping on old enmities, it is high time that Turkey’s leaders
built a better future for future generations. This also entails
normalizing diplomatic relations and opening Turkey’s land border
with this country, which is still an enclave and access to which is
possible only via Iran or Georgia. Here, too, we have awaited a gesture
from the Turkish government for the past 10 years – sadly, in vain!
I consider it premature to start membership negotiations with Turkey
on 3 October, in the absence of strong political gesture in connection
with the recognition of Cyprus or the Armenian question.
And on this point I can only side with the opinion of the majority
of my fellow UMP [Union for a Popular Movement] members and their
chairman, in thinking that, rather than focusing on a politically
unattainable objective, we should pragmatically establish an ambitious
strategic partnership with this country, strengthening our ties in
the fields of defence, security and the antiterrorist struggle.