|
In the late 19th century, the Ottoman Empire used to be called
“the sick man of Europe” because it was unraveling due to internal and
external pressures. Its successor state, the Republic of Turkey, seems
to be “the odd man of Europe” right now. Eighty percent of Turks would
like to join the European Union, while approximately the same percentage
of Europeans does not want them.
Opposition to Turkey’s entrance into the European Union
exists on several levels. Conceptually – and instinctively – Europeans
fear an intrusion of a different culture and religion in their natural
habitat. The Chairman of the European Convention tasked to draft the new
EU constitution, former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing, spoke
publicly what many believe privately when he opined that the admission
of Turkey into the EU would be the end of Europe. On a more practical
level – and one that is easily exploited by demagogue politicians, especially
in Austria and, more recently, in the Netherlands – Europeans fear that
Turkish immigrants will undermine their job security, lower the educational
standards for their kids, and place a heavy burden on their social welfare
system. These fears are unlikely to materialize. Historically, Turkish
guest workers have contributed significantly to Germany’s industrial success
(the country has about 2 million Turks). New immigration is unlikely to
be massive – as the case of Portugal’s and Spain’s admission to the EU
showed, and contrary to wide-spread expectations at the time – and will
most certainly contribute more to the European economies than take away.
In any case, practical problems such as unemployment, welfare reforms,
and education for new immigrants can be dealt with by practical policies
(e.g. phased introduction of the free movement of labor, as with current
EU entrants from Central Europe, reform of the outdated social welfare
systems, etc.). It is the conceptual and the cultural arguments that lie
at the core of most Europeans’ opposition to Turkey’s entry. And here
is where European minds are failing two fundamental tests: one of vision
and one of values.
If Turks (and Muslims) are perceived to be inherently
un-European, in some grander civilizational perspective, then the idea
of a Europe based on values and principles should be discarded. All that
would be left would be a marketplace and an increasingly stale one. Thinking
strategically, Europe needs Turkey as much as Turkey needs Europe. The
EU population is aging and shrinking, while the 70 million Turks are young
and growing. The EU economy, struggling to resume growth after years of
stagnation, can use a shot of vibrancy and dynamism, both in terms of
enhanced access to cost-effective and well-qualified labor and a rapidly
growing export market. By letting Turkey into the EU, Europe would also
gain a strategic outpost to the Greater Middle East and Central Asia,
which would increase its geo-political influence. For the sake of strategy,
values, and vision, the European Commission should give Turkey a date
for the start of EU membership negotiations in December of this year.
This will not trigger Turkey’s accession in the coming years (a realistic
time-schedule points to 2015), but would put Turkey firmly on the path
towards Europe and away from more dangerous places.
Turkey, for its part, has traveled a long way in meeting
the EU standards for market economy, law-based society, and protection
of human and civil rights. The results are commendable, yet the accelerated
process that has delivered them, and the accelerated process of Turkey’s
modernization itself over the past 80 years, have convoluted the organic
growth and inhibited the internalization of the values and principles
upon which the European Union is based. Reforms in Turkey have been driven
centrally and ushered in with an authoritarian hand and military support.
Fundamental conflicts between traditional and modern values, secularism
and religiousness, nationalism and ethnicity have been bridged over by
force or the threat of its use, not resolved organically through an all-inclusive
societal debate. And this is where Turkey is failing. It needs a greater
degree of introspection, and an open and robust internal discussion about
the role of the state, religion, ethnicity and the military in the country’s
future.
In a peculiar way, both sides in the current EU-Turkey
drama are acting on scripts that do not reveal their existential concerns.
The EU professes to be unhappy with Turkey’s protection of human rights
and civil liberties, while what it is really troubled by is Turkey’s religious
and cultural otherness. Turkey is making great strides in implementing
formal legal and administrative reforms, while failing to address properly
deeper divides within its society. Both sides need to engage in some painful
introspection in order to face the strategic challenges and opportunities
of Turkey’s membership in the European Union.
As regards to Turkey’s relations with the U.S., the
Cold War-inspired strategic partnership must be discarded. The new realities
in the Middle East and the new realities in Turkey’s domestic political
evolution call for a different kind of partnership, one that is based
more on shared democratic values than on shared security concerns. The
decision of the Turkish parliament not to give approval to the U.S. to
use the country’s territory to invade Iraq should have been congratulated
rather than castigated by the U.S. administration. It was a clear display
of democracy in action in a Muslim country, led by a government with Islamic
roots. The U.S. and the international community will benefit incommensurably
more from supporting and promoting Turkey’s example of democratic decision-making
in a Muslim country than from any short-term security bargains.
|
OTR Politics - March, 2004