Tweet
Zaman, Turkey
Dec 12 2004
The European Union or the Heresy of the 'Miraculous Conception'
by Daniel Cohn-Bendit
Co-Chairman of the EP Greens
If reconciliation between France and Germany had waited for the
"people", I believe that this novel way of managing our relations
that the EU consist of, would simply not have happened.
Nothing predisposed Europe to find the political will required to
abandon war in favour of the pact that currently makes possible the
peaceful co-existence of generations that all share in the same
project: an anti-totalitarian Europe. The political map that has been
redrawn across Europe with democratic states has enabled us to
determine our existence according to co-responsibility and led to,
after the "miracle of the Rhine", to the "miracle of the "Oder".
Today, I contend that within the world as it has become,
co-responsibility means to realise the "miracle of the Bosphorous".
This ambitious goal requires, on the one hand, an aptitude to
undertake the necessary changes to be in step with the current world,
whilst at the same time, preparing for tomorrow's world. On the other
hand, and simultaneously, this presupposes a Turkey that takes full
responsibility for the attainment within its territory of the
necessary democratic reforms, and, obviously, the consequential
changes in mentality. Thereafter, a necessary softening will be
required to a nationalistic, authoritarian Kemalism, which will
especially imply innovation in the models of coexistence for Kurds,
religious minorities and others. The assumption of the Armenian
genocide, in part perpetrated by Kurds, will also be the symptom of a
metamorphosis enabling Turkey to further acclimatise to the European
practices of sharing sovereignty, a process not easy for any nation
to accept.
I have never thought for a single moment that this path would be
simple. I even support the critics of the politics of the "fait
accompli" that enlargement has been, and, I and many others, have
pleaded in favour of deepening before enlargement. Furthermore, not
even the "cultural difference" argument so often couched in
politically correct language but often dissimulating a more
xenophobic undertone, would constitute a sufficient reason to exclude
Turkey. In a decade or so, neither the EU nor Turkey will be or can
be what they are today. Turkey will have to integrate a Union
governed by the Constitutional Treaty, that, I hope, will have also
help us progress down the path of further communtarisation. This also
means that tomorrow's Union will have increased the exigency it set
on itself and on candidate states. On the other hand, the Union will
also have foreseen the conditions of possibility of "absorption" of
such a large and populated country as Turkey, therefore not simply
comparable to previous enlargements
At this stage, I would like to make an important remark, especially
to my French friends: Turkey made its membership application and it
has been accepted unanimously. And as the Commission keeps on
repeating, there is no "Plan B". To pretend this is not the case and
continue to seek engagement whilst giving the impression that a
"privileged partnership" is of value to Turkey, a state that has a
full customs union with the EU, is really taking people for a ride.
Therefore, I am convinced that the tomorrow's European Council in
Brussels must give a precise date for the start of negotiations. Any
other decision would be entirely irresponsible.
When one considers the world we live in, in all its complexity, where
radical Islamic terrorism coincides with the Union's attempts to
exist on the international scene and where Muslims minorities make up
an important section of our populations, the perspective of Turkish
membership is not only politically sound but above all a "win -win"
scenario. This is clearly the path that Turkey has followed over the
years and that it will continue, thereby continuing its cultural
evolution, affecting not only itself, but also Islam as well. This
does not allow us to downplay the negative effects that the hostility
felt against the perceived threat to national identity that Turkey's
accession is having in certain member states. We cannot simply do as
if the "crusaders of national and cultural identity" had sung their
last psalm. In my mind, any attempt to glue back together the
symbolic orders within our societies should prevent the further
compartmentalisation of our societies and deal head on with the
identity crisis within them. This would prevent the use of such
concepts as "the people"; what does this mean? Do the Turks born in
Germany belong to the German 'Volk'? What is the German People? How
far can we discriminate when we know that over 3 million Turks live
in the EU? One thing is clear, however: the viability of Turkey's
integration into the EU depends on our ability to establish an open
debate and a pedagogy susceptible of unleashing the collective
imagination that is current bounds by backward reactions that I would
qualify as a pseudo-identity. This is not some replacement for
cultural relativism. This would, in effect, only lead to a dead end
for the recognition of both the specificities and the autonomy of
individuals and the universals principals given to us by Modernity,
which have since then become an integral part of our political
culture. In contrast, European culture has since many a year turned
its back on "revelatory" dogmas and has sufficiently integrated the
concepts of diversity in order to affirm itself through a dynamic
identity, capable of evolution. It is therefore up to us, in these
historic times, to exploit these resources at our disposal in order
to both live and believe ourselves an "open society".
