Tweet
Philip Terzian: Knock on the door
Providence Journal 10-10-04
01:00 AM EDT on Sunday, October 10, 2004
WASHINGTON
TUCKED AWAY on the back pages of most newspapers was last week's most
important story.
The executive branch of the European Union has proposed opening formal
negotiations over membership for Turkey.
It's a big story, all right, but it's just beginning. The European
Commission's proposal needs to be endorsed by leaders of the E.U.'s
25 members, who meet in December. They are not likely to veto the
proposal. But the green light only signals forward motion. Many
obstacles remain for Turkish membership, and the process could well
take a decade or longer.
What are the obstacles? Let me count the ways. Everyone agrees that
Turkey has some distance to go before its penal code and human-rights
practices are in accordance with European standards. Turkey is much
poorer than most E.U. member nations, and its economy is straitjacketed
by government controls. Everybody admires the "secular" character
of this overwhelmingly Muslim republic -- decreed by its founding
dictator, Kemal Ataturk -- but it is not quite accurate to call Turkey
a democracy. There is self-rule, and the Turkish parliament enjoys a
certain independence, but real power resides in the councils of the
Turkish army. Nothing happens without the approval of the generals.
To its credit, Turkey has sought to reform itself by stages. It no
longer actively persecutes its Kurdish minority, it has instituted
judicial reform, and it has made significant changes in its notorious
prison system. The economy is being liberalized, and there have even
been legislative motions designed to limit the power of the army. A
recent measure to outlaw adultery was scuttled when the E.U. raised
objections.
But these are, so to speak, technical matters. The big question
is fundamental -- Is Turkey part of Europe? -- and the answer is
unsettled. Moreover, it is difficult to discuss the subject with
candor, since European identity has much to do with culture, ethnicity
and religion. The Turks have capitalized on this sensitive issue
by asserting that Europeans hostile to Turkish membership regard
Europe as a "Christian club," and only a bigot would block their
entry. Our own State Department, which has lobbied vigorously for
Turkish accession, regards concerns about culture and religion as
"racism": end of argument.
Yet the question cannot be ignored. A look at the map reveals that
Turkey is, by any definition, a crossroads nation, straddling Asia
and Europe. As a member of NATO since 1949, and an ally of the United
States and Israel, it has looked westward in the great game of power
politics.
There is a division, however, between the Turkey that the State
Department knows and the country that borders Iran. Not is it only
predominantly Muslim, but Islam is also far more actively enshrined
in national life than Turkey's official "secular" posture would
suggest. Orthodox Christians, concentrated mostly in Istanbul,
are under siege and dwindling in numbers. Less than a century ago
the Turks were liquidating Christian Armenians by the hundreds of
thousands and ethnically cleansing Greeks who had inhabited the
eastern Mediterranean for millennia.
The challenge for the Europeans is not an easy one. Do three or four
years of legislative reforms constitute fundamental change, and is
Europe prepared to absorb a society of 70 million Muslims circulating
freely around the continent? The present Turkish government is headed
by an Islamist -- albeit a "moderate" Islamist -- party, and while
Turkish public opinion supports admission to the E.U., it is not
clear whether this reflects a desire to be European or aspirations
to join a lucrative job market.
In that sense, Turkish membership seems a genuine gamble for the
E.U., and it is obvious why some critics believe the United States
supports Turkey as a means of weakening European unity. Moreover, if
Turkey is admitted, how would that define, or redefine, the outlines
of Europe? On Turkey's eastern border lies Armenia, a democratic
Christian nation where a European language is spoken and the economy
is considerably freer than Turkey's. If Turkey is admitted to the E.U.,
it is difficult to see why Armenia should be excluded.
Which, in a sense, may argue for Turkey's eventual accession. One E.U.
member, Cyprus, currently suffers the illegal occupation of a third of
its land by Turkey. Ankara can hardly join the European Union when
its army squats on the sovereign territory of an E.U. member. And
the landlocked Armenians suffer from a petulant Turkish blockade of
its border -- not to mention refusal to acknowledge the genocide of
Armenians by the Ottoman Turks.
Turkey's weaker neighbors, Armenia and Cyprus, might well regard E.U.
membership as a civilizing influence, and hope for the best. But power
resides elsewhere -- in Berlin and Paris -- where the sound of Turkey
ringing the doorbell must set off a long and contentious debate.
