Tweet
Journal of Turkish Weekly
June 16 2005
Turkey and EU Referendums
View: Sedat Laciner
According to some European politicians and journalists Turkey has
nothing to contribute to the EU. Many of them see that Turkey will
deplete the EU sources and cause great economic depression. The
Christian Democrats and some other anti-Turkish circles in France and
Germany argue that Turkey is not part of 'the European civilization".
Turkey is generally considered poor, problematic and an awkward
candidate for the EU. Worst of all, some abuse the 'Turkey problem'
in order to curtail their failures as witnessed in the French and
Dutch referendums. The French and Dutch politicians refuse to question
their mistakes and Turkey has become a scapegoat.
***
First, in France and Netherlands, the peoples rejected the 'new
economic order'. They were not happy with the new global competitive
market conditions. They were losing their jobs. The Western European
companies have been investing in the Eastern Europe, Central Europe,
the Balkans, Turkey and China. And the EU has to enlarge to be more
competitive. Competitiveness also forces the EU to cut social rights.
The welfare state has been dying. Under these circumstances the old
members of the EU has been radically transforming. The problem is
that the continental Europe is not flexible enough to be transformed
at this speed. Another problem is that Western Europe has not enough
time to make such structural changes in employment, social rights,
health services, education systems, and other public services. The
rapid changes cause problems and resistance. The French and Dutch
'no's were part of this resistance. In another word, the problem is
more serious, and 'Turkey issue' as a scapegoat may only delay the
problems. The French and other Western European leaders have to face
the reality.
***
The 'no's were not only against 'the competitiveness efforts' and
globalization's impacts on the social life and employment. No one
can ignore 'civilizational factors'. Significant percent of the
French and Dutch voters saw 'Turkey' or 'Muslim issue' as a factor
to vote 'non'. After the Van Gogh Murder in particular the ethnic and
interfaith relations have become thornier. About 7 million Muslims live
in Netherlands and France. Most of them are Arab and from Northern
Africa. However the Christian citizens do not see the Muslim French
and Dutch citizens as true citizens. In the post- 9/11 era, the Van
Gogh Murder muddled the ethnic relations even in the Netherlands which
was one of the perfect example of ethnic harmony. Though the number
of Turks is less than 15 percent, the French and Dutch peoples do not
make any distinction between Turks, Arabs and Iranians. In fact the
ethnic origin of any Muslim is not important for the biased and angry
masses. They say Muslim, but they mean Arab, Turk, and Iranian. However
only the Turkey have a 'chance' to become EU member: The EU leaders in
the 17 December Summit decided to start full-membership negotiations
with Turkey on 3 October 2005, and recognized that there was no
serious structural problem for Turkey's EU membership. In fact the
EU first time in its history recognized Turkey as the true European
and opened the doors of the EU to the Turks. This made anti-Turkish
political parties and groups in the Western Europe panicked. Racist
and anti-Muslim groups argued that Turkey's entry will make Europe a
Muslim continent. Turkey, according to these groups, with 75 million
Muslims was not a true European. Apart from the racist, radical and
religionist parties, the 'incurable' anti-Turkish lobbies (Armenians,
Greeks and the PKK militants) made anything possible to show Turkey
and Muslims as a threat to 'Europe'. Armenians for instance in France
argued that Turkey had to recognize Armenian allegations regarding
the 1915 Relocation Campaign before accepting by the EU. According
to the Armenians, Turks had committed genocide against the Ottoman
Armenians while Turkey says there was an Armenian riot and more than
523,000 Turks were massacred by the armed Armenian groups during
the last years of the Ottoman Empire. Who is right is a formidable
question, yet the timing is interesting. The French Armenians and
many French politicians started anti-Turkish campaigns before the
EU Constitution referendum. None of them could remember the Algerian
Genocide committed by the French troops though the Algerian President
and people were still expecting a sincere sorry from Paris. But Turkey
was at the heart of all of the EU debates. Both sides accused Turkey
for almost anything. The opposition accused Chirac of giving support
to Turkey's EU membership, and Chirac replied that Turkey cannot be
a EU member in foreseeable future, and that the French people will
decide whether Turkey can be a EU member or not. Chirac totally
supported the Armenian diaspora, and even sent a supportive letter
to a former ASALA terrorist.
