Tweet
BELGIAN COMMENTARY CONDEMNS EU LEADERS' POLITICAL "HYPOCRISY" OVER TURKEY
De Standaard website, Groot-Bijgaarden, The Netherlands
Sept 30 2005
The debate on Turkey's EU accession is getting dangerously out of
hand. This is because the leaders of the EU have not been able to
determine the final destination of their "political union" since the
end of the Cold War. For this reason, they are lacking clear criteria
to solve the Turkish dilemma.
Last Wednesday [28 September], the European Parliament in Strasbourg
scored an own goal. At the proposal of the German Christian Democrats,
European MPs refused to approve the Ankara protocol. This is mainly
a symbolic gesture, they said, to show their discontent with the
Erdogan-led government's declaration that the signing of the protocol
did not automatically imply it would recognize Cyprus.
People in Ankara are not really ill at ease about this. Last December,
the state and government leaders decided that Turkey only needed to
sign the Ankara protocol prior to the opening of negotiations. The
official approval by both the Turkish and European parliaments was
not a prerequisite. What is more, the parliament's gesture even suits
the Turks, because the non-ratification [of the Ankara protocol]
constitutes an additional reason for Turkey to postpone application
of the customs union to Cyprus.
Moreover, the general indignation over Ankara's unilateral declaration
regarding the non-recognition of Cyprus raises suspicions. During last
December's EU summit, Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul accepted a
compromise with the EU at a separate meeting with [UK Home Secretary]
Jack Straw, [German Foreign Minister] Joschka Fischer, and [Belgian
Foreign Minister] Karel De Gucht aimed at breaking the deadlock. He
agreed that Turkey would sign the protocol, but added that this would
not mean that it would therefore recognize Cyprus. Gul clearly stated
this at that time and the EU ministers accepted it. Afterward, the
European Council and all European leaders accepted this compromise.
Netherlands Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, who was EU president
at that time, formally announced the compromise. He clearly said that
the Turkish government would sign the protocol, but that this would
not imply the recognition of Cyprus. The EU's explanation for this is
that Ankara wants to keep a means of power to put pressure on Greek
Cypriots to accept the UN compromise for the island in due course -
because, after all, it was the Greek Cypriots who rejected the accord
that Kofi Annan negotiated, in a bid to put an end to the conflict,
much to the displeasure of the EU member states, for that matter,
although this did not prevent them from allowing Cyprus to join the EU.
Yet, there is another intriguing element in the European Parliament's
debate on Turkey: the ease with which the German Christian Democrats
approved the resolution, which literally states that accession
talks will be opened without making any mention of the option of a
"privileged partnership". The toughening up of the text - demanding a
settlement regarding the European constitution and Turkey's recognition
of the Armenian genocide as prerequisites for accession - simply serves
as trimmings, because the text clearly states that negotiations will
be about accession. During the Christian Democrats' parliamentary
group meeting and afterward in the plenary session, Angela Merkel's
fervent advocates of a "privileged partnership" have stabled their
battle horse.
As far as the Turkish problem is concerned, however, hypocrisy
has been turned into a political virtue. Realpolitik - let us allow
negotiations to start so as to prevent a major crisis - has prevailed
over principles - Turkey is not a "European" country (meaning: It is
an Islamic country) and can therefore not successfully be integrated
into the EU. Yesterday, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin
at least had the courage to distance himself openly from objections
against Turkey's accession formerly raised by his president.
What then is the real problem regarding the EU's enlargement to
Turkey? Is it Islam? Without a doubt. However, anybody who wants to
make a judgment out of fear should drop this objection. At this time,
there are more Muslims in the EU than there are Belgians - and if,
within the foreseeable future, the Balkan countries are allowed to
join, their numbers will increase further.
Is it fear of Turkish plumbers [invading the EU labour market] or a new
wave of company relocations towards inexpensive Turkey? Yes indeed,
but a correct analysis shows that the customs union with Turkey was
concluded as early as the 1960s.
The leader of Greens' parliamentary group, Daniel Cohn Bendit, also
used a novel argument during the debate. Turkey would be the EU's
first real "enlargement", he argued, because previous expansions were
about no more than "reunification".
The EU mainly has itself to blame for its problems with Turkey. Forty
years ago, Ankara was promised membership. At a meeting in Helsinki in
1999, Turkey was again granted the status of "candidate member state".
Until 1989, this seemed to be a harmless point, since Turkey had
belonged to the "Western" camp since World War II. It joined NATO
and it was closely integrated [into the alliance], as was the rest
of the EU for that matter.
Since the collapse of the wall and the end of the Cold War, however,
this context has changed considerably. The Atlantic connection has
loosened. Since then, the EU has also been struggling with itself.
What will be its final destination? "The process of ... (ellipsis
as published) an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe", as
it is stated in the first article of the Union Treaty, has been less
noncommittal since 1989. It is therefore not coincidental that, of all
passages, this one was left out of the text of the new constitutional
treaty, under British pressure.
So the EU's enlargement problem does not lie with Turkey - it lies
with the European leaders who refuse to engage in a debate on the
political destination of their union. As long as they fail to come
to terms with this issue, they will not be able to give a fair reply
to Turkey, or to their own citizens.
