Taking Turkey off the Table

I agree with nikolai — I don’t see the link between Turkish admission and adaptation to multicultural society. For thing, there’s the sourcing of immigration from North Africa, from countries that are way more messed up politically than Turkey is. The foreign policy headaches of dealing with somewhere like Algeria are bad whether Turkey is in or out.

And you’re absolutely right about Barroso. A year into the job and he’s already a lame duck. It would be a much more interesting under the UK presidency if Barroso did the decent thing and quit, and Mandy went in as president of the commission. Blair would have to play things differently.

_I_ want Turkey in the EU, modulo the usual requirements. Wogs, after all, used to begin at Calais; if they now begin at the Bosphorus then that too will change.

Lord knows, we didn’t fight off the unholy (sic) alliance of Vatican, Greek Orthodoxes, Polandland and Aznar’s Spain’s collective attempt to Jesus up the late constitution’s preamble only to allow the “Christian” Democrats and other xenophobes. There are Ottoman mosques in Budapest; the Ottomans brought coffee to Europe; surely nobody who thinks Croatia is a goer would want Bosnia and its Muslims out.

The case against is bad nasty racistes, and if bad nasty racistes have exploited the lofty foolishness of the EU elites we’re not quite in the endgame yet. Or at least I (for one) really really hope not.

It’s at this stage of the argument that I usually point out that we are talking about at least a decade-long process, even from its presently fairly advanced state. Then I usually also point out that a decade is precisely the length of time from the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany to admission of the re-armed Federal Republic of Germany to NATO.

The classic American errors are to underestimate European institutions over the long term, and to overestimate the speed with which they can act in the short term. In our discussion here, we should avoid both.

I’ll admit, it’s entirely possible that European leaders could be stupid enough to reject Turkey out of hand. But over the ten-year time frame we are really talking about, I’m confident it will become clear that rejection is a dumb idea.

Let me put it very plainly: Europe needs Turkey.

First, Europe (East and West) is facing daunting demographic changes. None of the major economies are prepared for the transition from a demographic pyramid to a demographic pillar. Increased immigration, partly from Turkey, can play some role in easing these issues.

Second, Turkey is entering a sweet spot in its economics and demographics, as the bulge in its age structure hits the productive part of economic life. This will be good for both domestic growth and foreign trade–most of which will be with EU nations.

Third, Europe needs neither a competing pole nor a gray zone on its borders. Russia will be enough of a nuisance without deliberately causing trouble on the southeastern frontier. A powerful Turkey kept out of the EU will only add to the strategic headaches as a competing pole; and EU leaders incapable of seeing the advantages of Turkish accession will not be fit to deal with the problms of blocking Turkey. A Turkey left in a gray zone certainly means indecision about Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and probably about Ukraine and Moldova as well. All of these are potential sources of instability on Europe’s doorstep, and unlike the Maghreb, they share land borders, which are infinitely more porous than sea borders.
Fourth, an EU that cannot come to grips with Turkey as a member will have no chance of living up to its own stated ambitions in the international system.

Turkish membership is not happening tomorrow, or even next year. It’s happening in the middle of the next decade, nearly three US presidential terms away. That’s an eternity in politics, and if anyone gets too worked up about the daily ups and downs of this question, just go and look at the controversies over, say, Polish and Baltic membership. That happened too.

[aeiou] To Europeans, Turkey is the Other. They’re right.

Once Turkey is in what’s the excuse for not taking in Syria & Lebanon?

Disemvowelling! A punishment to warm the heart of any Ottoman e-despot (and coffee drinker).

To comments 9 and 10: You can’t let Syria and Lebanon in for the same reason you can’t let Morocco in; it’s explicitly forbidden in the treaties to allow a country into the EU with no land inside the continent of Europe. Turkey has an in, all the former Warsaw Pact nations (including Russia) could conceivably join, and Mediterranean island nations like Cyprus and Malta have joined.

When I read comments arguing for or against EU accession (many here included), they often miss the point. Turkey cannot enter the EU unless it jumps through a lot of hoops, including adopting the political norms of the European Union. So nikolai is correct in saying, “This is a country whose politicians recently had to be coerced into not making adultery a crime, and there are plenty of similar examples. It’s sensible not to enter a political union with people whose politics you dislike,” but it’s completely irrelevant. You also have people like Bush demanding that the EU pushes to allow Turkey in ASAP, but of course, Turkey can’t join the EU before the military disentangles itself completely from the political structure, the Turkish government codifies equal rights for women and minorities, and so on.

