We have read the article titled “La Turquie dans l'UE? C'est toujours non!” in your newspaper dated as of 29.01.08, not without a certain amount of resignation. Our surprise and indignation at similar comments has indeed been steadily decreasing since French politics entered its era of Sarkozian domination.

The authors of the passionate letter begin by stating the need for clear geographical borders for the EU to exist as a political entity. They then go on to claim that Turkey is not geographically European because some of her territory is located in Asia Minor. This is a much utilised argument by those against Turkish membership to the EU. However, a certain EU Member State is currently situated much more to the East than most of Turkey’s territory. This detail seems to be always deliberately left out. Furthermore, some Member States regard this phenomenon simply as a geographical aberration and try to correct the matter. For example, recent Euro coins will not feature Turkey on the map. Southern Cyprus, which should also disappear from the map in all logic, has been literally fictionally moved westwards and squeezed into the map . These Orwellian efforts would have been extremely entertaining if they were restricted to the realm of comedy. Since they are not, these are sobering indicators of the level of xenophobia and political manipulation in the EU. Fortunately, it is currently impossible to make Turkey disappear. That being said, Turkey’s sense of identity is distinctly European. With all due respect, it is not up to any politician or the authors of the aforementioned comment to define Turkey’s identity.

The geographical “question” aside, the authors go on to base their objections to Turkey’s membership on seemingly more tangible subjects. To put it simply, it is all about money. The authors claim that Turkey’s membership to the EU would cost too much and disqualify some current EU regions from structural funds. These assertions would be true if Turkey’s accession happened today. However Turkey is not expected to become a member before the next financial perspective of the EU is prepared. Therefore, the earliest date for accession is projected as 2014. This target was also confirmed by the Turkish government in its harmonisation program published in April 2007. In the meantime, Turkey continues to record very high growth rates year after year. Consequently, by the time of accession these numbers will no longer hold any significant meaning. The time for those considerations is still a long way away. Furthermore, one of the foundations of the EU is solidarity. Those considerations were never voiced this loud with previous enlargements and the fact that they are done so now raises suspicions of some pathological enmity.

This brings us to other assertions in the unfortunate letter. The authors claim that it is impossible to integrate a state which does not recognize the “Armenian genocide”. There is no legal basis to that claim in terms of EU treaties and agreements, so we perceive this assertion as a moral issue. That period of history was extremely painful for everybody involved regardless of ethnicity. Recent years brought a resurgence of interest about the subject in the Turkish society. However, the insistence of some EU member states on the recognition of the events as “genocide” is seriously detrimental to the reconciliation of the societies. Moreover such seemingly moral claims look especially groundless when contrasted against the historical conduct of some member states. Mr. Sarkozy himself said that “leaders should focus on the future and not beat their breasts” on a recent visit to Algeria . According to Mr. Sarkozy, “the sons should not be hold accountable for the mistakes of their fathers” . Comments like these makes one wonder about the source of Sarkozian moral authority. “The Kurdish question”, as the authors put it, is intimately tied to the larger democratization process ongoing in Turkey. More representative politics and respect for minorities is the main issue here. To that effect, there have been many reforms since the recognition of Turkey as a candidate in 1999 and new reform packages are on the way.

The authors also make a point of the Cyprus question. What they omit is that the current situation is the result of EU’s faulty strategy. This much was admitted by EU leaders and bureaucrats of the time. It was the Turkish Cypriots who voted for the reunification of the island and the Greek Cypriots who refused in the referenda for the Annan Plan in 2004. The EU however, went on to accept Southern Cyprus as a member representing the whole of the island. One of the fundamental tenets of EU enlargement policy concerns relations with neighbours. Yet S. Cyprus was made a member regardless of its problems with its neighbours. Besides creating double standards, today the EU is isolating some of its own citizens! Turkey is still supportive of a UN sponsored solution to the problem.

The 301st article of the penal code is a disgrace. The government is working on a reformulation which will prevent abuses of the article. Moreover, a new constitution is currently being prepared which will bring new freedoms. That being said, the existence of restrictions on freedom of expression is not particular to Turkey. While this does not diminish the disgraceful nature inherent to articles limiting freedom of expression, many EU member states have similar articles in their penal codes .
Turkey cannot become an EU member state without completing the necessary democratic reforms anyway, so the anxiety of the authors about integrating an undemocratic Turkey is simply unfounded. What is more, the democratization process coincides with the accession process and sometimes the promise of membership acts as a catalyst. But it is never intended solely as a compromise in return for membership. It is realized for Turkish citizens, first and foremost. Prime Minister Erdoğan said it best when asked what would happen to Turkey’s reform process if accession negotiations were halted: “We will transform the Copenhagen criteria into Ankara criteria and continue on our way”.

The signatories to the letter go on to state that “negotiations with Turkey should end up in a privileged partnership because it is necessary to have commercial relations with your immediate neighbours”. The tone of this sentence permeates the whole letter. What the signatories fail to mention is that this “necessity” has already been taken care of by the Customs Union which went into force in 1996. Turkey has been a “privileged partner” of the EU for 12 years now. In fact without accession, the rules governing the Customs Union offer no net “privileges” to Turkey in the long run. The accession negotiations between Turkey and the EU are part and parcel of the acquis communautaire. Going back on that 45 year old promise now would be the real death of the European idea, as it has been conceived by Robert Schumann and Jean Monnet.

Turkey is European. It is becoming even more European with every new reform it adopts. But there is a part of Europe which is short-sighted, intolerant and xenophobic. Turkey wants nothing to do with that part.


Economic Development Foundation
İstanbul, TURKEY