Tweet
Family Security Matters
July 30 2010
Has Turkey Been Poorly Treated?
Daniel Hannan
David Cameron was too polite to say it in so many words, but his
audience of Turkish MPs got the point: the EU [European Union] is
treating them shabbily.
Singly, Europe's governments have perfectly consistent policies. Some
countries want, in Gladstone's unhappy phrase, "to bundle the Turk,
bag and baggage, out of Europe". France, Austria and (less vocally)
Germany are in this camp. Others, led by Britain, see Turkish
membership as strategically valuable: a way to bolster the world's
chief Muslim democracy and perhaps, in the process, to dilute
Euro-federalism.
A case can be made either way: Turcophiles argue that strengthening
Ankara's Western orientation will encourage democrats and reformers
throughout the Islamic world; it is hard to see, for example, how to
pacify Iran without benign Turkish intercession.
Turcosceptics retort that admitting such a large Muslim country would
fundamentally alter the character of the EU ` a problem which, in
their eyes, can only get worse as Turkey's population grows while that
of Old Europe shrivels.
Separately, both cases can be argued. Blended, they make for a policy
based on deceit. The EU holds out the promise of accession without
intending to honour it. In consequence, it risks creating the very
thing it purports to fear: an alienated, snarling Islamic power on its
borders.
Of all the criticisms levelled at David Cameron, the strangest is that
he is "not a proper Tory". In his undoctrinaire way, he is as
traditional a leader as any of his predecessors. His attitude to
Turkey is a case in point. My party has been Turcophile since Derby's
leadership (as has The Daily Telegraph, which broke with Gladstone
over his anti-Ottoman policy in 1877, and has been Tory ever since.)
Cameron's reasons for backing Ankara's bid for EU membership are
solidly Tory: Turkey guarded Europe's flank against the Bolshevists
for three generations, and may one day be called on to do the same
against the jihadis. In the circumstances, he believes, the Turks are
being treated ungratefully by their allies.
He's right. The EU's treatment of Turkey will one day be seen as an
epochal error. Had the Eurocrats made clear at the beginning that
there was no prospect of full membership, and instead sat down to
negotiate an alternative form of partnership, Ankara would have
swallowed its disappointment.
Instead, Brussels has dangled a false promise before Turks. It has
made them accept humiliating reforms, ranging from the status of
minorities to the history of the 1915 Armenian massacres. It chides
them as authoritarian when they restrict the symbols of Islamic
devotion, and chides them as fundamentalist when they don't.
It has treated them especially unfairly over Cyprus: Greek Cypriots
were rewarded when they rejected the EU's reunification plans, Turkish
Cypriots punished when they accepted them. Meanwhile, the Commission
is imposing thousands of pages of the acquis communautaire on Turkey.
Yet it has no intention of admitting a patriotic and populous Muslim
nation to full membership ` especially now that the Lisbon treaty has
introduced a population-based voting system.
It's not that all the criticisms made by opponents of membership are
invalid. But Turks feel they are being held to a different standard.
What has the unhappy history of the Armenians in Turkey got to do with
the EU? Was Belgium required by the other states to apologise for its
role in the Congo, or France to grovel about Algeria?
Not long ago, I spoke in a debate in the European Parliament on a
motion condemning Turkey for failing to promote women in politics.
When I pointed out that Turkey had elected a female prime minister 17
years ago, and that two thirds of existing member states had yet to
reach this milestone, a kindly Christian Democrat took me aside
afterwards and explained that I was missing the point. The decision
not to admit Turkey had already been made in principle: everyone
understood that, with a one-blackball system, there was no chance of
the application going through. The objective now, he said, was to find
a reason that wouldn't upset our resident Muslim populations too much.
For what it's worth, if I were Turkish, I would be against EU
membership. Turkey is a dynamic country with ` in marked contrast to
the EU ` a young population. The last thing it needs is the 48-hour
week, the Common Agricultural Policy, the euro and the rest of the
apparatus of Brussels corporatism. Why tie yourself to a shrinking
part of the world economy when you have teeming new markets to your
east? Why submit to rule by people who barely trouble to hide their
contempt for you? (Similar arguments apply, mutatis mutandis, to
Britain; but that's another story.)
There is a difference, though, between choosing not to join and being
told that you're not good enough to join. Turks are as entitled to
their pride as any other people. The way they have been messed around
can hardly fail to make them despise the EU. Which, in the broader
sweep of history, is likely to hurt the EU more than it does Turkey.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor Daniel Hannan is a British
writer and journalist, and has been Conservative MEP for South East
England since 1999. He speaks French and Spanish and loves Europe, but
believes that the EU is making its constituent nations poorer, less
democratic and less free. He is the winner of the Bastiat Award for
online journalism.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.6901/pub_detail.asp
From: A. Papazian
July 30 2010
Has Turkey Been Poorly Treated?
