Tweet
Financial Times (London, England)
November 10, 2006 Friday
London Edition 1
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR; Pg. 17
Turkish entry would fatally dilute the Union
By FRITS BOLKESTEIN
It is called "the great train crash". The European Union's
negotiations with Turkey are coming to the crunch. In December 1999
Europe's leaders agreed, after a few minutes' debate, that Turkey
would be a candidate member. Its accession would not be a matter of
if, but of when. Now a number of leaders, perhaps a majority, are
trying to wriggle off the hook.
Would Turkey's accession be a good thing? For Turkey it would
probably be the best thing that could happen to it, even though
enthusiasm for membership there is waning. For the EU it would be a
bad thing. Why?
There are incidental reasons and structural ones. The present crunch
is about Cyprus. Turkey does not recognise Cyprus, nor does it open
its harbours to Cypriot ships. That in itself is odd. If one wants to
join a club, it does not do to reject one of its members.
Another incidental matter is the Armenian genocide. Whoever calls it
so commits a crime in Turkey, as the writer Orhan Pamuk found out,
even though he has been let off the hook. Curiously, this restriction
of free speech is mirrored in France where a proposal has been made
to make denial of the genocide a crime. But it does not look as if
this proposal will reach the statute book, whereas article 301 of the
Turkish criminal code is real enough.
The so-called Copenhagen criteria demand that all EU members respect
democracy, human rights and the rights of minorities. The European
Commission decided in 2004 that Turkey satisfied these criteria
sufficiently for negotiations on membership to be opened. I was the
sole dissenter.
Gunter Verheugen's report - he was then commissioner for enlargement
- mentioned that, in 2003, 21,870 Turks had asked for asylum in the
EU, of whom 2,127 were accepted. So member states themselves
acknowledged that in 2003 more than 2,000 Turks had been persecuted
by their government.
In March 2005 Turkish police violently disturbed a demonstration of
women intended to celebrate International Women's Day.
This week the Commission's report on Turkey again condemned these
failings, stressing in particular the use of torture and shortcomings
with respect to the freedom of religion, expression and assembly.
Some of these shortcoming are undoubtedly incidental. Article 301 can
be changed, torture in prisons can be stopped. But others are not.
Will there ever be true religious freedom, which means mosque and
church are be treated on a par? Will minorities ever have the same
cultural freedom as the majority? Will women ever be treated in the
same way as men?
Some people will say: these things will improve after accession. I
doubt it. To the contrary: after accession all desire to liberalise
will evaporate.
What is Turkey's basic identity? It has a marvellous history. But it
is not a European history. Europe is marked by the great developments
of its past: Christianity, Renaissance, Enlightenment, democracy,
industrialisation. Turkey does not fit in that mould. Here I will be
accused of saying that Turkey may not enter because it is not
Christian. That is emphatically not what I say. But it can hardly be
denied that European civilisation has been deeply marked by its
Judaeo-Christian heritage, however much politically correct
bien-pensants may deem this old hat.
Some maintain that only membership will stop the tide of Islamism.
But the EU wants to reduce the power and influence of the Turkish
army, which is a bulwark against radical islam. Does Europe know what
it is doing?
I now come to the most important reason for rejecting Turkish
membership: its consequences. Whoever lets Turkey in cannot very well
refuse Ukraine, which is more European than Turkey. Ukrainian
membership (much advocated by Poland) would be followed by that of
Belarus, Moldova and - why not - Georgia, Armenia and Azerbidjan.
Together with the successor states of Yugoslavia that would mean, in
time, an EU of some 40 member states, bordering on Russia in the
east, Syria, Iraq and Iran in the south. I was responsible for the
customs union: I do not envy my future successor.
Supporters of Turkish membership focus on foreign relations. That is
legitimate. But the EU's cohesion comes first. These advocates think
they know how the EU works. But they do not.
It is already hard to get member states to toe the line. That can
only get worse. Helmut Schmidt, former German chancellor, said: "We
cannot manage Turkish membership." He was right. It would fatally
dilute the EU. But perhaps this might suit the UK government,
especially when headed by Gordon Brown.
