EuropeNews, Denmark
Dec 28 2008
Turkey in the European Union: A Bridge Too Far
Book essay by Henrik R Clausen. December 28 2008
Turkey in the European Union:
A Bridge Too Far
By Philip Claeys & Koen Dillen
ISBN 978-90-78898-13-9
Uitgeverij Egmont, Belgium
Public debate about admitting Turkey as a full member of the European
Union has been vague and late, the details of the matter as well as
major decisions being taken by the European Commission and the heads
of state. This book sets out to set the record straight, and despite
occasional flaws does so with a vengeance.
The book is structured in eleven chapters by subject, and is actually
quite brief, just under 150 pages ahead of 70 pages of notes and
documentation.
Admittedly, the foreword by Taki Theodoracopulos almost put me off. I
hate being served my conclusions in advance, in the bluntest of
words. But the subject is important, and proceeding proved richly
rewarding.
It sets out in chapter 1: The Unthinkable Becomes Reality by
describing the process that, surprisingly, granted Turkey candidate
status for the European Union at the summit in Helsinki 1999. This was
based on promises stemming back from 1963. In context, public debate
or assessment of Turkish adherence to the Copenhagen Criteria were
deemed unnecessary.
At this point, one has to admire the quality of the Turkish diplomacy:
Shifting instantly between the finest politesse and outright rudeness,
the Turks are extremely good of getting what they want. Their European
counterparts do not deserve this kind of praise.
A central issue is debated in chapter 2: Is Turkey a European country?
>From an EU enlargement point of view, the required answer to this
question is ‘Yes’, or the enlargement process with Turkey would be
illegal right from the outset. The authors start out well, but then
head off into constitutional matters rather than historical
background, which would be natural at this point.
Then, in chapter 3: Turkey is not a European-style Democracy, the
authors come out with all guns blazing. Particular damning is the
analysis from the US Department of State, which with no undue
hesitation describes a series of severe deficiencies in the Turkish
society.
This chapter moves from strength to strength, on points regarding
freedom of press, women’s role, torture, the Kurds, the Armenians and
finally the oft-criticized article 301 that makes ‘insulting
Turkishness’ a criminal offence. All documented from human rights or
government sources who, in contrast with similar EU documents, do not
attempt to sugar-coat the details. The US Department of State is
oft-quoted, and it is obvious that president George W. Bush speaks
against the opinion of his own foreign policy office when he declares
that Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen criteria.
One may wonder, at this point, what the motivation of the US
government really is?
At every crucial point regarding Turkey, where the Europeans have
resisted the idea, the Turkish government has ` successfully `
requested the US government to intervene on their behalf. This,
presumably, is what is known as ‘leadership’, forging ahead with
unpopular ideas in spite of resistance from allies and the general
public. But leadership short of democratic legitimacy belongs in the
realm of fascism, not of democracy.
Chapter 4, Social and Economic Integration is Impossible, deals with
economical aspects of a potential Turkish membership. It challenges
the notion of Turkey as a functioning market economy (few have
discussed this before), and details the expenses Turkish membership
would cost the existing EU members and citizens. Since these are
purely economical issues, they usually don’t cause much
discussion. After all, who would protest against billions of taxpayer
Euro being transferred to Turkey? Well, Claeys and Dillen do.
Chapter 5, Towards Massive New Immigration, dives into something that
few like to mention ` that Turkish membership would open the doors to
further mass immigration from Turkey to EU countries. Given the
difficulties, not least in Germany, with integrating the current
Turkish immigrants, this issue should be a major cause of concern in
Europe.
A brief chapter 6, Europe Must Decide its Own Future, touches the
thorny issue of why the EU elite refuse to hear the public opinion on
the matter. How could Turkish membership be legitimate without the
consent of the European public at large? The European elite does not
seem to be concerned about this, or how the widening gap between
themselves and the public opinion might damage democracy as such.
Chapter 7 asks the question: What Drives the Pro-accession Lobby?,
about the motivations of the groups that support Turkish accession, is
arguably the weakest in the book. The support of the left, in
particular, seems mysterious, as the left traditionally has been
strong on human right issues. The book, unfortunately, meanders off
into lightly substantiated guesswork on a subject that would demand
much more detailed and stringent analysis.
Chapter 8, Turkeys New Islamism, gets back on the track of solid
arguments by looking at the role of Islam in Turkey, and how it is
increasingly dubious that Turkey will ever genuinely respect
non-Islamic minorities, or be able to separate religion and
politics. Alarming quotes from Turkish PM Erdogan, President
Gül and others makes the point: It’s not directly proven that
the AK Party or the government is Islamistic, but the details are
suspicious enough to make it clear that we can’t trust it at face
value. The EU Commission, in particular Commissioner of Enlargement
Olli Rehn, does not seem to understand this, as demonstrated for
example by its interference in the recent constitutional case against
AKP.
