Many comments this morning on the radio on Brussels very likely to say yes to Turkey tomorrow: yes to start accession talks to the European Union. Waow, this is big news, and has been going on for ever. Turkey was a candidate to the EEC (when the Union was still an economical club) before many of the current states had joined. Most people use this argument of length of discussions with Turkey to support their arguments why turkey should join now the EU.
Others mention that the EU is a Christian club (former Chancellor Helmut Kohl) - hence that 70m Muslims are not welcome, or that Turkey's geography belongs to Asia (former President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing).
My point is different: the main assumption behind all these arguments is that the European Union needs to expand to more countries. Think about it: no one mentions this. Why does the EU need to expand? Does the US add more states every now and then? (Guam, Puerto Rico, Iraq, even the UK ;) being obvious candidates...). No it doesn't.
Europe (as the European Union is called, in the same way America now refers to the USA instead of a whole continent) is in a crisis, because there is no Europe. What do I mean?
On the one hand: there is no Europe, or European Union, as a single political entity. In the recent decade Europe instead moved from a economical trade zone to this goal. And make no mistake: I support a federal Europe, not a Europe of states:
Could the countries agree on a European Constitution creating a legal & political foundation for the continent? No! Tony Blair is to decide in 1-2 years. Referendums are to be help everywhere (that is a good thing), but even political figures of the same party don't agree (former Prime Minister Laurent Fabius of France has just expressed himself against it). Turnout to the recent European elections was the lowest ever. My point is that if even strong European leaders and European people don't feel strongly for their Union, how can we expect to add more people to it ? I was horrified that there was not even an official party in Paris on May 1st, when 10 new countries joined the Union ? Even a football game gets more attention. Finally most European citizens have no clue about what is happening next door in the neighboring country, no clue on how European institutions work, nor on macro numbers for the European Union.
On the other hand: there are many definitions of Europe, or better said, many different speeds of Europe. There is the original duo between France and Germany, still very strong, although recently challenged when Schröder got along better with Blair than with Chirac. But the friendship is back. Benelux is also another strong pillar. That’s 5 out of 6 of the original founders of the Treaty of Rome in 1957, true to their initial spirit. Then there is the Schengen zone with 9 countries, which admit that people are free to travel within the zone, a very strong argument for a political entity. Then there is the 12 countries in the Eurozone. Then the 15 countries that are bound to the European Monetary System (deficit at 3% of GDP, although France and Germany are playing foul lately). The 10 new countries have a couple of years to adapt their economy. Etc. Until we have sorted out these differences, there is no Europe, and bringing in more countries will not help.
Now my view on the other arguments for a yes (the Economist recently ran a very good issue supporting this point of view):
The rational & official criteria: there are some discussions about Turkey's ability to meet the EU accession criteria:
- respect for human rights: Turkey is doing a lot here but other countries are not exempt of violations: check Amnesty International's latest reports.
- rule of law: it seems a lot is happening here
- economical stability: inflation is down; the economy is probably going to meet European criteria.
The more subjective criteria:
- Turkey is a Muslim country: yes... in the > 95%. So what? There is no reference to Europe being a Christian country (Catholics, Protestants, and all variations): a motion to include it in the European constitution was rejected. There are over 10m Muslims in Europe already (well out of 450m it's not much), and about 4-5m in France. And other religions are represented including Buddhism and Judaism. The main point is that Turkey is a laic country, and is the only other country with France where the Islamic scarf is forbidden at school (thanks to Atatürk's vision). Is the US a laic country with references to religion in their bank notes and when their leader swears on the Bible ?
- Culture: I've traveled to Turkey more than 10 times in the last 15 years. I can tell you their culture (Constantinople being one of the founding places of Western civilization) will very easily fit with Western culture: youth are as modern as we are, and the people as open and friendly as you'd expect your neighbor in Italy. Their coast line is littered with Ancient and Greek archeological sites. Their landscapes (for instance the Anatolian plateau) look very similar to Tuscany, Greece, Andalucia. Some of their towns look just the same as Genova, Italy. No significant difference here either.
- Turkey is not in Europe: well, one would need to decide what the limits of Europe ought to be. I hear Israël is considering becoming a member. Is the European Union bound to traditional European continent limits? Charles de Gaulle once said that Europe extended to the Urals. Maybe. Today 3% of Turkey is in traditional Europe. Cyprus, a EU member, is further east than Istanbul. And Turkey is a member of many European institutions including NATO and the Council of Europe (Monaco joining today! to become the 45th state)
- Turkey is poor. Well that might be an issue. With about 70m people, if Turkey joined the EU (450m people), than it would weight 15% of population. And its GDP/capita is well below the lowest GDP/capita of all existing member countries. A big cash outflow is to be expected. Turkey says it doesn't want aid, but FDI. Hey guys: is you are members, than you get money according to existing rules. We should stop exceptions.
In a nutshell, my point is that the issue is not whether Turkey should join the EU or not, because it probably can. It's whether the European Union should accept new members before sorting out its internal mess. Otherwise the European Union will only mean another sticker on your car bumper. We can reassess the situation in 10 years from now.
I'd love a debate.
P.S.: I know that I assumed here that by saying yes to Turkey, Europe would not be able to sort out its internal mess. That is probably not the case, nor is this argument aimed at Turkey alone (it is for any new member country). Again, my point is that Europe should focus internally at this point and not outwards.
Update: well, as predicted the European Union said yes to Ankara, to open accession discussions. The only way out now without angering Turkey with a potential no, is to accelerate European integration and delay talks until Europe is ready for a new member.
