26 November 2004
In three weeks' time, European Union leaders must make up their minds whether Turkey can be admitted to accession negotiations that in 10 to 15 years should make it a member of their club. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the former French president who headed the recent convention to devise a new constitution for the EU, explained in these pages yesterday why they should say No. We beg to differ.
| // |
There is a perfectly legitimate argument to be had here - and Turkey had better get used to it because this is going to be a long and rough ride. The debate should be out in the open, and it is pointless to pretend - as Mr Giscard tries to do - that the religion question is not part of it. It plainly is.
The nub of his argument, however, is that Europe has been "drawn into a simplistic choice between agreeing to negotiations on Turkey's accession to the EU and closing the door in its face". A third option of "privileged partnership" would meet Turkey's expectations without jeopardising Europe's future, he maintains. Well, not really. The time for that sort of argument was many years ago. To deploy it now would be to slam the gates of Brussels in Turkey's face - after first having invited it in.
The pro-European national project shared by Turkey's people and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's army, to modernise the country while remaining faithful to its rich history, would be shattered. Turkey would be cast out into the geopolitical twilight, pushed towards regions such as the Middle East and the Caucaus that are sinking in despotism and failure. Turkey's ties with the present EU stretch back four decades to the time of De Gaulle, and decisions on its future need to be realistic.
Mr Giscard's fear that countries such as Morocco would follow Turkey's example is misleading. The EU already has a separate architecture to cement in the countries of the south and east shores of the Mediterranean. His argument that the new EU constitution cannot accommodate Turkey is disingenuous. We will know whether that constitution flies - not least in France - long before there is any question of Turkey taking its seat at the table.
It may well be that the EU and Turkey will in the end require a fall-back position. No one can predict the political climate a dozen years hence. But stating this now, near the end of a decisive chapter in a 41-year process, is not policy even if it might be prophecy.
Mr Giscard's concerns about European identity are not easily dismissed, but nor is it clear that enlargement, the EU's most successful policy, is the problem. What would be a big problem is if Europe tried to build what he calls "patriotism" in opposition to Turkey and Islam. His assertion, moreover, that Turkey shares none of Europe's heritage is strange. Unless there was no Byzantium, no eastern Roman empire. And no classics of Greek philosophy and science that, transmitted through the world of Islam, dragged Europe out of the dark ages.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/18903d7c-3f51-11d9-8198-00000e2511c8.html
