Consequences. At the very time future developments in the Community budget are at the centre of attention (see this column yesterday and the day before yesterday), are the supporters of Turkish accession really aware of the ramifications that this accession would have on cohesion policy and the common agricultural policy? According to the provisions governing these two policies, Turkey would largely become the biggest beneficiary (at an institutional level, it would also have the most votes at the Council and the largest number of MEPs). The convergence objective in cohesion policy (80% of the funding of this policy) finances regions whose per capita GDP is less than 75% of the Community average. Vast Asiatic swathes of Turkey would become the biggest beneficiary and many regions of the current EU, from Belgian Wallonia to several zones in eastern European member states, would be excluded from this policy, despite the possibility of there being temporary arrangements made. One might ask whether the main beneficiaries of cohesion policy have thought about this. The evolution would be largely the same for the common agricultural policy. Member states that advocate Turkish accession whilst calling for common EU policies to be strengthened (as well as increased funding) are both illogical and incoherent. Community solidarity and support? They will soon find out what remains of this, if the “British” orientation in European construction prevails.
Autonomous foreign policy. Let's be quite clear: it is not accounting considerations that have prompted this column's long-held belief that Turkish accession cannot be achieved. The main reason is that this accession would mean the end of the project for genuine European integration. Certain countries, like the United Kingdom, would be delighted about this but what about the others? And the European Parliament? In external relations, the different directions in which Brussels and Ankara are going is becoming increasingly apparent. Obviously, the EU is still a long way off from what could be called a common foreign policy but it is striving to develop common positions in this area. The European diplomatic service, for example, is gradually being set up and Community strategies are being developed with regard to the US, China and Russia. Turkey is asserting its foreign policy in directions that are often increasingly incompatible with European positions, whether this is with regard to Iran, relations with Israel, or in a more general way in NATO-related issues. Ankara is robustly and quite legitimately pursuing a policy that aims to enhance its international position and play a role that is more or less the same as that played by Brazil or India. It has total freedom of action with regard to the Kurds and countries of the former USSR. Turkey will not renounce its autonomous foreign policy; on the contrary, it's intensifying it. At the same time, official EU-Turkey negotiations have been practically deadlocked for several years: out of the 35 chapters that need negotiating, 13 of them have barely been opened (none in 2010) and only one has provisionally been closed.
Evolution. Public opinion in Turkey is also evolving. According to the latest Eurobarometer survey, only 38% of Turkish citizens are in favour of accession and President Abdullah Gül has not ruled out that at some stage, his citizens “will not feel a need to become a member of the EU”.
According to the Turkish Nobel prize-winner, Orhan Pamuk, “our dream of Turkey in Europe has vanished”. He regrets this and points out that Istanbul is becoming “increasingly complex and cosmopolitan, and a centre of attraction for immigration from Africa and Asia”. In his opinion, Europe must not oppose this migratory movement: “it cannot close itself to the poor and defenceless jobless, fleeing their home countries in search of a place to live and work”. One thing is not clear - why does this Nobel prize-winner believe that this influx of Asian and African immigrants should be welcomed by Greece, a country that is in the full throes of economic and financial crisis and has appealed for EU instruments to protect itself against a burden it is unable to bear, rather than Turkey itself, which is in full economic boom, with an annual growth rate of 10%? Almost all EU countries are currently subjecting their respective populations to often painful restrictions and austerity in an effort to safeguard social benefits that have been achieved after so much effort and sacrifice. Finance is today available elsewhere, particularly amongst those who are currently buying up football teams, luxury hotels and historical buildings in “old” Europe or taking control of European companies. Europe must respect its commitments to non-EU countries but must also safeguard the progress that it has made.
(F.R./transl.fl)