TURKEY AND ITS ACCESSION TO THE EU
I would like to tell you something about Turkey. Obviously, for the purpose of this class, I will not go into detail regarding its history, culture or religion, even though all these, and much more, play an important role in what is of particular interest to us – that is, the potential accession of Turkey to the European Union. You surely know that Turkey’s accession has recently been one of the most contentious issues in the EU, a fertile ground for European politicians to gain (or loose) political points and for some even the touchstone defining the historical fate of the EU. I would like to explain why Turkey arouses so much interest and suspicion.
Turkey’s formal application to join the European Community—the organisation that has since developed into the European Union—was made in 1987. Turkey has been a European Union, the then EEC, Associate Member since 1964. It was officially recognised as a candidate for membership on December 10th 1999 at the Helsinki summit of the European Council. Turkey started negotiations on October 3rd 2005. This is a process that is likely to take at least a decade to complete, even if the negotiations go well. As you know, the EU has now frozen negotiations with Turkey, mainly due to the Cyprus issue. Well, some argue that Cyprus serves as a mere pretext for the part of the European Union that does not want to have Turkey as a member anyhow. Turks are especially disgruntled because they feel that Turkey and Turkish Cypriots were prepared to make concessions to larger extent than the other side. For instance, as part of the drive to enter a reunified Cyprus into the EU, the Turkish government supported the UN-backed Annan plan in 2004. The plan was endorsed by Turkish Cypriots, but rejected by the Greek Cypriots. As a result, Turks feel they have been punished for something they are not to blame. We will come back to Cyprus a bit later. Let me now present you some pros and cons about Turkey’s possible future membership.
Firstly, an important argument in favor is that Turkey has a very dynamic, rapidly modernizing economy. In the last couple of years, growth was above 7%, being far above average growth in the EU. Turkey could give a fillip to the EU economy, thus boosting the economic power of the EU globally. In addition, Turkey is a NATO member and has strong ties with the US. Many European ‘’Atlanticist ‘’ countries, such as the UK, hope that Turkey’s accession would cement its alignment with the West. Moreover, Turkey would serve as some kind of a buffer zone between the EU and the Middle East, giving the EU more political clout in countries such as Iran, which has, for instance, the second largest proven reserves of gas in the world. Upon accession, Turkey could also be a model of democracy to the broader Middle East. Also, Turkey's overwhelmingly Muslim population would lend considerable weight to EU multi-culturalism efforts and might help prevent potential scenarios involving a ‘’clash of civilizations’’, the prospect suggested by Samuel Huntington. At the same time, Turkey's young and well-educated population might act as a balance for the increasingly ageing populations of the current EU.
Well, virtually all of the arguments enumerated can be used in the opposite direction. This is particularly true if one takes into account an element of fear, which is omnipresent in today’s Europe – fear of losing a job, of foreigners or of religious fundamentalism, to name but a few. Whereas some like diversity, others are much more sceptical about the differences in fundamental values and culture between a predominantly Muslim country – 99.8% of the Turkish population is Muslim – and current dominantly Christian or non-religious EU members, all of which are historically Christian. Furthermore, geographically speaking, only 3% of Turkey's territory lies in Europe. The Turkish capital is not in Europe, but in Asia. Turkey's membership would mean that the EU’s external borders would reach Middle Eastern nations such as Syria, Iraq and Iran, which are a totally different world for most Europeans. Another obstacle is Turkey's large size and poverty. Turkey would represent an expansion almost equal in population to that of the 2004 big-bang while the Turkish economy has been known for very unstable growth and sharp recessions despite some recent improvement. Many question whether the EU can support and absorb such a large Muslim state, and many member states are wary of a probable huge wave of poor Turkish immigration. Its almost 70 million inhabitants will bestow it the second largest number of representatives in the European Parliament, perhaps even the largest since its population is growing very rapidly.
Observers have continuing doubts on the commitment of the Turkish state to democracy and human rights, and its ability to reach European standards in the issues such as gender equality, political freedom and minority rights (especially with regard to the Kurdish population, non-Muslims, journalists, gays and lesbians). Freedom of political speech is another area in which some concerns have arisen. Some intellectuals, such as Orhan Pamuk or Hrant Dink, were imprisoned or killed, respectively, due to advocating the need for Turkey to admit the Armenian genocide during World War I.
However, as already mentioned, the biggest problem is the Turkish government's refusal to officially recognize the state of Cyprus. This issue is of great diplomatic concern because it paradoxically implies that Turkey does not fully recognize the side it is negotiating with. Turkey's non-recognition of Cyprus has also led to complications with its custom union. Under the customs agreements Turkey already signed as a precondition to start negotiations in 2005, it is obliged to open its ports to Cypriot planes and vessels, but Turkey refuses this and insists it will only do so as part of a settlement to the Cyprus problem. This was the primary reason for the EU to freeze the negotiations with Turkey in December 2006.
EU member states must unanimously agree to Turkish membership for Turkish accession to be successful. A number of nations could oppose it, notably Austria, which has repeatedly said it would hold a referendum on Turkish accession. Leading European politicians have various opinions about Turkey. For instance, Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac support it, while others, such as Angela Merkel or Valery Giscard d’Estaing strongly oppose it. Public opinion in the EU generally opposes Turkish membership, though with varying degrees of intensity. The 2006 Eurobarometer survey shows that 48% of then EU-25 citizens are against Turkey joining the EU, while about 39% are in favor.
Personally, I am still undecided, but I think we should be open to all options. In any case, Turkey’s accession is bound to be one of the most interesting and controversial challenges that the EU is facing in the future.