***
In brief, neither France nor the Netherlands questioned the real
problems. The politicians and so-called 'leaders' accused the
'others' and never faced the realities. They provided a ground for the
'non's. Worst of all, it seems that they cannot read the results of the
referendums. They still accuse Turkey and the Muslims. France has tried
to prevent any enlargement since the referendum; German CDU's leader
Merkel says the EU cannot integrate Turkey. None of them touches the
real problems. The referendums proved that the French and Dutch peoples
are against globalization and they are getting more and more prejudiced
(if not racist) about the Muslims. At this point palliative measures
cannot solve the problems. The EU states, as EU member or alone, have
to be more competitive, and the EU citizens will continue to suffer
from limited welfare state. Enlargements are possibly the only way
in the short term to be more competitive against China, India and
other countries. In another word, enlargement is not the problem,
but the true prescription.
Second, anti-Turkish or anti-Muslim politics are dangerous for
Europe as the NAZÝ politics before the Second World War. There are
more than 150 million Muslims in Europe. The American policies in
the 'greater Middle East' worsened the civilization relations. The
situation in Iraq is worse than the Saddam Hussein era. American
policies in Iraq and Palestine increased anti-Westernism not only
in the region but also among the Euro-Muslims. American human
rights abuses in Guantanamo and Iraq prisons have deepened hatred
between civilizations. French and Dutch politicians are talking about
declaring a war against Islamism. Many politicians abuse the ethnic
relations in the EU states. The Christian solidarity is still alive
against Turkey in Cyprus issue, Armenian problem or any problem in the
Aegean Sea. Many Turks and Muslims perceive a return to the Medieval
Ages. If an ethnic or religious mass conflict erupts, both sides
will lose. The EU and the EU members' leaders however seem have no
prescription. They just nourish the misunderstandings and historical
biases. In this framework, it can be argued that Turkey provides
the right prescription, and the EU has no alternative but Turkey.
- Turkey is the greatest Muslim economy in the world,
- Turkey is the oldest and most healthy democracy in the Muslim world,
- Turkey is the most liberal economy of the Muslim world,
- Turkey has the most stable and reliable economic and political
structure in the Muslim world,
- Turkey is the most Westernized and modernized Muslim country in
the world,
- Turkey has a strong representative power among the Muslim states,
- Apart from the Muslim world, Turkey is considered the leader of
the 150 million-Turkic world,
- More than half of Turkey's foreign trade with the EU countries,
- Turks do not equate Christianity with the West, and Judaism with
Israel. Turkey can be critical about both of them when it has good
relation with Israel and the West,
- Turkish people do see radical Islamists as 'heroes'. It can be
said that Turkish religious understanding is the only antidote to
counteract against Usame Bin-Ladin approach,
It can be said that Turkey is an invaluable candidate for the EU
at this point. Apart from the civilization contributions, Turkey's
competitiveness and economic potential may also help the suffering EU
economies. Turkey is now the 20th bigger economy of the world and it
has dramatically been climbing the list. On the other hand what the
EU can contribute to Turkey is debatable. The EU has no funds to pour
to Turkey as it did to the new comers. The EU cannot offer employment
for Turkish unemployed as it did during the 19602 and 70s. The EU
also cannot finance Turkish agriculture sector as it did the French
agriculture in the past.
We do not want to underestimate the EU's possible contributions
to Turkey, but at the same time, it should be noted that Turkey's
possible contributions should not be underestimated.