The writer was a member of the European Commission 1999-2004
November 10, 2006 Friday
London Edition 1
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR; Pg. 17
Turkish entry would fatally dilute the Union
By FRITS BOLKESTEIN
It is called "the great train crash". The European Union's
negotiations with Turkey are coming to the crunch. In December 1999
Europe's leaders agreed, after a few minutes' debate, that Turkey
would be a candidate member. Its accession would not be a matter of
if, but of when. Now a number of leaders, perhaps a majority, are
trying to wriggle off the hook.
Would Turkey's accession be a good thing? For Turkey it would
probably be the best thing that could happen to it, even though
enthusiasm for membership there is waning. For the EU it would be a
bad thing. Why?
There are incidental reasons and structural ones. The present crunch
is about Cyprus. Turkey does not recognise Cyprus, nor does it open
its harbours to Cypriot ships. That in itself is odd. If one wants to
join a club, it does not do to reject one of its members.
Another incidental matter is the Armenian genocide. Whoever calls it
so commits a crime in Turkey, as the writer Orhan Pamuk found out,
even though he has been let off the hook. Curiously, this restriction
of free speech is mirrored in France where a proposal has been made
to make denial of the genocide a crime. But it does not look as if
this proposal will reach the statute book, whereas article 301 of the
Turkish criminal code is real enough.
The so-called Copenhagen criteria demand that all EU members respect
democracy, human rights and the rights of minorities. The European
Commission decided in 2004 that Turkey satisfied these criteria
sufficiently for negotiations on membership to be opened. I was the
sole dissenter.
Gunter Verheugen's report - he was then commissioner for enlargement
- mentioned that, in 2003, 21,870 Turks had asked for asylum in the
EU, of whom 2,127 were accepted. So member states themselves
acknowledged that in 2003 more than 2,000 Turks had been persecuted
by their government.
In March 2005 Turkish police violently disturbed a demonstration of
women intended to celebrate International Women's Day.
This week the Commission's report on Turkey again condemned these
failings, stressing in particular the use of torture and shortcomings
with respect to the freedom of religion, expression and assembly.
Some of these shortcoming are undoubtedly incidental. Article 301 can
be changed, torture in prisons can be stopped. But others are not.
Will there ever be true religious freedom, which means mosque and
church are be treated on a par? Will minorities ever have the same
cultural freedom as the majority? Will women ever be treated in the
same way as men?
Some people will say: these things will improve after accession. I
doubt it. To the contrary: after accession all desire to liberalise
will evaporate.
What is Turkey's basic identity? It has a marvellous history. But it
is not a European history. Europe is marked by the great developments
of its past: Christianity, Renaissance, Enlightenment, democracy,
industrialisation. Turkey does not fit in that mould. Here I will be
accused of saying that Turkey may not enter because it is not
Christian. That is emphatically not what I say. But it can hardly be
denied that European civilisation has been deeply marked by its
Judaeo-Christian heritage, however much politically correct
bien-pensants may deem this old hat.
Some maintain that only membership will stop the tide of Islamism.
But the EU wants to reduce the power and influence of the Turkish
army, which is a bulwark against radical islam. Does Europe know what
it is doing?
I now come to the most important reason for rejecting Turkish
membership: its consequences. Whoever lets Turkey in cannot very well
refuse Ukraine, which is more European than Turkey. Ukrainian
membership (much advocated by Poland) would be followed by that of
Belarus, Moldova and - why not - Georgia, Armenia and Azerbidjan.
Together with the successor states of Yugoslavia that would mean, in
time, an EU of some 40 member states, bordering on Russia in the
east, Syria, Iraq and Iran in the south. I was responsible for the
customs union: I do not envy my future successor.
Supporters of Turkish membership focus on foreign relations. That is
legitimate. But the EU's cohesion comes first. These advocates think
they know how the EU works. But they do not.
It is already hard to get member states to toe the line. That can
only get worse. Helmut Schmidt, former German chancellor, said: "We
cannot manage Turkish membership." He was right. It would fatally
dilute the EU. But perhaps this might suit the UK government,
especially when headed by Gordon Brown.
The writer was a member of the European Commission 1999-2004