Of course, OTOH, it’s really surprising (and disgusting) that the EU Commission is backing off negotiations with Turkey.

“it’s explicitly forbidden in the treaties to allow a country into the EU with no land inside the continent of Europe”
If you really believe everything else you say about the benefits of the Turkish accession, you would believe them anyway even if Turkey did not have European Istanbul and suburbs. And you would believe these benefits might well apply to other countries as well. Since these benefits (not treaty clauses) are the clear motivator of many who want Turkey to join the EU, it’s certainly entirely fair to ask why the argument should not apply to other countries ad infinitum, so long as they meet the necessary political/human rights preconditions etc.

“the obvious counter-argument is that if Turkey will change the EU, the EU will also change Turkey”
This is not a counter-argument, this is a change of subject. If you dont want the changes to the EU, then the fact that someone else will be changed does not necessarily make them any more palatable.

The fact that it’s going to take e.g. ten years for Turkey to join also obscures a great deal. Alot of people, probably both broad majorities and intense minorities in EVERY member state, do not want Turkey to join even if it meets all the political criteria. It will still be staggeringly poor, emigration will still be the best economic option for many Turks (even with more or less meaningless transition periods) it will still have a very different political culture and foreign policy ambitions (just as the current member states have kept theirs), it will still want an endless supply of cash handouts, trade with Turkey will still put pressure on low-skilled labour in the existing EU, it will still have the largest vote in EU institutions even with its poverty (probably an impossible situation), etc.

But all this argumentation is to one side. Even if it’s great for both the EU and Turkey, EU civil society is resolutely opposed. It can only be achieved by the political elites (themselves hestitant and divided, but under US pressure) imposing accession on their own societies. They may do this – and indeed if they do many of them will remain bewildered as to why the EU is unpopular…

I think Turkey could meet all the standards needed to allow EU entry, but that it could still be sensible for existing member to veto them on the basis that they dislike Turkey’s politics (which could be different to that of the rest of the EU, even though all the political norms are met) and don’t wish to give them a say in which laws govern their nation.

I wish this came with an example, because otherwise it looks very bad. It looks like you are saying that Turkey could meet all the standards, incorporate the entirety of the acquis into national law, and still be rejected by the EU because, because … well for no reason whatsoever. What am I missing here?

it’s certainly entirely fair to ask why the argument should not apply to other countries ad infinitum, so long as they meet the necessary political/human rights preconditions etc.

It is indeed fair to ask, and asking recognizes that these are political questions both for potential members and for current members of the EU. This is one of the problems facing EU relations with its southern neighbors. (Inasmuch as it confuses the EU about what its neighborhood policy should be, it’s a problem for the eastern neighbors, too.)

Some distinctions may help.

1. Accession has been at least formally on offer to Turkey for decades. This is not true, as far as I know, for any other potential candidate.

2. Turkey’s political leadership has also consistently pursued the country’s “European vocation”. With the Erdogan government, it’s been shown that the European vocation even crosses the Islamist-secularist divide. As far as I know, this is also unique to Turkey. (Google Turkey+”european vocation” yeilds more than 3500 hits, whereas Morocco+”european vocation” just over 100, as a very rough indicator.)

Both of these factors separate Turkey from other Mediterranean countries.

I’m sceptical that demographic changes require mass immigration from Turkey or are as dire as is often predicted.

Edward, over at Fistful of Euros, has quite a few posts on the economic impact of demographics. He’s looking for deflation in Italy fairly soon as a reasonably direct consequence.

Mass immigration is not going to happen (see its not happening after the southern enlargement or the eastern), but a certain amount of movement of labor will take place, and in ten years’ time, every little bit is likely to help.

It certainly isn’t an argument that’s publicly put forward for Turkish membership by any of Europe’s leaders.

Of course not. But it’s still true.

And increased immigration could occur without membership.

Not of the legal sort. See the restrictions on freedom of movement that have accompanied the eastern enlargement, just for example.

I said:
“it’s certainly entirely fair to ask why the argument should not apply to other countries ad infinitum, so long as they meet the necessary political/human rights preconditions etc.”

Doug:
You reply with two distinctions which remain formalist: 1. Accession has been on offer to Turkey for ages 2. Turkey has consistently pursued it’s European vocation.
But these are not good responses to my question since if you beleive the benefits (economic, stability, diplomatic) from Turkish accession that everyone projects, those benefits would apply even in the absence of these formal requirements, and will likely apply in many other case ad infinitum. And if you dont think they can apply ad infinitum, give a response on the merits i.e. not one based on some government declaration, treaty article or prior commitment.

