Tweet
The EU-Turkey future under a magnifying glass
TDN
Sunday, July 10, 2005
OPINIONS
YUKSEL SOYLEMEZ
The European Union Commission in Brussels had a heated, four-hour
debate on Turkey's future with the bloc. At least six EU members
including Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Luxembourg and
Slovakia were strongly outspoken for various reasons related to their
own national interest against Turkey's full membership, within a
decade or so. Viviane Reading of Luxembourg supported the Merkel idea
of a privileged partnership and proposed [being] honest with Turkey to
pacify the public fears regarding the Luxembourg referendum. These
words echoed Sarkozy's line, as Luxembourg policies generally follow
those of France, to no surprise. Benita Ferrero-Waldner of Austria
claimed the EU has been pursuing the wrong policy with regard to
Turkey right from the beginning. EU policy, according to him, must be
open and clear and tell Turkey point-blank that negotiations will not
lead to full membership but to a special status to be arranged, so
that a close relationship with Turkey can be possible, to paraphrase.
This gang of six, with other secret sympathizers keeping quiet in the
trenches, urged inclusion of the Armenian question as well as issues
in the Aegean. Although this group did not enjoy much success in this
round, there will be 106 opportunities to veto Turkey in the next
decade. They hope to push Turkey into a corner so it will throw the EU
towel in, to their relief and comfort.
Herald Tribune reporter Grahan Bowley was right in saying in his title
story the next day, on June 30, Tough Conditions Set for a Difficult
Road for Membership. He himself later replaced the word tough with the
superlative toughest for the conditions set for Turkey for full
membership. No candidate country was ever set goals anything similar
to Turkey's by the EU, Bowler stressed.
Olli Rehn, honest broker, commissioner for enlargement from Finland,
made it purposefully public that, It was a politically lengthy and
argumentative debate. Guenther Verheugen argued logically, It would be
the wrong message to give to Turkey, at the end of so many years of
effort, not to bring it into the fold simply to appease the defeatist
six. Turkey is the EU's most successful project, which should not be
turned into a defeat, the German Social Democrat concluded.
For full membership, Turkey must make its best effort to reach this
goal, Louis Michael from Belgium argued. Turkey is a model for the
Islamic world. Turkey within the EU will be proof that the EU is not a
Christian club. If we cannot create a multiethnic, multicultural and
multi-religious EU community, the EU will be condemned to shrink, with
only a lowly limited target, he continued.
Rehn made it clear that the EU should underline the fact that the
target is full membership and there is a need to be faithful to the
spirit of the Dec. 17 decision.
Jose Manuel Barroso of Portugal, the chairman of the EU Commission,
although initially made some wavering remarks following the French and
Dutch referenda, supported the Rehn, Verheugen and Michael line, while
underlining the "open-ended" nature of the negotiations and more
importantly the capacity clause to digest Turkey. It is well
understood that the EU is going through a deep crisis, so the EU does
not need another crisis to cope with was more or less the basis of
Barroso's argument trying not to offend the anti-Turkish gallery.
But what was the reaction of the international media as Vox Dei in
response to the road map? The Financial Times, which generally defends
Turkey's EU membership, could not help but be pitying, saying: Poor
Turkey. The time to begin negotiations with the EU could not have been
worse, after waiting in the antechamber of Europe for 42 years. The
Times concluded that the already bumpy road of membership to the EU
for Turkey now includes another obstacle.
According to authoritative left-wing Le Monde of Paris, None of the
conditions of the document included in the framework are new, which is
correct. The Guardian mentioned that The efforts within the commission
to defeat and kill the possibility of Turkey's membership of the EU
was itself defeated, but there is an increasing pessimism in Brussels
about Turkey's chances for EU membership. Many Turkish opinion makers
and analysts, including this writer, now share this [prognosis],
although Ankara is trying to show a brave face."
Die Welt spelled out what was in the heart of many Germans, Christian
or Social Democrat, Merkel or not, and bluntly called a spade a spade
and said: In fact, the framework document is a road to privileged
partnership. But again from Germany, Bild disagreed. Europe needs
Turkey. Now the obstacles in front of Turkey to begin the negotiations
are definitely removed. Now Ankara faces a long and hard process,
which will last 10-15 years.
