Turkey—or is it Europe—at the Crossroads
continued
Tony Judt responded first, noting the “Candidian” quality to the conversation, namely that everything will be for the best. This attitude is “garbage,” he said. Anyone who has observed voting patterns in wealthy countries can attest to the power of politicians to mobilize voters behind the fear of outsiders. The issue is not really Islam, Judt said, though it is easy to describe the problem as Islam, as this makes the fear more soluble. There is a small, intensely religious community of Muslims who now live in the most secularized, non-religious continent in recorded history. The acceptance of outsiders—and of Muslims, in particular—can only be sold to European publics by their leaders.
In Europe today a new generation of young people is emerging who see themselves as European, but who feel no sense of the European project, he added. At the same time, local leaders are being pulled farther away from a unified Europe. Politicians from the large “core” European countries—Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands—are the most skeptical, and they deliberately blur the conversation. There are really two different issues of boundaries that have been conflated. First, there is the question of whether Europe should expand to take in Turkey and thereby extend its actual boundaries to Iran. Second, there is the very real issue of the actual edges of Europe now lying in the suburbs of Antwerp, Paris and Rotterdam. European politicians are conflating their domestic “boundary” problems with Turkey.
Judt said he envisions the situation in Europe getting worse, not better. With the retirement of Jacques Chirac, the last of the old generation of European builders will have left the stage, making way for a new generation who lack their predecessors’ historical vision.
Baki Ilkin responded next to the question of Cyprus. This is a big issue, and any compromise reached between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots must be mutual. In 2004 Greek Cypriots rejected a UN plan to reunify the island (a plan that was accepted by Turkish Cypriots), but Cypress was nevertheless admitted to the EU. The leverage that the EU exercises over Greek Cypriots is very limited. Turkish Cypriots, on the other hand, have shown their willingness to compromise.
Ilkin next addressed the question about section 301 of Turkey’s penal code. He noted that there have been tremendous reforms in the legal arena in Turkey as part of the country’s accession negotiations. The controversy surrounding section 301 is one of interpretation, he said. In certain prominent cases, prosecutors felt there was a violation, but all cases have ended in acquittals. Freedom of expression must apply to all issues.
The next question posed was whether the United States plays any part in the negotiation process between Turkey and the EU. Fernando Valenzuela responded that the U.S. has consistently supported Turkey’s candidature and has made its position known. However, accession is a bilateral process between Turkey and the EU.
Another audience member asked whether declining birth rates and the need for labor in Europe inspired a certain confidence on the part of Turkey in the outcome of its accession negotiations. In response, Steven Cook pointed out that one can make a perfect technocratic argument for why Turkey should enter the EU, but such an argument tends to overlook the importance of ideas. Ideas drive European hesitancy. The issues of religion and culture are central. Negotiators can solve the Cyprus and Kurdish problems, but cultural issues will endure. Tony Judt added that the technocratic building of Europe was wise, but the consequence is that we’ve forgotten to think politically.
The next question came from an audience member who asked what the Turkish government should do to revive enthusiasm for Europe among the Turkish people. Baki Ilkin responded that Turkish governments have always advocated accession, but disappointment is a reason for waning support. Leaders in European countries must be careful about what they say and the signals they send to Turkey.
Another audience member asked the panelists to describe the difference between full EU membership and a “privileged partnership.” Fernando Valenzuela explained that the term privileged partnership could, to a large extent, describe the current relationship between Turkey and the EU. As an optimist, he expressed his belief that Turkey will eventually become a full member. The concept of a privileged partnership is not currently on the table, he said, but is suggested by those who are not in favor of Turkey’s candidature. Baki Ilkin stressed that no Turkish government would accept to be a second class citizen in the EU. Bahadir Kaleagasi added that a privileged partnership has been proposed by Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel to please electorates. The concept would imply a radical shift of policy, and is almost indecent from a political and ethical point of view, as it means that Turkey would have to implement EU directives, but would have no say in making them. Steven Cook, by contrast, was puzzled as to why privileged partnership is not an option and why there is no alternative to full membership? If Turkish public support falls below 40%, he asked, why would a privileged partnership not then be an attractive alternative?
Audience members were given the opportunity to ask two final questions before the panel came to a close. One asked what the effects would be on Turkey’s Kurdish population with or without membership. A woman who identified herself as Turkish then remarked that joining the EU means surrendering sovereignty. Why, she asked, would we as Turks want to become part of something that does not want us for who we are? Why don’t we become a leader for those who look to us in the Middle East and Central Asia?
Tony Judt responded that the benefit to Turkey from its negotiations with the EU is that the accession process is an enormous effective external lever for political reform. The problem in Europe is the failure to recognize that in exchange for demanding these reforms of Turkey it has to look as though it actually wants Turkey as a member state. Bahadir Kaleagasi explained that the Turkish pre-accession process is based on 3 pillars: political-democratic transformation, legislative harmonization and communication. What is being asked of Turkey is not antithetical to Turkish interests. The Turkish people need more communication and better information to understand this. Steven Cook added that the EU has been the anchor of Turkish reform. Should the Turkish drive to accession falter, it is possible that reforms would slow down.
With regard to the Kurdish question, Baki Ilkin responded that Turkey is one nation and there should be no differentiation between ethnic groups. The benefits or costs of EU membership (or rejection) would apply to all. Steven Cook expressed a different opinion, suggesting that EU membership would help to resolve the problematic relationship between Kurds and Turks, both by providing a greater voice for Kurds and by closing off the possibility of Kurdish secession.
Mustapha Tlili then brought the discussion to a close, explaining that it is the mission of the university to have an open debate in which difficult questions are asked. He expressed his hope that all present enjoyed and benefited from the challenge.
Back to the top.
Recent Event ...
U.S.–Muslim Engagement Project Report Published: “Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World” September 24, 2008, at the National Press Club, Washington D.C.
Donate Now
How to make a tax-deductible donation to The Center for Dialogues
Donate
