I have certainly not cluttered the columns of this section with considerations and commentaries on the issue of Turkey; in fact I haven't written anything about it for a long time. The different positions were so numerous, sometimes coming from well-known personalities, that to add another would have not been very interesting. The controversy was so sharp and the opinions so different that some newspapers presented the two opposing positions on the same page - one in favour of Turkey's accession and the other against. I'll do my best to take into account the greatest possible number of arguments for and against. My conclusion, however, is simple: none of the arguments have convinced me. I get the impression that most of those intervening have not been really looking for the truth in the different elements of the case but had decided beforehand and thus essentially attempt to justify their arguments.
The adjective is as important as the noun. There are many weak points to each of the two theses. One of the arguments that in my point of view is unacceptable is that of geography, which has no importance. Some commentators, in an effort to sweep away with slight of hand, the well-known statement of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's that "Turkey is not European", claim that the EU is not a construction linking European countries together that wish to take part within in the EU and which meet the necessary requirements to do so, but that the conditions are rather political and ethnic. The consequences of such a scenario are clear for all to see: one seeks Israel's accession and the other (in an attempt at fair play) that of Palestine; a third that the next stage will be of taking in Russia (and this is not because the third affirmation is reasonable just because it comes from a Head of government); another once again supports the long-called for accession of Morocco. The most serious problem for the EU now at last enlarged with the accession of the East and central European countries is to safeguard or rather consolidate and strengthen its cohesion and capability to act as an entity that is not only economic but also political. To envisage the borders stretching out to China, Japan and even Alaska in the USA (because they are also the borders of the Russian Federation) would be to renounce the concept of the EU as a political entity by programming its watering-down into a trade zone that lacks both cohesion and coherency. I believe that in the European Union, the adjective is as important as the noun.
From this perspective, the correct question to pose in the case of Turkey is therefore to decide whether it is "European", a question that has a priori not yet been dealt with. Turkey is a country that sits astride two continents and there are valuable arguments (partially geographical but mainly historical) in favour of a positive response. More generally, Romano Prodi was right to declare on 18 December to the European Parliament, "the debate on the borders of Europe is in reality a debate about our identity. It should begin in this Parliament and the national Parliaments and has to involve European citizens at a high level". Thanks to the debate on Turkey, the debate is now open, and so much the better.
Michel Rocard is right…I will draw on one of the arguments in favour of Turkey joining by referring to a paper by Michel Rocard (the original version was published in "Le Monde") because to a certain extent it summarises them by drawing on all the historic, political, intelligent and incisive strategic reasons. The former French Prime Minister strives to demolish point by point all the contrary theses. First, the economic justification: income per inhabitant is close to that of Poland, Slovakia and the Baltic countries and is clearly higher than that of Bulgaria and Romania whose candidacies have been accepted. Next, the geographical reason: "Byzantium-Constantinople-Istanbul played such a role for two thousand years in our history so much so that the European character of the largest city in Turkey is conjured up as soon as its name is uttered. The rest ought to follow, given that it is the economic and intellectual capital". Turkish territory stretches across two continents, "its belonging to one or the other is in doubt and cannot be decided other than by a deliberate choice based upon other factors". The religious argument is a non-starter, except if they are to be used to block the future accession of Bosnia and Albania. Thus having swept away the opposing arguments, Michel Rocard exposes the strategic reasons, which in his opinion are very strong. Five out of the six former Soviet republics of western and central Asia are Turkish-speaking. "Turkey being snubbed would aggravate latent anti-western feeling…rejecting Turkey into the external twilight would not only be felt as offensive and distrustful by Turkey but by all of this huge area". Mr Rocard also points out that this zone contains the second largest oil reserves in the world after the Middle East. He also indicates that Siberia is the largest and practically unexplored reserve of natural resources in the world. This involves "Supporting it in this adventure and safeguarding the security of its supplies, which go through Russia and the Turkish-speaking republics of Central Asia". The response to Turkey's request therefore has to be positive, on the condition that Turkey continues to develop (by abolishing the death penalty and authorising the teaching of minority languages. But the EU should not exaggerate, "the EU should not allow any bureaucratic or sectarian application of its criteria and rules and establish policy for creating its future. Turkey's accession to the EU will be a confirmation of its secular nature, an act of peace in a region that is very unstable, as well as a future life assurance".