Berliner Zeitung was also on the side of general pessimism. Whatever
interest there was in Turkey's EU membership, that has completely
evaporated during the last few weeks, it sadly concluded. In Spain,
ABC was factual: The EU has made the conditions for membership harder,
although in spite of the EU crisis, keeps the promised date to start
the negotiations. The most important thing was to restate the EU's
target for full membership for Turkey. Also from Spain, La Vanguardia
recalled the two parallel storms in Brussels the same day: One in the
sky over the clouds, the other under the roof of the EU Commission
with a wry humor. Der Standard of Austria repeated the Austrian
position: The EU must be honest with Turkey. The EU must make it clear
to Turkey, that it will not be admitted as a full member in the end.
Now will the EU Council of Ministers of 25 approve the framework
document? Rehn thinks, Most likely they will, but of course they have
the power to change the framework.
A Financial Times cartoonist summed it all up. The two goal posts are
lined from end to end with the players of the 25 member states rather
than the usual one goal keeper, while Erdogan is poised to score the
first goal, with a ball painted with Turkish symbols.
The EU Commission's document is nearly identical to the EU Council's
Dec. 17 report on Turkey, which gave the Oct. 3 start date for the
negotiations for membership, with many conditions and strings. These
were agreed by the council then, and now the commission is repeating
them in spite of themselves, with no enthusiasm, but remorse.
There is no attraction or love between the parties in not recalling
bad blood, historic enmity and hatred. There is a mutual suspicion and
obvious fear on both fronts that time may still iron out. The
indisputable fact is Europe needs Turkey and Turkey needs Europe,
whether they like each other or not.
It was a wave of nationalist backlash that swept over the French and
Dutch referenda. It would not be surprising if the same kind of
nationalist feelings are revived in Turkey, if the same kind of
popular questioning and doubt replace some 80 percent support for a
Turkey in Europe.
No doubt, it is not a fair game but what is fair in international
politics and diplomacy? It is the reason of the stronger that
prevails, as the French saying goes. As it was yesterday and is today,
power is the order of the day and Turkey has to prove its worth to get
a better deal. As Quentin Peel said in his recent FT article, Turkey's
geopolitical card is strong, its energy will bring power to the EU,
she will add wider regional security to the EU within globalism. But
the man in the street in France, the Netherlands and generally in the
EU countries will have the last word in the next 10 years. There is
ample time and space for the European governments to educate and
inform their general publics on Turkey. We in Turkey need a
people-to-people public relations campaign for what we are and what we
can contribute to the EU and what with determination and zest as never
before, as a liberal economy, democratic and secular system, as an
example to the Islamic world.
TDN
Sunday, July 10, 2005
OPINIONS
YUKSEL SOYLEMEZ
The European Union Commission in Brussels had a heated, four-hour
debate on Turkey's future with the bloc. At least six EU members
including Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Luxembourg and
Slovakia were strongly outspoken for various reasons related to their
own national interest against Turkey's full membership, within a
decade or so. Viviane Reading of Luxembourg supported the Merkel idea
of a privileged partnership and proposed [being] honest with Turkey to
pacify the public fears regarding the Luxembourg referendum. These
words echoed Sarkozy's line, as Luxembourg policies generally follow
those of France, to no surprise. Benita Ferrero-Waldner of Austria
claimed the EU has been pursuing the wrong policy with regard to
Turkey right from the beginning. EU policy, according to him, must be
open and clear and tell Turkey point-blank that negotiations will not
lead to full membership but to a special status to be arranged, so
that a close relationship with Turkey can be possible, to paraphrase.
This gang of six, with other secret sympathizers keeping quiet in the
trenches, urged inclusion of the Armenian question as well as issues
in the Aegean. Although this group did not enjoy much success in this
round, there will be 106 opportunities to veto Turkey in the next
decade. They hope to push Turkey into a corner so it will throw the EU
towel in, to their relief and comfort.
Herald Tribune reporter Grahan Bowley was right in saying in his title
story the next day, on June 30, Tough Conditions Set for a Difficult
Road for Membership. He himself later replaced the word tough with the
superlative toughest for the conditions set for Turkey for full
membership. No candidate country was ever set goals anything similar
to Turkey's by the EU, Bowler stressed.
Olli Rehn, honest broker, commissioner for enlargement from Finland,
made it purposefully public that, It was a politically lengthy and
argumentative debate. Guenther Verheugen argued logically, It would be
the wrong message to give to Turkey, at the end of so many years of
effort, not to bring it into the fold simply to appease the defeatist
six. Turkey is the EU's most successful project, which should not be
turned into a defeat, the German Social Democrat concluded.
For full membership, Turkey must make its best effort to reach this
goal, Louis Michael from Belgium argued. Turkey is a model for the
Islamic world. Turkey within the EU will be proof that the EU is not a
Christian club. If we cannot create a multiethnic, multicultural and
multi-religious EU community, the EU will be condemned to shrink, with
only a lowly limited target, he continued.
