Comments on: Turkey and the European Union

By: q

Fri, 02 Jul 2004 00:10:51 +0000

But isn’t the end goal of the EU the formation of a European federal state? Ha! Most amusing. Who knows what the “end goal” is? A long time ago it was to build bridges after the war between France and Germany to avoid future power struggles. For a while it appeared to be handouts and subsidies for farmers. If ONLY we can decide the end goal of the EU…

By: Jonathan Edelstein

Jonathan Edelstein — Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:47:57 +0000

Because they are part of France and Spain, Jonathan. They are French and Spanish territory and have been for ages, and as a consequence they’re part of the EU because France and Spain are. But isn’t the end goal of the EU the formation of a European federal state? If so, then how would an overseas adjunct of France or Spain ultimately differ from an overseas adjunct of Europe in general? Is there any rational basis, for instance, to say that Ceuta and Melilla are inherently more European than the rest of Morocco? The idea of Europe is by no means a constant one, even in recent history. It wasn’t very long ago that Algeria was an integral part of France and contained a million colons who thought themselves as French as any Parisian. Had history proceeded differently, Algeria might be part of the EU today. Other outliers, like Israel and Turkey, have participated in European institutions to varying degrees for decades (which is the difference between them and countries like Argentina). Given the flexibility with which “Europe” has been defined in the past, I’d be wary of ruling out a scenario in which the concept expands to include the outliers.

By: mc

mc — Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:46:28 +0000

doug: but the point is that geopolitical strategies and interests involving countries outside of Europe are no sufficient reason to argue for their entry in the EU. Even in the case of Turkey. There has to be, and there is actually, a case for inclusion that goes beyond the “smart geopolitical move” notion. It has to be primarily about culture and history, because the EU is not simply a geopolitical strategy or economic treaty. And those things can still occur even without inclusion. It’s self-evident really.

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 01 Jul 2004 09:33:28 +0000

mc, the EU has been about smart geopolitics ever since the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community. Nationalist competition for coal and steel was one of the things that the EU’s forerunners’ founders believed kept bringing European states to blows. Pooling sovereignty on such matter was smart geopolitics, mid-1950s style.

By: mc

mc — Thu, 01 Jul 2004 08:28:55 +0000

“The EU is already a four-continent institution; the French DOMs, Madeira, the Azores and the Canaries are EU territory” Because they are part of France and Spain, Jonathan. They are French and Spanish territory and have been for ages, and as a consequence they’re part of the EU because France and Spain are. Algeria, Tunisia, Turkey, Israel, Morocco, etc. are not Spanish or French or German or British territory. Surely you can see the impossibility of making that comparison? Also, Europe is not defined in terms of how many European elements, whatever we want that to mean, a nation has. Because you might as well find nations in Asia and Latin America that are even more “European” than Morocco or Israel. Why not have Argentina in? And why “Western”, besides? It’s European Union, not Western Union. Otherwise the US would be in it before Turkey is. The term “European” is already often used in a very vague sense, “Western” is even more arbitrary, but though the “West” may be an entirely relative concept, Europe is not. Just because you don’t know what Europe is, doesn’t mean it’s as arbitrary as you’d like to picture it. It does have very much to do with geography, history, culture, politics, all those things together. Even if it’s not a nation but a Union, it has a history, and it is European. Which means Morocco, Lybia, Egypt and Israel are equally no part of it. On Turkey it may definitely be a more ambivalent matter, but even supporting Turkey entry does not require supporting ridiculous levels of enlargement. Also, like Tomas Dent says, “The EU is not the only way to achieve cooperation between countries”. No one is telling Turkey or any other country whose entry is even more hypothetical to “get lost” at all. In fact, like several countries outside the EU it also receives direct EU funding in many areas. Inclusion in the Union is just completely different from having cooperation agreements or development partnerships of an economic, political or even military nature.