--Boundary_(ID_x3+4uTI4JzFgZp8351jzQA)--
June 16 2005
Turkey and EU Referendums
View: Sedat Laciner
According to some European politicians and journalists Turkey has
nothing to contribute to the EU. Many of them see that Turkey will
deplete the EU sources and cause great economic depression. The
Christian Democrats and some other anti-Turkish circles in France and
Germany argue that Turkey is not part of 'the European civilization".
Turkey is generally considered poor, problematic and an awkward
candidate for the EU. Worst of all, some abuse the 'Turkey problem'
in order to curtail their failures as witnessed in the French and
Dutch referendums. The French and Dutch politicians refuse to question
their mistakes and Turkey has become a scapegoat.
***
First, in France and Netherlands, the peoples rejected the 'new
economic order'. They were not happy with the new global competitive
market conditions. They were losing their jobs. The Western European
companies have been investing in the Eastern Europe, Central Europe,
the Balkans, Turkey and China. And the EU has to enlarge to be more
competitive. Competitiveness also forces the EU to cut social rights.
The welfare state has been dying. Under these circumstances the old
members of the EU has been radically transforming. The problem is
that the continental Europe is not flexible enough to be transformed
at this speed. Another problem is that Western Europe has not enough
time to make such structural changes in employment, social rights,
health services, education systems, and other public services. The
rapid changes cause problems and resistance. The French and Dutch
'no's were part of this resistance. In another word, the problem is
more serious, and 'Turkey issue' as a scapegoat may only delay the
problems. The French and other Western European leaders have to face
the reality.
***
The 'no's were not only against 'the competitiveness efforts' and
globalization's impacts on the social life and employment. No one
can ignore 'civilizational factors'. Significant percent of the
French and Dutch voters saw 'Turkey' or 'Muslim issue' as a factor
to vote 'non'. After the Van Gogh Murder in particular the ethnic and
interfaith relations have become thornier. About 7 million Muslims live
in Netherlands and France. Most of them are Arab and from Northern
Africa. However the Christian citizens do not see the Muslim French
and Dutch citizens as true citizens. In the post- 9/11 era, the Van
Gogh Murder muddled the ethnic relations even in the Netherlands which
was one of the perfect example of ethnic harmony. Though the number
of Turks is less than 15 percent, the French and Dutch peoples do not
make any distinction between Turks, Arabs and Iranians. In fact the
ethnic origin of any Muslim is not important for the biased and angry
masses. They say Muslim, but they mean Arab, Turk, and Iranian. However
only the Turkey have a 'chance' to become EU member: The EU leaders in
the 17 December Summit decided to start full-membership negotiations
with Turkey on 3 October 2005, and recognized that there was no
serious structural problem for Turkey's EU membership. In fact the
EU first time in its history recognized Turkey as the true European
and opened the doors of the EU to the Turks. This made anti-Turkish
political parties and groups in the Western Europe panicked. Racist
and anti-Muslim groups argued that Turkey's entry will make Europe a
Muslim continent. Turkey, according to these groups, with 75 million
Muslims was not a true European. Apart from the racist, radical and
religionist parties, the 'incurable' anti-Turkish lobbies (Armenians,
Greeks and the PKK militants) made anything possible to show Turkey
and Muslims as a threat to 'Europe'. Armenians for instance in France
argued that Turkey had to recognize Armenian allegations regarding
the 1915 Relocation Campaign before accepting by the EU. According
to the Armenians, Turks had committed genocide against the Ottoman
Armenians while Turkey says there was an Armenian riot and more than
523,000 Turks were massacred by the armed Armenian groups during
the last years of the Ottoman Empire. Who is right is a formidable
question, yet the timing is interesting. The French Armenians and
many French politicians started anti-Turkish campaigns before the
EU Constitution referendum. None of them could remember the Algerian
Genocide committed by the French troops though the Algerian President
and people were still expecting a sincere sorry from Paris. But Turkey
was at the heart of all of the EU debates. Both sides accused Turkey
for almost anything. The opposition accused Chirac of giving support
to Turkey's EU membership, and Chirac replied that Turkey cannot be
a EU member in foreseeable future, and that the French people will
decide whether Turkey can be a EU member or not. Chirac totally
supported the Armenian diaspora, and even sent a supportive letter
to a former ASALA terrorist.