Rehn made it clear that the EU should underline the fact that the
target is full membership and there is a need to be faithful to the
spirit of the Dec. 17 decision.
Jose Manuel Barroso of Portugal, the chairman of the EU Commission,
although initially made some wavering remarks following the French and
Dutch referenda, supported the Rehn, Verheugen and Michael line, while
underlining the "open-ended" nature of the negotiations and more
importantly the capacity clause to digest Turkey. It is well
understood that the EU is going through a deep crisis, so the EU does
not need another crisis to cope with was more or less the basis of
Barroso's argument trying not to offend the anti-Turkish gallery.
But what was the reaction of the international media as Vox Dei in
response to the road map? The Financial Times, which generally defends
Turkey's EU membership, could not help but be pitying, saying: Poor
Turkey. The time to begin negotiations with the EU could not have been
worse, after waiting in the antechamber of Europe for 42 years. The
Times concluded that the already bumpy road of membership to the EU
for Turkey now includes another obstacle.
According to authoritative left-wing Le Monde of Paris, None of the
conditions of the document included in the framework are new, which is
correct. The Guardian mentioned that The efforts within the commission
to defeat and kill the possibility of Turkey's membership of the EU
was itself defeated, but there is an increasing pessimism in Brussels
about Turkey's chances for EU membership. Many Turkish opinion makers
and analysts, including this writer, now share this [prognosis],
although Ankara is trying to show a brave face."
Die Welt spelled out what was in the heart of many Germans, Christian
or Social Democrat, Merkel or not, and bluntly called a spade a spade
and said: In fact, the framework document is a road to privileged
partnership. But again from Germany, Bild disagreed. Europe needs
Turkey. Now the obstacles in front of Turkey to begin the negotiations
are definitely removed. Now Ankara faces a long and hard process,
which will last 10-15 years.
Berliner Zeitung was also on the side of general pessimism. Whatever
interest there was in Turkey's EU membership, that has completely
evaporated during the last few weeks, it sadly concluded. In Spain,
ABC was factual: The EU has made the conditions for membership harder,
although in spite of the EU crisis, keeps the promised date to start
the negotiations. The most important thing was to restate the EU's
target for full membership for Turkey. Also from Spain, La Vanguardia
recalled the two parallel storms in Brussels the same day: One in the
sky over the clouds, the other under the roof of the EU Commission
with a wry humor. Der Standard of Austria repeated the Austrian
position: The EU must be honest with Turkey. The EU must make it clear
to Turkey, that it will not be admitted as a full member in the end.
Now will the EU Council of Ministers of 25 approve the framework
document? Rehn thinks, Most likely they will, but of course they have
the power to change the framework.
A Financial Times cartoonist summed it all up. The two goal posts are
lined from end to end with the players of the 25 member states rather
than the usual one goal keeper, while Erdogan is poised to score the
first goal, with a ball painted with Turkish symbols.
The EU Commission's document is nearly identical to the EU Council's
Dec. 17 report on Turkey, which gave the Oct. 3 start date for the
negotiations for membership, with many conditions and strings. These
were agreed by the council then, and now the commission is repeating
them in spite of themselves, with no enthusiasm, but remorse.
There is no attraction or love between the parties in not recalling
bad blood, historic enmity and hatred. There is a mutual suspicion and
obvious fear on both fronts that time may still iron out. The
indisputable fact is Europe needs Turkey and Turkey needs Europe,
whether they like each other or not.
It was a wave of nationalist backlash that swept over the French and
Dutch referenda. It would not be surprising if the same kind of
nationalist feelings are revived in Turkey, if the same kind of
popular questioning and doubt replace some 80 percent support for a
Turkey in Europe.
No doubt, it is not a fair game but what is fair in international
politics and diplomacy? It is the reason of the stronger that
prevails, as the French saying goes. As it was yesterday and is today,
power is the order of the day and Turkey has to prove its worth to get
a better deal. As Quentin Peel said in his recent FT article, Turkey's
geopolitical card is strong, its energy will bring power to the EU,
she will add wider regional security to the EU within globalism. But
the man in the street in France, the Netherlands and generally in the
EU countries will have the last word in the next 10 years. There is
ample time and space for the European governments to educate and
inform their general publics on Turkey. We in Turkey need a
people-to-people public relations campaign for what we are and what we
can contribute to the EU and what with determination and zest as never
before, as a liberal economy, democratic and secular system, as an
example to the Islamic world.