By: Jonathan Edelstein

Jonathan Edelstein — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:43:52 +0000

Jonathan: then why not also Algeria, and Lybia, and Egypt? What do Morocco and Tunisia have that’s more European? I picked Israel, Morocco and Tunisia (and forgot to mention Lebanon) because they are (1) more integrated into European political and economic institutions, (2) more prosperous and (3) more Western in outlook than the other countries in the region. Libya, Algeria and Egypt may be long-term possibilities, but they have a lot of issues to work through first (not that the four countries I named don’t have issues, but they aren’t any worse prospects than Georgia or Serbia). Come to think of it, since the UK is in the EU, why don’t we enlarge to the whole of the Commonwealth and former colonies, including Iraq. How about that. The EU is already a four-continent institution; the French DOMs, Madeira, the Azores and the Canaries are EU territory. It’s reasonable to ask where Europe stops, but the EU already transcends purely geographic boundaries, so “the border of the continent of Europe” isn’t a good answer. The natural boundary may turn out to be the Sahara rather than the Mediterranean, given the degree to which the countries in the Med basin are being integrated into the European economy and political institutions.

By: mc

mc — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:57:48 +0000

Jonathan: then why not also Algeria, and Lybia, and Egypt? What do Morocco and Tunisia have that’s more European? Come to think of it, since the UK is in the EU, why don’t we enlarge to the whole of the Commonwealth and former colonies, including Iraq. How about that. It’d sure be nice to have more teams play the UEFA, it’d make it less boring… Seriously. Maybe we don’t know what Europe is and where it starts, but where does it stop? – doug: that’s not to say Central and Eastern Europe were in the same situation as Turkey to start with. I don’t see the specifically Turkish issues addressed. The pro side never bothers with the issue of Kurds, human rights, fundamentalists, political situation, etc. as if they were small things that can be set aside, or improved with a rush to meet requirements as if it was just a matter of conforming economic regulations and industry standards and directives on telecommunications and whatnot. Also, promises are just that, they’re worth nothing – you don’t do a massive move like this based on promises. You should also try and reverse your question – why is it a smart geopolitical move to have Turkey in? Smart for who? And is the EU all about geopolitical strategies? Isn’t that NATO?

By: Jonathan Edelstein

Jonathan Edelstein — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:53:16 +0000

You can’t say it too many times: Turkey isn’t in Europe What is “Europe?” Is it a geographic term? Political? Cultural? Economic? Historical? It’s already been pointed out that Turkey qualifies as European even in a pure geographic sense. Its political integration extends well beyond football tournaments and song contests; among other things, it accepts compulsory ECHR jurisdiction, has been a full member of the Council of Europe since 1949 and, like Israel, is signatory to a number of pan-European treaties. Historically, Turkey was part of the Hellenistic and Roman spheres, and later of the Byzantine successor state. Economically, the EU is Turkey’s largest trading partner, with the United States not even close, and Turkey is about tenth on the list of EU trading partners. Whether or not Turkey is “culturally” European is an inherently subjective question, but it’s a modern secular nation-state with considerable European influence on its institutions. Turkey will be part of the EU within another decade. Israel, Morocco and Tunisia will be part of it within two.

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:06:28 +0000

My question to the antis still stands, “Why is telling Turkey to get lost a smart geopolitical decision?” The European leaders making the choice in question are, I presume, the wise, worldly, sophisticated heirs to hundreds of years of diplomatic experience who manage their foreign affairs with such aplomb that they can confidently instruct the Americans (who are not wise, worldly, etcetc) on the arts of statecraft. As such, they can hardly fail to take their long-term interests into account and give Turkey candidate status this December, no matter what anyone from Pennsylvania Avenue has to say. With due respect to some commenters above, the Turkish government is already promising to abide by decisions of the ECJ in Strasbourg. See here for instance. Second, mc, pushing EU entry had exactly the kinds of effects you describe in Central and Eastern Europe. The road to EU entry has transformed those societies, from the levels of high politics down to the quotidian details. The drive to candidate status has been the biggest impetus behind the reforms of the AK government in Turkey, and this dynamic will continue. Turkey’s citizens did not vote in the most recent election to the European Parliament, nor will they vote in the next one. But they will in the one after that. You read it here first.

By: bryan

bryan — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:29:58 +0000

You know also, any recommendation by George Bush is likely to get a very warm reception in Europe. Turkey will be admitted in 2050.

