|
„The European Union will succeed
when it crosses cultural contrasts,
not when it excludes them“
European Union leaders will take, in
December, the decision on whether to open membership negotiations with Turkey.
Turkey was accepted as a member candidate at the 1999 Helsinki European
Council.
With Turkey, Europe has finally opened a
debate on issues that should already have been discussed before the most
recent enlargement of the Union: Europe’s Identity: what is it? Europe’s
Values: what values do we share? Europe’s Borders: where are they?
„Turkey is a part of Europe. One day Turkey
will join the Union as a full member.„ This was expressed in 1964 by Walter
Hallstein, President of the European Commission when the Association Agreement
was signed between Turkey and the European Economic Community, the predecessor
of the European Union.
Article 28 of the Association Agreement
provides for „examination“ of the possibility of Turkey’s accession to
the Community as soon as Turkey would have proved that she has fullfilled all
the membership obligations.
This meant the recognition, on a theoretical
level, of a possible membership.
The Association Agreement constitutes a part
of the European Union’s codes binding upon all future member states as well.
The perspective of a membership provided for by the Association Agreement is
relatively huge when estimated afterwards.
There were only six member states in the
Community at the time of Turkey’s entry into the Association Agreement. Nor
did a Europe divided into two sides in the 1960’s know whether the European
Communities and Turkey would ever have a joint border.
However, in accordance with the logic of the
Cold War, Turkey had to be annexed to the West, and to Europe.
Turkey had joined the Council of Europe in
1950, the NATO in 1952, and signed the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference
for Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1975. In spite of these bonds, an EU
membership means a much deeper integration.
The audacious promise of a membership
perspective was facilitated in the 1960’s by the fact that an eventual
implementation of the promise still seemed to be only possible in a distant
future.
As the European Union’s borders draw nearer
to Turkey, the European conservatives have started to emphasize the cultural
and religious differences.
As if the conservative leaders had not
realised, when signing the Association Agreement, that Turkey has a
predominantly Muslim population. Walter Hallstein, the
President of the Commission when Turkey
signed the Association Agreement, had earlier been West Germany’s foreign
minister in a conservative government.
„Countries such as Turkey have nothing to
do with the European Union“, Alain Juppé, the then chairman of the French
conservative UMP Party (Union pour la Majorité Présidentielle) said a few
weeks ago although France’s President Chirac, of the same UMP Party, was of
an opposite opinion.
According to the chairman of the centrist UDF
Party (Union pour la Démocratie Fran?aise), Mr. Fran?ois Bayroun, „Turkey
is not a European society“.
The right wing forces of the other European
Union member states had tried to include into the EU Constitution a paragraph
that would have defined the Union as a purely Christian club - in spite of the
about 15 million Muslims already living within the European Union’s borders.
The European Union’s membership criteria
do, however, not eliminate anybody on the basis of culture or religion. The
valid criteria concern democracy, rule of law, and human rights, as well as
respect for minorities, a functioning market economy, implementation of the EU
codes, and support!of the Union’s goals.
We can naturally be of different opinions of
whether Turkey meets the criteria at the moment. But if the criteria are met
we should not debate the insurmountable cultural contrasts, should we?
Is the religious tolerance, the freedom of
religion, not Europe’s most noble tradition? What sense does the freedom of
religion make if all the people are of the same religion anyway?
Turkey is undeniably a different society when
compared e.g. with Finland. But so is Greece too.
The European Union will succeed when it
crosses cultural contrasts, not if it excludes them.
Hardly did France share with Germany a
feeling of cultural affinity after the Second World War.
The Third Reich had considered herself as the
counter draft for the Western model society. Only after a bridge was built
across the archenemies was a, so far, sustainable peace possible.
A second bridge building project recently
concluded by the European Union was the bridge crossing the former iron
curtain. The unification of Europe brought to an end a confrontation that
almost risked the existence of a whole continent.
The clash between the West and Islam is the
focus of today’s debate. The confrontation has an unfortunately long history
reminding us of the Siege of Vienna, and the Migration of Peoples.
A third bridge to be built by the European
Union should connect the Orient and the Occident. A secular Turkey would be an
outstanding trans-Bosphorous bridgehead for the Union.
Remarkable reforms have been carried out by
Turkey on its road to an EU membership. The European Commission will assess
the reforms in the coming autumn.
The social democrats in Europe object to the
discrimination of Turkey on the grounds of cultural or religious critria, and
emphasize the criteria of democracy, human rights, and rule of law. If these
criteria are not met a membership is not possible.
It cannot be accepted that reactionary forces
hide their culturally arrogant ideology behind human rights requirements.
The capturing of human rights in order to
stir up cultural contrasts would only destroy the credibility of our human
rights policy.
What our planet needs at the moment is
anything else but an ideological demarcation line. The European Union builds
bridges, not walls.
|