Philip Terzian, The Journal's associate editor, writes a column
from Washington.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Providence Journal 10-10-04
01:00 AM EDT on Sunday, October 10, 2004
WASHINGTON
TUCKED AWAY on the back pages of most newspapers was last week's most
important story.
The executive branch of the European Union has proposed opening formal
negotiations over membership for Turkey.
It's a big story, all right, but it's just beginning. The European
Commission's proposal needs to be endorsed by leaders of the E.U.'s
25 members, who meet in December. They are not likely to veto the
proposal. But the green light only signals forward motion. Many
obstacles remain for Turkish membership, and the process could well
take a decade or longer.
What are the obstacles? Let me count the ways. Everyone agrees that
Turkey has some distance to go before its penal code and human-rights
practices are in accordance with European standards. Turkey is much
poorer than most E.U. member nations, and its economy is straitjacketed
by government controls. Everybody admires the "secular" character
of this overwhelmingly Muslim republic -- decreed by its founding
dictator, Kemal Ataturk -- but it is not quite accurate to call Turkey
a democracy. There is self-rule, and the Turkish parliament enjoys a
certain independence, but real power resides in the councils of the
Turkish army. Nothing happens without the approval of the generals.
To its credit, Turkey has sought to reform itself by stages. It no
longer actively persecutes its Kurdish minority, it has instituted
judicial reform, and it has made significant changes in its notorious
prison system. The economy is being liberalized, and there have even
been legislative motions designed to limit the power of the army. A
recent measure to outlaw adultery was scuttled when the E.U. raised
objections.
But these are, so to speak, technical matters. The big question
is fundamental -- Is Turkey part of Europe? -- and the answer is
unsettled. Moreover, it is difficult to discuss the subject with
candor, since European identity has much to do with culture, ethnicity
and religion. The Turks have capitalized on this sensitive issue
by asserting that Europeans hostile to Turkish membership regard
Europe as a "Christian club," and only a bigot would block their
entry. Our own State Department, which has lobbied vigorously for
Turkish accession, regards concerns about culture and religion as
"racism": end of argument.
Yet the question cannot be ignored. A look at the map reveals that
Turkey is, by any definition, a crossroads nation, straddling Asia
and Europe. As a member of NATO since 1949, and an ally of the United
States and Israel, it has looked westward in the great game of power
politics.
There is a division, however, between the Turkey that the State
Department knows and the country that borders Iran. Not is it only
predominantly Muslim, but Islam is also far more actively enshrined
in national life than Turkey's official "secular" posture would
suggest. Orthodox Christians, concentrated mostly in Istanbul,
are under siege and dwindling in numbers. Less than a century ago
the Turks were liquidating Christian Armenians by the hundreds of
thousands and ethnically cleansing Greeks who had inhabited the
eastern Mediterranean for millennia.
The challenge for the Europeans is not an easy one. Do three or four
years of legislative reforms constitute fundamental change, and is
Europe prepared to absorb a society of 70 million Muslims circulating
freely around the continent? The present Turkish government is headed
by an Islamist -- albeit a "moderate" Islamist -- party, and while
Turkish public opinion supports admission to the E.U., it is not
clear whether this reflects a desire to be European or aspirations
to join a lucrative job market.
In that sense, Turkish membership seems a genuine gamble for the
E.U., and it is obvious why some critics believe the United States
supports Turkey as a means of weakening European unity. Moreover, if
Turkey is admitted, how would that define, or redefine, the outlines
of Europe? On Turkey's eastern border lies Armenia, a democratic
Christian nation where a European language is spoken and the economy
is considerably freer than Turkey's. If Turkey is admitted to the E.U.,
it is difficult to see why Armenia should be excluded.
Which, in a sense, may argue for Turkey's eventual accession. One E.U.
member, Cyprus, currently suffers the illegal occupation of a third of
its land by Turkey. Ankara can hardly join the European Union when
its army squats on the sovereign territory of an E.U. member. And
the landlocked Armenians suffer from a petulant Turkish blockade of
its border -- not to mention refusal to acknowledge the genocide of
Armenians by the Ottoman Turks.
Turkey's weaker neighbors, Armenia and Cyprus, might well regard E.U.
membership as a civilizing influence, and hope for the best. But power
resides elsewhere -- in Berlin and Paris -- where the sound of Turkey
ringing the doorbell must set off a long and contentious debate.
Philip Terzian, The Journal's associate editor, writes a column
from Washington.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress