As outlined in Wil’s comments (in the previous blog) on the Prime Minister’s speech last week, Europe’s greatest need (sadly unrecognised by the British government) is greater democratic accountability within its structures and institutions. The people of Europe feel that the EU is beyond their control, a perspective supported in a Eurobarometer poll taken in July 2005 that showed that less than half of EU citizens were satisfied by the way democracy worked within the Union. This same poll, moving onto the issues of future EU enlargement, showed that over half of the EU citizens (52%) opposed Turkish accession. This in itself is a disturbing figure and one that doubtlessly would have increased – one would think – over the last week as Danish and Norwegian embassies are engulfed in flames, violent Islamic placards are paraded on Sloane Street and Catholic priests are shot dead in Ankara. The Union needs to listen to its citizens, but an argument can be made that those same citizens need to consider in more detail the question of Turkish accession to the European Union and the positive influence that it could bring not merely to Europe but also to the wider geopolitical stage.
The challenges of Turkish accession are manifold and much of the resistance is understandable. Turkey is a country of nearly 70 million people with an average wealth less than one third of the EU average and only 3% of its landmass falling within the European area. And it’s Muslim. The spectre that rises immediately – like a vengeful Moorish villain in a cheap Crusades flick – is of an Islamic invasion of european nations, swamping our cultures and draining our economies. Like our Moor though, it is a caricature and fails to do justice to the complexity of the issue. Lest we forget that whilst Turkey is a predominantly Muslim country, it has secular governance with a strict ethos of separation of Mosque and State. It places strong emphasis on the constitutional rule that prohibits discrimination on religious grounds and its civil-military institutions grapple to keep muted the threatened rise of extremist Islam.
The promise of European membership lies at the heart of this reformist drive and there are many schools of thought that suggest that if Europe failed to live up to its promises of considering Turkish membership, the longevity of arguably the world’s most stable Islamic state would be threatened. Turkey is a full member of all major Europe-wide institutions except for the European Union, including the OECD, the OSCE and the Council of Europe. It participated in EU-led military and police missions in Macedonia (FYROM), is a long-term and valued member of NATO, with the second largest armed force of an alliance member, and until December 2002 it led the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.
Its internal reforms may not yet be complete, but are still substantial. The Turkish military has ceded power in civilian institutions and allowed civilians to control the National Security Council (NSC). The goal of accession had provided a framework for dealing with the questions of Kurdish Separatists and led to stronger relations with Greece (which supports Turkish EU membership). Perhaps the most striking testimony to the power of the reform movement was the NSC’s national security policy document for 2001, which openly addressed the Kurdish question and multiculturalism with the following statement: “Our citizens, who are united under the banner of Turkish national identity, should have their cultural and local linguistic characteristics be considered as individual rights and freedoms.”
Turkey is not yet ready to join Europe and may never be. It has not yet fulfilled the necessary economic or human rights criteria that are demanded of membership. However, if it does succeed then it would be difficult for us in good conscience to deny them. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter reported in the first quarter of 2004 that Turkey’s real GDP was one of the fastest growing in the world. Its economic situation is comparable to that of Poland when their accession negotiations began. It performs exceptionally well in long-term growth predictions and has a low trade deficit. In contrast to Europe (particularly Eastern Europe’s) ageing population, 60% of Turks are under 30 (although the birth rate is falling, which should prevent a population explosion) and may be vital to preventing the predicted economic crises endemic within Europe’s population problems.
The geo-strategic benefits are obvious and the risks are potentially severe. Turkey borders eight countries including Iran, Iraq and Syria. Far from this being a cause of concern, it should be seen as an opportunity to provide an example of a successful secular Islamic state being welcomed into the ‘West’. The reversal of this; a successful reformist state being rejected from the western world because it remained Islamic, has concerning implications. Warnings abound of the destabilising impact that the Balkanisation of Turkey would have on both Europe and the Middle East. Whilst many disagree, it is possible to see Turkey as the understated crucible in which the much-touted ‘clash of civilisations’ will play out. We have made a commitment to this nation contingent on reforms and if those reforms are completed then we have an obligation to honour our end of the bargain. Rejection of Turkey would paint the west’s talk of equality of religion and of a political ethos where ‘if you live as we ask you to you shall be welcomed’, as insincere hypocrisy. European diplomacy would no longer be credible as the recognised principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements are to be honoured) would be in shreds.
Ataturk himself saw the risk when he said that “The West has always been prejudiced against the Turks, but we Turks have always consistently moved towards the West.” Current Turkish leaders contemporise the feeling “the closer Turkey gets to EU membership, the more the resistance grows in Europe.” As we demand greater democracy in Europe, so we must look beyond our own borders and prejudices to consider ideas that may make us uncomfortable. It would be easy for the leaders of Europe to submit accession to a referendum – to dodge the bullet that rejection would bring. If the people do gain a voice in this issue then we must make sure that it does not merely spread an ethos of broken promises. A nation is reforming itself on the basis of agreements we have made. We should now prepare ourselves to accept them if and when those reforms are finally completed. If we do not then we would not merely risk our flags being burnt around us, but would be voluntarily sacrificing what they stand for; our diplomatic credibility, our ideals of cultural equality and most importantly, our integrity as a nation.
Comments (2)
An excellent article. The writer shows he has a well-informed opinion and also a heart for cultural and national integration. Shouldn't this be published in a national Austrian newspaper?
Posted by Daniel Blackmore | February 9, 2006 1:34 PM
Posted on February 9, 2006 13:34
The "demand" for EU institutions to become more democratic, and for the EU to expand, are both vehicles for the EU's further political integration and the creation of an EU superstate.
I do not want to see an EU superstate, and believe the best way to resolve the EU's democratic deficit is to withdraw from it.
The EU project is all about us sacrificing our "integrity as a nation", not safeguarding it.
Far better we deal with Turkey and every other country independently and bilaterally, and trade freely with them without the restrictions and costs imposed by the EU.
Posted by Tim | February 8, 2006 11:28 AM
Posted on February 8, 2006 11:28