What if the Turkish loses patience… Is Recep Tayyip Erdogan giving up on his country's membership of the EU? What a relief! Not for the EU (which hasn't believed in this membership for a long time now) - but for the end to the hypocrisy, for clarity and common sense. It will finally be possible for the two parties to negotiate viable solutions to the difficulties in their relationship - difficulties which are manifold (on trade, the economy and politics). Mr Erdogan (see EUROPE 10774) has stated his preference for joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) which unites the better and more powerful countries - China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. In Erdogan's opinion, Turkey shares common values with them. And he has accused the EU of not wanting to accept a Muslim country into its fold (which in reality Turkey is not, according to its constitution).
The EU will doubtless take note of Ankara's choice and put an end to the comedy of artificial membership negotiations, replacing them with the serious search for trade, economic and - if possible - political cooperation. The historical and cultural links between Europe and Turkey (which is not part of Europe) are such that a real cooperation would be logical and timely - and the benefits would be reciprocal.
Common defence policy is a distant objective. The majority of the European Parliament is calling for the EU member states to participate more coherently in the French military effort in Mali. The security and defence sub-committee (SEDE - chaired by French MEP Arnaud Danjean) has criticised the other member states' lack of solidarity with the French action, judging that they should support the Serval operation on the ground, rather than making transport planes or medical equipment available (see EUROPE 10763). NATO's silence has also been criticised. As we well know, several member states have acted by participating in the French action - but it would be an exaggeration to speak of spontaneous momentum. Some of the timid interventions could lead one to believe that there was a question implied - did France inform its partners of its intention to act?
Once again, the origin of the problems and misunderstandings lies in the absence of a Europe of Defence, which at the end of this year could just partly be achieved in terms of the industrial aspect - in other words, the manufacture of weapons, which represents a crucial prerequisite but involves a new balance between national sovereignty and common investment (see EUROPE 10759). The current reality is absurd - several member states have functional instruments which each individually constitute an aspect of common defence, without a central command to coordinate their use.
Of course, to this are added the political complications. Germany is reluctant, for obvious reasons, about any intervention outside its national borders. In Italy, a few weeks before the elections, the government can only manage current affairs and the consignment of material to Mali has been suspended. All the member states have expressed their support for the French action, which is legitimate as regards the UN and which has the support of the African world.
That is the main thing. But the time when a decision for military action will be taken by the member states all together, and when the instruments for action will be common, is still a long way off. The birth of political Europe is more and more necessary.
Fanaticism. “Religious fanaticism often leads to great cruelty”. How often have recent events affirmed this phrase from history! The destruction of works of art in Timbuktu that are the fruit of centuries of Muslim culture has merely confirmed the extent to which the so-called strict Islamists are actually bandits and are hated by the local people (who have welcomed the French forces as liberators). So much so that the Arabs living in the same area or in the surrounding area, who have nothing to do with the runaway bandits, have become victims of attacks and are asking for protection.
(FR/transl.fl)