Chapter 9 concerns itself with the Armenian genocide and others, as
well as the ethnic cleansings that took place before and after the
founding of the modern Turkish state, as documented by Taner Akcam and
others. This problem is particular unsettling, for it concerns the
very identity of the Turkish state and Turkishness. Debating this is
punishable in Turkey under article 301, and, as in the case of the
late Hrant Dink, can have serious consequences.
The Turkish attitude to the Armenian genocide can, in principle, be
compared to a hypothetical situation where Germany would officially
justify the Holocaust by denigrating Jews, ban dissenting opinion, and
praise the architects of the Holocaust as national heroes. Respect for
and protection of minorities is an explicit item in the Copenhagen
Criteria. The Armenians are not getting either.
Chapter 9 also includes this memorable quote, adopted by the European
Parliament in 1987:
The European Parliament believes that the refusal by the present
Turkish Government to acknowledge the genocide against the Armenian
people committed by the Young Turk government, its reluctance to apply
the principles of international law in differences of opinion with
Greece, the maintenance of Turkish occupation forces in Cyprus and the
denial of the existence of the Kurdish question, together with the
lack of true parliamentary democracy and the failure to respect
individual and collective freedoms, in particular freedom of religion,
in that country are insurmountable obstacles to consideration of the
possibility of Turkey’s accession to the Community.
Not a single of these problems issues had been solved when Turkey was
granted candidate status. Even now, at the end of 2008, no solid
solution seems in sight for any of these problems.
A brief but efficient chapter 10 deals with the Turkish occupation of
Cyprus. Rich in historical detail and tearing apart the UN `Annan
Plan’ on the way, this chapter alone ` like several others ` should
cause the Turkish accession process to be suspended. Turkey doesn’t
even recognize the Republic of Cyprus.
One may wonder what the Turkish motivations for refusing this might be
` and wonder still more why the EU does not make explicit recognition
of Cyprus a condition for Turkish accession. An implicit recognition
by way of the customs union just doesn’t cut it. Let Turkey make it
clear, openly and unconditionally, that it respects the Republic of
Cyprus as a sovereign nation.
One issue, unfortunately, does not have a chapter: the Kurdish
situation. The Kurdish problem has from the outset largely been
written out of the EU-Turkey equation. But in a book like this, it
does deserve more extensive coverage than the causal mentions it gets
in other contexts.
Chapter 11 rounds up the book by looking at some principles, and some
historical issues that one would have expected earlier on. Opinion
polls showing rapid increase in European opposition to the project are
quoted, polls that obviously makes no impression on the European
Commission. A roundup on page 149 of the fundamental criteria for
accession makes it clear, once again, that Turkey does not qualify,
and is not even close to doing so.
Which leads us to another interesting ` and troubling ` aspect of this
book:
Even though it does not set out to be so, it becomes a profound
criticism of the European Union as such, and the Commission in
particular. The European Union is founded on noble principles of human
rights, democracy and freedom, and touted as being the staunch
defender of these.
When these noble principles get bogged down by Byzantine negotiations,
vital decisions being taken away from the scrutiny of the press and
the public, how can we trust the elite to represent the Europeans in a
democratic fashion? When statements, speeches and progress reports get
filled with duplicity and avoidance of the facts on the ground, how
can we have confidence in the EU civil servants accurately and loyally
addressing crucial issues of paramount importance to the Union and its
citizens?
As former French President Valéry Gisgard d’Estaing said
regarding a possible Turkish membership: `It will be the end of the
European Union.’
The end of the Union, should it comes about, would come not from
external causes, but rather from corruption of the ideals of the Union
itself. Turkey will be Turkey, regardless of what the EU will do, but
the legitimacy of the European Union rests, ultimately, on its
citizens haven confidence in its actions and the willingness of the
Union to courageously defend its fundamental ideals.
This book, despite occasional weaknesses and editing that could be
better, launches a concerted and serious challenge to the EU-Turkey
process. It raises many issues that should have been tackled well
before Turkey was granted EU candidacy status.
Given the details, it would seem unlikely that Turkey will suddenly
turn around from three years of reform neglect and show clear
sincerity for its Europeanization process. Should that happen,
fine. If not, what we need from the European Union would be a clear,
uncompromising willingness to stand for European values, even at the
expense of its empire-building process with Turkey.
The title, `A Bridge Too Far’, is apt. Turkey has been touted as a
‘bridge’ to the Middle East, to Iran, Iraq, Syria etc. One may wonder,
of course, what the point would be in extending the borders of the
Union to these obviously problematic countries. That would look like
more trouble than benefit.
But even more in a metaphorical sense, the project of admitting Turkey
increasingly looks like the ill-fated attempt of the Allies to gain a
swift victory over Germany in WWII. Mired in problems that refuse to
go away, the European Commission will have to either show swift and
decisive gains, or abandon their ill-fated mission in face of the
stiff reform resistance shown by the Turkish society.
http://europenews.dk/en/node/17759