Dec 12 2004
The European Union or the Heresy of the 'Miraculous Conception'
by Daniel Cohn-Bendit
Co-Chairman of the EP Greens
If reconciliation between France and Germany had waited for the
"people", I believe that this novel way of managing our relations
that the EU consist of, would simply not have happened.
Nothing predisposed Europe to find the political will required to
abandon war in favour of the pact that currently makes possible the
peaceful co-existence of generations that all share in the same
project: an anti-totalitarian Europe. The political map that has been
redrawn across Europe with democratic states has enabled us to
determine our existence according to co-responsibility and led to,
after the "miracle of the Rhine", to the "miracle of the "Oder".
Today, I contend that within the world as it has become,
co-responsibility means to realise the "miracle of the Bosphorous".
This ambitious goal requires, on the one hand, an aptitude to
undertake the necessary changes to be in step with the current world,
whilst at the same time, preparing for tomorrow's world. On the other
hand, and simultaneously, this presupposes a Turkey that takes full
responsibility for the attainment within its territory of the
necessary democratic reforms, and, obviously, the consequential
changes in mentality. Thereafter, a necessary softening will be
required to a nationalistic, authoritarian Kemalism, which will
especially imply innovation in the models of coexistence for Kurds,
religious minorities and others. The assumption of the Armenian
genocide, in part perpetrated by Kurds, will also be the symptom of a
metamorphosis enabling Turkey to further acclimatise to the European
practices of sharing sovereignty, a process not easy for any nation
to accept.
I have never thought for a single moment that this path would be
simple. I even support the critics of the politics of the "fait
accompli" that enlargement has been, and, I and many others, have
pleaded in favour of deepening before enlargement. Furthermore, not
even the "cultural difference" argument so often couched in
politically correct language but often dissimulating a more
xenophobic undertone, would constitute a sufficient reason to exclude
Turkey. In a decade or so, neither the EU nor Turkey will be or can
be what they are today. Turkey will have to integrate a Union
governed by the Constitutional Treaty, that, I hope, will have also
help us progress down the path of further communtarisation. This also
means that tomorrow's Union will have increased the exigency it set
on itself and on candidate states. On the other hand, the Union will
also have foreseen the conditions of possibility of "absorption" of
such a large and populated country as Turkey, therefore not simply
comparable to previous enlargements
At this stage, I would like to make an important remark, especially
to my French friends: Turkey made its membership application and it
has been accepted unanimously. And as the Commission keeps on
repeating, there is no "Plan B". To pretend this is not the case and
continue to seek engagement whilst giving the impression that a
"privileged partnership" is of value to Turkey, a state that has a
full customs union with the EU, is really taking people for a ride.
Therefore, I am convinced that the tomorrow's European Council in
Brussels must give a precise date for the start of negotiations. Any
other decision would be entirely irresponsible.
When one considers the world we live in, in all its complexity, where
radical Islamic terrorism coincides with the Union's attempts to
exist on the international scene and where Muslims minorities make up
an important section of our populations, the perspective of Turkish
membership is not only politically sound but above all a "win -win"
scenario. This is clearly the path that Turkey has followed over the
years and that it will continue, thereby continuing its cultural
evolution, affecting not only itself, but also Islam as well. This
does not allow us to downplay the negative effects that the hostility
felt against the perceived threat to national identity that Turkey's
accession is having in certain member states. We cannot simply do as
if the "crusaders of national and cultural identity" had sung their
last psalm. In my mind, any attempt to glue back together the
symbolic orders within our societies should prevent the further
compartmentalisation of our societies and deal head on with the
identity crisis within them. This would prevent the use of such
concepts as "the people"; what does this mean? Do the Turks born in
Germany belong to the German 'Volk'? What is the German People? How
far can we discriminate when we know that over 3 million Turks live
in the EU? One thing is clear, however: the viability of Turkey's
integration into the EU depends on our ability to establish an open
debate and a pedagogy susceptible of unleashing the collective
imagination that is current bounds by backward reactions that I would
qualify as a pseudo-identity. This is not some replacement for
cultural relativism. This would, in effect, only lead to a dead end
for the recognition of both the specificities and the autonomy of
individuals and the universals principals given to us by Modernity,
which have since then become an integral part of our political
culture. In contrast, European culture has since many a year turned
its back on "revelatory" dogmas and has sufficiently integrated the
concepts of diversity in order to affirm itself through a dynamic
identity, capable of evolution. It is therefore up to us, in these
historic times, to exploit these resources at our disposal in order
to both live and believe ourselves an "open society".