***
In brief, neither France nor the Netherlands questioned the real
problems. The politicians and so-called 'leaders' accused the
'others' and never faced the realities. They provided a ground for the
'non's. Worst of all, it seems that they cannot read the results of the
referendums. They still accuse Turkey and the Muslims. France has tried
to prevent any enlargement since the referendum; German CDU's leader
Merkel says the EU cannot integrate Turkey. None of them touches the
real problems. The referendums proved that the French and Dutch peoples
are against globalization and they are getting more and more prejudiced
(if not racist) about the Muslims. At this point palliative measures
cannot solve the problems. The EU states, as EU member or alone, have
to be more competitive, and the EU citizens will continue to suffer
from limited welfare state. Enlargements are possibly the only way
in the short term to be more competitive against China, India and
other countries. In another word, enlargement is not the problem,
but the true prescription.
Second, anti-Turkish or anti-Muslim politics are dangerous for
Europe as the NAZÝ politics before the Second World War. There are
more than 150 million Muslims in Europe. The American policies in
the 'greater Middle East' worsened the civilization relations. The
situation in Iraq is worse than the Saddam Hussein era. American
policies in Iraq and Palestine increased anti-Westernism not only
in the region but also among the Euro-Muslims. American human
rights abuses in Guantanamo and Iraq prisons have deepened hatred
between civilizations. French and Dutch politicians are talking about
declaring a war against Islamism. Many politicians abuse the ethnic
relations in the EU states. The Christian solidarity is still alive
against Turkey in Cyprus issue, Armenian problem or any problem in the
Aegean Sea. Many Turks and Muslims perceive a return to the Medieval
Ages. If an ethnic or religious mass conflict erupts, both sides
will lose. The EU and the EU members' leaders however seem have no
prescription. They just nourish the misunderstandings and historical
biases. In this framework, it can be argued that Turkey provides
the right prescription, and the EU has no alternative but Turkey.
- Turkey is the greatest Muslim economy in the world,
- Turkey is the oldest and most healthy democracy in the Muslim world,
- Turkey is the most liberal economy of the Muslim world,
- Turkey has the most stable and reliable economic and political
structure in the Muslim world,
- Turkey is the most Westernized and modernized Muslim country in
the world,
- Turkey has a strong representative power among the Muslim states,
- Apart from the Muslim world, Turkey is considered the leader of
the 150 million-Turkic world,
- More than half of Turkey's foreign trade with the EU countries,
- Turks do not equate Christianity with the West, and Judaism with
Israel. Turkey can be critical about both of them when it has good
relation with Israel and the West,
- Turkish people do see radical Islamists as 'heroes'. It can be
said that Turkish religious understanding is the only antidote to
counteract against Usame Bin-Ladin approach,
It can be said that Turkey is an invaluable candidate for the EU
at this point. Apart from the civilization contributions, Turkey's
competitiveness and economic potential may also help the suffering EU
economies. Turkey is now the 20th bigger economy of the world and it
has dramatically been climbing the list. On the other hand what the
EU can contribute to Turkey is debatable. The EU has no funds to pour
to Turkey as it did to the new comers. The EU cannot offer employment
for Turkish unemployed as it did during the 19602 and 70s. The EU
also cannot finance Turkish agriculture sector as it did the French
agriculture in the past.
We do not want to underestimate the EU's possible contributions
to Turkey, but at the same time, it should be noted that Turkey's
possible contributions should not be underestimated.
--Boundary_(ID_x3+4uTI4JzFgZp8351jzQA)--