…but he's forgotten the essential. The interesting nature and wisdom of Mr Rocard's perspectives are obvious but they do not convince me of the objective for which they were formulated. They prove that the EU must do all that is needed to have good relations with Turkey but they do not prove at all that Turkey's accession is the only answer. If they did, we would have to conclude that the Union should also take in Russia and the five Turkish-speaking republics in order to not "display animosity" to them. Why would Turkey not joining mean that, "Turkey is rejected into the twilight"? Are Norway and Switzerland less European because they have preferred to remain outside the EU? Have they been relegated to the twilight zone?
I am not asserting that Turkey should not join but it is not true to say that non-accession equals rejection. It would not mean this for Turkey just as it wouldn't for Russia or the other non-European Mediterranean countries. The EU has to develop with all countries that are near, relations that are closer and trusting, which in certain cases might mean accession but that other formulas are possible which would not in any sense of the word mean "rejection into the twilight". In the case of Turkey the jury is still out. My conclusion is straight forward:
1. Opening negotiations was obligatory for the EU. It even waited too long. After so many promises and commitments that have not been kept, the EU ought to respond positively, whilst pointing out the conditions that apply to all the candidates.
2. Opening negotiations does not determine the result. It is possible that the two sides conclude that accession is not the best solution. Turkey should attentively assess what losses of sovereignty could result from joining. The "four freedoms" do not only include the right of Turks to work in Europe but also the right of Greeks to buy land on the Turkish side of the Mediterranean from where they were deported. Obligations in the area of religious tolerance and non-interference in the lives of citizens appears to be a far cry from a Muslim party albeit a "moderate" one. The former French Minister of European Affairs, Pierre Moscovici wrote in his book, "Europe, a power in globalisation", "it is quite possible, even a real prognosis, that Ankara will finish by choosing in its own interest, a status of favourable partnership on the margins of the Union, a status that would preserve its political autonomy and its vocation as a regional power". The position of Turkish industrial and business leaders are quite clearly in favour of joining, their association (Tüsiad) has painted a picture that is largely positive for Turkish companies. But there are of course other factors to consider.
From the European side there are many factors that will determine the response and for the most part, they are still unknown. Specifically:
a) European borders. If (national and European) Parliaments and peoples are asked for their opinions about European borders in general, the institutions and governments will beholden to respect the result. Everything that we hear and read today are only personal opinions that arise from a cacophony that sometimes makes us smile, as all the positions taken are both contradictory and peremptory. If we assert "Turkey is in Europe" (Bernard Kouchner) the vis-à-vis response would be to permanently renounce the Political nature of Europe" (Max Gallo).
b) the result of the Convention. The type of Europe that will come out of the Convention could be a deciding factor and the Convention will be concluded well before the opening of negotiations with Turkey.
c) the development of terrorism and relations between European and Islam. This evolution will have a decisive influence on European public opinion and therefore on the ratification of the possible Turkish accession treaty.
d) Progress on the Kurdish question. If in the future the Kurds do not feel "at home" in their traditional territories, their desire to leave en masse to current EU countries, will have become an established right that is without limitation and is unconditional. This could pose a problem even though we still prefer not to talk about it. We only need to think about what would the situation would be like today if this right already existed.
"I am not going to refer, however, to the "American problem" as it is obvious that the USA have the right to demonstrate their reasons (justified) for maintaining close relations between the EU and Turkey but they certainly do not have the right to determine the nature and content of these relations. (F.R.)