By: Thomas Dent

Thomas Dent — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:15:24 +0000

I don’t relish my words being misrepresented by elliot oti. Did I “frame the issue in an us-versus-them way”? I don’t think so. Did I write against closer cooperation on certain issues between, say, Germany and Turkey? No. All this is missing the point. The EU is not the only way to achieve cooperation between countries. It is a particular way which involves a certain degree of economic and political unification and a lot of subsidies and regulations. So, please observe the distinction between the two questions: 1. Should countries with substantial Turkish populations cooperate bi- or multilaterally with Turkey in such areas as free trade and movement of capital and labour? 2. Should Turkey be a member state of the EU, ruled over by EU courts, with seats in the European Parliament and subject to EU regulations? These are two different questions. My answer to the first is, why not. There are lots of organizations – the Commonwealth, Schengen, NATO, etc. etc. which promote cooperation without the baggage of economic and political union. My answer to the second is, Not yet, and not soon, unless Turkey really meets EU requirements on such things as human rights and the rule of law. And probably not until the EU’s agricultural and other subsidy programmes, and regulations on such things as hygiene and working conditions, are considerably reformed (which would be a benefit to all countries). Never mind Turkey, nearly every building site and every butcher in Greece is in breach of EU regulations.

By: mc

mc — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:46:21 +0000

Thanks elliott and reuben for setting me straight on the Euro2004 and Turkey not making it past qualifications. I assumed they just weren’t among the teams that could participate. I don’t follow football closely and got confused with all the other tournaments at European level :) I just checked and Israel also was among the teams but didn’t qualify either. Oh well. Wouldn’t it have been nice to have a Turkey vs. Israel match? And on Israel, elliott, what you say about the conflict with Palestinians being the main reason why there’s not as much pressure for Israel joining the EU is only part of the picture. It also seems there’s not much interest for EU entry within Israel so far. But most of all, I think even most people who support the notion of Turkey being European wouldn’t really apply the same reasoning to Israel. Because they’d see Israel as Middle East, not Europe. So there is a dividing line they apply too, somewhere. But there’s an interesting aspect here, in that both Turkey and Israel are not so much part of “Europe” in geographical and historical terms, but they are indeed part of the Mediterranean area, which has its own economic and cooperation agreements both within or independently of the EU, as well as some common culture and history. But it’s still split in two different continents, Africa and Europe, so I doubt anyone would consider including it all in the EU. In the end it does boil down to culture and history, as well as geography. There are also advocates of Russia joining the EU, but that would be stretching the EU as far as India… it would become a bit crazy. I honestly don’t know, but I think even aside from the cultural-geographic-historic notions of Europe, you can’t avoid the fact that Turkey doesn’t have a level of democracy and human rights that’s compatible, yet. Most of the pro-arguments seem to rely less on the cultural aspect and more on the “encouragement for democracy” aspect. I don’t have strong cultural objections to Turkey being part of Europe, in a way it is – but I just can’t subscribe to that idea that pushing EU entry will accelerate the improvement in those areas. It has to be the other way round. First reach that level, then discuss entry. To go back to football (with a really poor comparison), you can’t promote a team to Champions League in the hope that’ll push them to become champions when they’re not technically qualified for that league. That’s reversing the process. It shouldn’t be done like that only because there’s strong financial and partisan interests. Especially if it’s interests and interferences outside the EU.

By: Doug Muir

Doug Muir — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:23:54 +0000

Cyprus, where Turkey illegally occupies 39 percent of the island. I note in passing that the UN peace plan for the reunification of Cyprus approved by the Turkish Parliament and accepted by 67% of Turkish Cypriot voters. It was, of course, rejected by 75% of Greek Cypriot voters. Israel is absolutely vicious but it is at least not genocidal as Turkey is. Total casualties in the 1974 occupation—and since—don’t amount to a bad month in Palestine. The Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus is unquestionably illegal. But it’s also saved thousands of lives by keeping the two ethnic groups from each other’s throats. And the Turks have made at least one good-faith effort to bring the partition to an end. Doug M.

By: Sephiroth

Sephiroth — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 01:10:08 +0000

Yhe commenter who noted that Turkey does not have a Palestine-like situation seems to be unaware of Cyprus, where Turkey illegally occupies 39 percent of the island. The only difference between Cyprus and Palestine is that Turkey ethnically cleansed each and every Greek in its sector of Cyprus whereas Israel did not purge the Arabs. Israel is absolutely vicious but it is at least not genocidal as Turkey is.

By: Brautigan

Brautigan — Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:20:57 +0000

Turkish prisons.