De Standaard website, Groot-Bijgaarden, The Netherlands
Sept 30 2005
The debate on Turkey's EU accession is getting dangerously out of
hand. This is because the leaders of the EU have not been able to
determine the final destination of their "political union" since the
end of the Cold War. For this reason, they are lacking clear criteria
to solve the Turkish dilemma.
Last Wednesday [28 September], the European Parliament in Strasbourg
scored an own goal. At the proposal of the German Christian Democrats,
European MPs refused to approve the Ankara protocol. This is mainly
a symbolic gesture, they said, to show their discontent with the
Erdogan-led government's declaration that the signing of the protocol
did not automatically imply it would recognize Cyprus.
People in Ankara are not really ill at ease about this. Last December,
the state and government leaders decided that Turkey only needed to
sign the Ankara protocol prior to the opening of negotiations. The
official approval by both the Turkish and European parliaments was
not a prerequisite. What is more, the parliament's gesture even suits
the Turks, because the non-ratification [of the Ankara protocol]
constitutes an additional reason for Turkey to postpone application
of the customs union to Cyprus.
Moreover, the general indignation over Ankara's unilateral declaration
regarding the non-recognition of Cyprus raises suspicions. During last
December's EU summit, Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul accepted a
compromise with the EU at a separate meeting with [UK Home Secretary]
Jack Straw, [German Foreign Minister] Joschka Fischer, and [Belgian
Foreign Minister] Karel De Gucht aimed at breaking the deadlock. He
agreed that Turkey would sign the protocol, but added that this would
not mean that it would therefore recognize Cyprus. Gul clearly stated
this at that time and the EU ministers accepted it. Afterward, the
European Council and all European leaders accepted this compromise.
Netherlands Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, who was EU president
at that time, formally announced the compromise. He clearly said that
the Turkish government would sign the protocol, but that this would
not imply the recognition of Cyprus. The EU's explanation for this is
that Ankara wants to keep a means of power to put pressure on Greek
Cypriots to accept the UN compromise for the island in due course -
because, after all, it was the Greek Cypriots who rejected the accord
that Kofi Annan negotiated, in a bid to put an end to the conflict,
much to the displeasure of the EU member states, for that matter,
although this did not prevent them from allowing Cyprus to join the EU.
Yet, there is another intriguing element in the European Parliament's
debate on Turkey: the ease with which the German Christian Democrats
approved the resolution, which literally states that accession
talks will be opened without making any mention of the option of a
"privileged partnership". The toughening up of the text - demanding a
settlement regarding the European constitution and Turkey's recognition
of the Armenian genocide as prerequisites for accession - simply serves
as trimmings, because the text clearly states that negotiations will
be about accession. During the Christian Democrats' parliamentary
group meeting and afterward in the plenary session, Angela Merkel's
fervent advocates of a "privileged partnership" have stabled their
battle horse.
As far as the Turkish problem is concerned, however, hypocrisy
has been turned into a political virtue. Realpolitik - let us allow
negotiations to start so as to prevent a major crisis - has prevailed
over principles - Turkey is not a "European" country (meaning: It is
an Islamic country) and can therefore not successfully be integrated
into the EU. Yesterday, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin
at least had the courage to distance himself openly from objections
against Turkey's accession formerly raised by his president.
What then is the real problem regarding the EU's enlargement to
Turkey? Is it Islam? Without a doubt. However, anybody who wants to
make a judgment out of fear should drop this objection. At this time,
there are more Muslims in the EU than there are Belgians - and if,
within the foreseeable future, the Balkan countries are allowed to
join, their numbers will increase further.
Is it fear of Turkish plumbers [invading the EU labour market] or a new
wave of company relocations towards inexpensive Turkey? Yes indeed,
but a correct analysis shows that the customs union with Turkey was
concluded as early as the 1960s.
The leader of Greens' parliamentary group, Daniel Cohn Bendit, also
used a novel argument during the debate. Turkey would be the EU's
first real "enlargement", he argued, because previous expansions were
about no more than "reunification".
The EU mainly has itself to blame for its problems with Turkey. Forty
years ago, Ankara was promised membership. At a meeting in Helsinki in
1999, Turkey was again granted the status of "candidate member state".
Until 1989, this seemed to be a harmless point, since Turkey had
belonged to the "Western" camp since World War II. It joined NATO
and it was closely integrated [into the alliance], as was the rest
of the EU for that matter.
Since the collapse of the wall and the end of the Cold War, however,
this context has changed considerably. The Atlantic connection has
loosened. Since then, the EU has also been struggling with itself.
What will be its final destination? "The process of ... (ellipsis
as published) an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe", as
it is stated in the first article of the Union Treaty, has been less
noncommittal since 1989. It is therefore not coincidental that, of all
passages, this one was left out of the text of the new constitutional
treaty, under British pressure.
So the EU's enlargement problem does not lie with Turkey - it lies
with the European leaders who refuse to engage in a debate on the
political destination of their union. As long as they fail to come
to terms with this issue, they will not be able to give a fair reply
to Turkey, or to their own citizens.