“It looks like you are saying that Turkey could meet all the standards, incorporate the entirety of the acquis into national law, and still be rejected by the EU because, because … well for no reason whatsoever. What am I missing here?”
This could apply to anywhere, excluding the value of treaties etc (this is the point above again).

But the second point is you seem to have a very limited idea of a country’s politics, thinking perhaps that admitting a country into the EU even by demanding criteria makes them into an anonymous “humanrightsland”. Admitting the UK into the EC changed the EC alot, not least because of its policy preferences, regardless of Copenhagen criteria. Admitting Turkey to the EU will change it alot too (see list above). The question is: do the current EU member states and their populations want the change?

If it’s clearer like this…
“Admitting the UK into the EC changed the EC alot, not least because of its policy preferences, and would have done so even if Copenhagen criteria had been applied to the UK application”.

ABB1 – and that would apply to all the other countries in the world too?

Otto, what’s your point? The fact of the matter is, the Treaty of Europe plainly states that in order to join the European Union, a country must be European. The EU has already rejected Morocco on the basis of it not being European and I don’t recall massive indignation or accusations of bigotry. Turkey, on the other hand, has already submitted an application, and it already has an accession partnership agreement with the EU. In effect, the EU has already said that if one day Turkey can meet the criteria, it can join. THAT is the difference between Turkey and any other country in the world.

And if you dont think they can apply ad infinitum, give a response on the merits

In practical terms, there are states that do not want to join the European Union. Europe’s largest state, Russia, is one of them. None of the Russian elite or leadership sees a future for the country within the EU. Russia clearly has a European identity, but not a European vocation; that is, a desire to join the EU.

I see the European Union best served, over the long term, by holding the doors open, and letting other countries decide that they are best off with some other arrangement. There are a great many political ‘Europes’. One of them, and a reasonably effective one at that, includes Vancouver and Vladivostok, not to mention El Paso and Bishkek.

I don’t know the answer to all the questions posed by EU-Maghreb relations (and if I did, I don’t think I would be putting them in a comment to a blog post, with all due respect to H & Co. here). And I agree that the former Ottoman provinces, the former Roman provinces, the early territory of Christendom we now call names like Syria and Lebanon present hard questions over a 20 or 30 year time frame. Over priods shorter than that, though, the Copenhagen Criteria offer ways to measure a society’s progress toward a form that is compatible with the European Union. As neighboring societies change internally and, one hopes, develop economically, they may find they do not need the organization based in Brussels. Alternatively, if in 30 years, Tunisia looks like Belgium with better beaches, there probably won’t be much fuss about admission.

1. I am not interested in arguments based on formal limits/ treaty articles/ previous commitments, becuase I dont think anyone is, or certainly should be, motivated by them. That’s the whole point of my comments. I am not igfnoring them, I am declaring them irrelevant and asking for better arguments, if any exist.

2. Saying that Turkey is not being admitted right NOW is not an objection. It is being admitted via a process – should not that process be available “ad infinitum”? or if not, why not?

3. My point about Turkey’s “society, politics and foreign policy” is not defeated by the response that Turkey will not be admitted until these are compatible with the EU, because, as I pointed out above, the “copenhagen crieria” and other such factors do not in fact address many core political features of a country. Having the UK in the EU changed it alot, to many people’s disadvantage as well as to the benefit of others, and would have done for for reasons completely unaffected by any Copenhagen criteria, (had they existed!).

Doug provides an answer which is essentially “yes”, the process can apply ad infinitum.

He says: “I see the European Union best served, over the long term, by holding the doors open, and letting other countries decide that they are best off with some other arrangement.”

Note that this is absolutely not the current policy, which is terrified of adding anyone to the list after Turkey. If it were the policy, there’d be a dozen new applicants to start that whole process of EU admission in the next couple of years, because governments and or political oppositions would be using it as a way to force change all across the Mediterranean basin. And if you believe that Turkey should be admitted for real, substantive reasons, the same reasons would apply here too. Carrots (in Clarkent’s words) for all, or if not, why not?

And if the EU then refuses to open the process with Lebanon and Syria, we will then have those unstable countries on the border of the EU, if we don’t use the accession carrots to begin the long process of these states reforming themselves? Etc Etc Etc

Clarkent,

AFAIK Cyprus is not in Europe nor am i sure of Malta but according to some part of Morocco belong to the European plate. You have also Iran, does some of it most western region belong to Europe?