Daniel Hannan
David Cameron was too polite to say it in so many words, but his
audience of Turkish MPs got the point: the EU [European Union] is
treating them shabbily.
Singly, Europe's governments have perfectly consistent policies. Some
countries want, in Gladstone's unhappy phrase, "to bundle the Turk,
bag and baggage, out of Europe". France, Austria and (less vocally)
Germany are in this camp. Others, led by Britain, see Turkish
membership as strategically valuable: a way to bolster the world's
chief Muslim democracy and perhaps, in the process, to dilute
Euro-federalism.
A case can be made either way: Turcophiles argue that strengthening
Ankara's Western orientation will encourage democrats and reformers
throughout the Islamic world; it is hard to see, for example, how to
pacify Iran without benign Turkish intercession.
Turcosceptics retort that admitting such a large Muslim country would
fundamentally alter the character of the EU ` a problem which, in
their eyes, can only get worse as Turkey's population grows while that
of Old Europe shrivels.
Separately, both cases can be argued. Blended, they make for a policy
based on deceit. The EU holds out the promise of accession without
intending to honour it. In consequence, it risks creating the very
thing it purports to fear: an alienated, snarling Islamic power on its
borders.
Of all the criticisms levelled at David Cameron, the strangest is that
he is "not a proper Tory". In his undoctrinaire way, he is as
traditional a leader as any of his predecessors. His attitude to
Turkey is a case in point. My party has been Turcophile since Derby's
leadership (as has The Daily Telegraph, which broke with Gladstone
over his anti-Ottoman policy in 1877, and has been Tory ever since.)
Cameron's reasons for backing Ankara's bid for EU membership are
solidly Tory: Turkey guarded Europe's flank against the Bolshevists
for three generations, and may one day be called on to do the same
against the jihadis. In the circumstances, he believes, the Turks are
being treated ungratefully by their allies.
He's right. The EU's treatment of Turkey will one day be seen as an
epochal error. Had the Eurocrats made clear at the beginning that
there was no prospect of full membership, and instead sat down to
negotiate an alternative form of partnership, Ankara would have
swallowed its disappointment.
Instead, Brussels has dangled a false promise before Turks. It has
made them accept humiliating reforms, ranging from the status of
minorities to the history of the 1915 Armenian massacres. It chides
them as authoritarian when they restrict the symbols of Islamic
devotion, and chides them as fundamentalist when they don't.
It has treated them especially unfairly over Cyprus: Greek Cypriots
were rewarded when they rejected the EU's reunification plans, Turkish
Cypriots punished when they accepted them. Meanwhile, the Commission
is imposing thousands of pages of the acquis communautaire on Turkey.
Yet it has no intention of admitting a patriotic and populous Muslim
nation to full membership ` especially now that the Lisbon treaty has
introduced a population-based voting system.
It's not that all the criticisms made by opponents of membership are
invalid. But Turks feel they are being held to a different standard.
What has the unhappy history of the Armenians in Turkey got to do with
the EU? Was Belgium required by the other states to apologise for its
role in the Congo, or France to grovel about Algeria?
Not long ago, I spoke in a debate in the European Parliament on a
motion condemning Turkey for failing to promote women in politics.
When I pointed out that Turkey had elected a female prime minister 17
years ago, and that two thirds of existing member states had yet to
reach this milestone, a kindly Christian Democrat took me aside
afterwards and explained that I was missing the point. The decision
not to admit Turkey had already been made in principle: everyone
understood that, with a one-blackball system, there was no chance of
the application going through. The objective now, he said, was to find
a reason that wouldn't upset our resident Muslim populations too much.
For what it's worth, if I were Turkish, I would be against EU
membership. Turkey is a dynamic country with ` in marked contrast to
the EU ` a young population. The last thing it needs is the 48-hour
week, the Common Agricultural Policy, the euro and the rest of the
apparatus of Brussels corporatism. Why tie yourself to a shrinking
part of the world economy when you have teeming new markets to your
east? Why submit to rule by people who barely trouble to hide their
contempt for you? (Similar arguments apply, mutatis mutandis, to
Britain; but that's another story.)
There is a difference, though, between choosing not to join and being
told that you're not good enough to join. Turks are as entitled to
their pride as any other people. The way they have been messed around
can hardly fail to make them despise the EU. Which, in the broader
sweep of history, is likely to hurt the EU more than it does Turkey.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor Daniel Hannan is a British
writer and journalist, and has been Conservative MEP for South East
England since 1999. He speaks French and Spanish and loves Europe, but
believes that the EU is making its constituent nations poorer, less
democratic and less free. He is the winner of the Bastiat Award for
online journalism.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.6901/pub_detail.asp
From: A. Papazian