Tweet
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
June 27 2005
Turkey and the EU Referendums
View: Sedat LACINER
According to some European politicians and journalists Turkey has
nothing to contribute to the European Union (EU). Many of them see
that Turkey will deplete the EU sources and cause great economic
depression. Moreover, 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 have refused 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. Thus the employments and investments have gone to the
Eastern Europe from the Western Europe. Furthermore the Polish,
Hungarian, Russian and other Eastern Europeans legally or illegally
poured into the Western European employment markets. This trend
decreased wages.
Competitiveness has also forced the EU to cut social rights. The
welfare state has been dying in the EU countries since 1990s.
Education, health, unemployment and other social budgets have been
dramatically cut and the taxes were increased in Germany, France and
many other EU members.
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 when compared
with the Anglo-Saxon economies (US, UK etc.). 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 have caused serious 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.
***
Civilazational Factors
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 (6 m. in France and 1 m. in
Netherlands). Most of them are Arab and from Northern Africa, and
most of them are French or Dutch citizens. Second and third
generation has very little link with the `homeland'. However `the
Christian citizens' do not see the Muslim French and Muslim 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, Malaysian, Indonesian 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,
or Iranian. However only Turkey has a `chance' to become EU member:
The EU leaders at the 17 December EU 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 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 Algerian 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 fully questioned the
real problems. The politicians and so-called `leaders' accused the
`others' and never dare to confront the realities. They provided a
ground for the `non's actually. Worst of all, it seems that they
cannot read the results of the referendums. They still accuse Turkey
and the Muslims in EU. 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 a
prescription for the EU to be more competitive and stronger economy
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 `greater Europe' (including Turkey, Turkish
Cyprus, the former USSR, Balkans and Muslim diasporas). 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 the 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. Strangely the EU
accuses Turkey in any issue if the other side is Christian. Many
Turks and Muslims perceive a return to the Medieval Ages. Under these
circumstances, if an ethnic or religious mass conflict erupts in any
European capital, both sides will lose. The EU and the EU members'
leaders however seem not aware of the mortal situation, and have no
prescription. They just nourish the misunderstandings and historical
biases.
In this framework, it can be argued that Turkey provides the right
prescription in both of the problems (competitiveness and
civilizational relations), 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 not 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 17th 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 1960s 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. The EU cannot
overcome its crises by only accusing Turkey, but fully understanding
the potential of Turkey to cure its weaknesses.
[email protected]
June 27 2005
Turkey and the EU Referendums
View: Sedat LACINER
According to some European politicians and journalists Turkey has
nothing to contribute to the European Union (EU). Many of them see
that Turkey will deplete the EU sources and cause great economic
depression. Moreover, 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 have refused 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. Thus the employments and investments have gone to the
Eastern Europe from the Western Europe. Furthermore the Polish,
Hungarian, Russian and other Eastern Europeans legally or illegally
poured into the Western European employment markets. This trend
decreased wages.
Competitiveness has also forced the EU to cut social rights. The
welfare state has been dying in the EU countries since 1990s.
Education, health, unemployment and other social budgets have been
dramatically cut and the taxes were increased in Germany, France and
many other EU members.
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 when compared
with the Anglo-Saxon economies (US, UK etc.). 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 have caused serious 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.
***
Civilazational Factors
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 (6 m. in France and 1 m. in
Netherlands). Most of them are Arab and from Northern Africa, and
most of them are French or Dutch citizens. Second and third
generation has very little link with the `homeland'. However `the
Christian citizens' do not see the Muslim French and Muslim 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, Malaysian, Indonesian 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,
or Iranian. However only Turkey has a `chance' to become EU member:
The EU leaders at the 17 December EU 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 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 Algerian 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 fully questioned the
real problems. The politicians and so-called `leaders' accused the
`others' and never dare to confront the realities. They provided a
ground for the `non's actually. Worst of all, it seems that they
cannot read the results of the referendums. They still accuse Turkey
and the Muslims in EU. 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 a
prescription for the EU to be more competitive and stronger economy
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 `greater Europe' (including Turkey, Turkish
Cyprus, the former USSR, Balkans and Muslim diasporas). 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 the 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. Strangely the EU
accuses Turkey in any issue if the other side is Christian. Many
Turks and Muslims perceive a return to the Medieval Ages. Under these
circumstances, if an ethnic or religious mass conflict erupts in any
European capital, both sides will lose. The EU and the EU members'
leaders however seem not aware of the mortal situation, and have no
prescription. They just nourish the misunderstandings and historical
biases.
In this framework, it can be argued that Turkey provides the right
prescription in both of the problems (competitiveness and
civilizational relations), 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 not 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 17th 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 1960s 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. The EU cannot
overcome its crises by only accusing Turkey, but fully understanding
the potential of Turkey to cure its weaknesses.
[email protected]