The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : An uncertain wait

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jan 27, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

An uncertain wait

By Vaiju Naravane

Turkey has a long way to go before qualifying itself for EU membership. It has to bring itself in line with the democratic and institutional principles that govern European nations.

CAN TURKEY be considered a European country? The answer to that question was given at the 25-member European Union summit in Brussels on December 17, 2004, when heads of state and government agreed to formally open talks on Turkey's accession to the select European club at whose door Ankara has been knocking with singular persistence since 1963.

But the answer, when it came, was a conditional one. While EU leaders gave a date — October 3, 2005 — for the opening of accession talks, they also warned that the negotiations could drag on for up to 20 years, with no firm promises of membership at the end. This sets Turkey apart from all other candidate countries for which accession talks have been close-ended.

By responding with a conditional yes, EU leaders were in fact turning the proposition around. Implicit in their response is the question: is Turkey fit to be in Europe? With the onus of proof lying with Ankara. For the past decade, Europe has been dragging its feet over opening formal membership talks with Turkey, shifting the goalposts each time the Turks pressed for a firm answer.

The objections to Turkey joining Europe are numerous: Turkey is large with a growing population of 70 million people. Despite its secular Constitution, it is not considered fully democratic because of the preponderant role the army has played in its recent history. Its treatment of the minorities and its human rights record do not in any way match European standards. Turkey is poor and undereducated and it will cost billions of Euros in development aid to allow the Turks to catch up with everyone else.

But the overriding principal argument against Turkey's adhesion to the EU is that of religion, culture, history and geography. Straddling East and West, sharing its frontiers as much with Europe — Greece, Bulgaria — as with the Middle East — Syria, Iraq, Iran — Turkey falls between two cultural stools.

Like many other European thinkers and commentators both from Europe's Right and Left, Jean-Louis Bourlanges, a French member of the European Parliament, questions Turkey's suitability to join the European club on civilisational grounds. "Turkey is not part Europe and it is foolish to persist in building a multi-civilisational EU with unlimited, ever-extending borders. Turkey's adhesion must involve, first and foremost, a redefinition of the European project with citizens deciding whether they want an EU devoid of specific civilisational underpinnings or whether they wish to limit it to borders inherited from history and geography," he says.

These geographic, cultural, religious and political borders, he says, are clear and set in the Bosporous Straits. While the contributions of Turkey to Western institutions such as NATO, the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe), the European Council and the United Nations have been valuable, and must not be underestimated, they do not make Turkey European. Does Europe really wish to share its borders with Syria, Iran or Iraq? Does it wish to import the endemic instability of the Middle East? Can Europe allow itself to be undermined from within, he asks.

Those opposed to extending Europe's borders up to Syria and Iran feel such an Europe would have little consistence. It would be overstretched and dysfunctional in budgetary, judicial and institutional terms. Turkey's adhesion would make Europe borderless, powerless, ill-defined and irrelevant as an international player. Opponents of Turkey view Washington's continued pressure on the EU to accept Turkey's membership bid as proof of America's Machiavellian intention to further weaken its main rival in the international arena by saddling it with a time bomb, both in terms of retarded and costly economic development, and the Trojan Horse of a large and growing Muslim population.

Supporters say the absorption of Turkey should pose no problem since Europe is no longer a solid unified bloc of developed economies but rather a mosaic of nations big and small with variable geometry, moving in concentric circles at differing speeds. An excluded Turkey could not be an effective firewall against Islamic fundamentalism and Middle Eastern instability. Anchoring Turkey in the EU would reassure Europe's growing population of Muslims (an estimated 9 million scattered mainly across France, Germany, Britain, Italy and Spain). Turing away Turkey would send a negative signal to the fastest growing segment of Europe's population.

Writer Guy Sorman, a passionate supporter of Turkey's EU bid, says: "If Europe is to build a new and constructive rapport with the Islamic world, one opposed to what the Americans have done in the Middle East, it is imperative that Turkey is allowed into the EU. Turkey is a living example of a compromise between secularism and Islam, a reminder that choices other than purely confrontational ones are both possible and available. Rejecting Turkey means closing our horizons, refusing a global role, accepting American hegemony."

In the past three years, there has been a significant shift in European public opinion over the Turkish question. This is closely related to the aftermath of 9/11 and an increase in Islamophobia across Europe. A recent pan-European poll shows that public opinion in several countries, including France, Germany, Austria, Poland and Greece, is opposed to Turkey's accession. In France, for example, 67 per cent of the population would vote `no' if a referendum were to be held today. French President Jacques Chirac came in for some severe criticism when he announced he was in favour of allowing in the Turks, even though his cautious approbation was punctuated by an impressive series of ifs and buts.

Critics of full membership for Turkey have proposed a special partnership regime whereby Turkey would be granted special privileges but would be formally kept out of the Union. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has already rejected such an offer saying Turkey would settle for all or nothing.

A significant stumbling block in the negotiations process could be the status of Cyprus and Turkey's stubborn refusal to recognise the island state's pro-Greek Government. A row over Cyprus, which joined the EU in May 2004, almost derailed the talks until a last minute solution was found, with Turkey agreeing to sign a protocol extending its 1963 association agreement with the EU to cover all member-states, including Cyprus. Ankara insists this does not amount to a formal recognition of the Mediterranean island state. However, over the next two decades that the talks are expected to last, Turkey will have to work out some acceptable solution. Ankara now says it will turn again to the United Nations and the good offices of Kofi Annan whose peace plan was accepted by Turkish Cypriots in Northern Cyprus but rejected by Greek Cypriots.

It is difficult at this stage to evaluate the economic impact of an eventual integration of Turkey. Clearly, because of its size, its potential but also its economic weakness, Turkey will pose an enormous challenge to the EU. With its 70 million people, the adhesion of Turkey alone, with its mainly agricultural economy and accompanying poverty, will be equivalent to the addition of 10 new members last May.

Figures published by the European Union appear staggering. Simulations based on Turkish integration in 2015 suggest Turkey would receive 28 billion euros in "catching up" aid by 2025 — a third of the EU's current budget.

France and Germany, who would like to limit their EU payments to 1 per cent of GDP would have to contribute significantly more. If they refuse, other beneficiary countries, such as the new entrants from Eastern Europe, would receive less. With Turkish per capita income at 28 per cent of the EU average, every region of Turkey would be eligible for extra development funding, a fact that makes weaker EU economies baulk.

So is Turkey fit to be part of Europe? The true answer to this question will come in the next decade. The EU has said Turkey is "not a candidate like the others." Which is a diplomatic way of pointing to the religious question while underlining several difficulties: that Turkey will be the most populous nation of Europe in 20 years with tremendous regional disparities within its borders. Turkey has a long, long way to go before qualifying. Its human rights record has to improve. It has to bring itself in line with the democratic and institutional principles that govern European nations. Healthcare, education, treatment of minorities, the status of women, freedom of expression — all need looking at. But Turkey must also work on and reconcile itself to its own past by recognising the Armenian genocide of 1915.

As the French daily, Le Monde, said in an editorial: "One of the major virtues of the European Union is to encourage applicants to reform, to modernise themselves, to respect the rights of minorities, to break with hegemonist temptations. There is no reason why this educational virtue should not work with the Turks. For them the choice is clear: if they meet the conditions set by the European Union, they could become a full member in 10 to 15 years. It is now for the Turks to seize this opportunity."

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

TOWARDS A STRONG PARTNERSHIP

DEMYSTIFY EXCHANGE RATES

An uncertain wait

Parenting: importance of talk

History? What's that?

Lonely in death too