The forgotten sentence of the Copenhagen Criteria. With the European Commission having made its fundamental contribution, the real debate within the Community institutions on Turkey's accession to the EU can begin in earnest (see this column yesterday). The stances taken by historians, writers, strategists, politicians and journalists abound, and rarely have we seen such diametrically opposed positions in European affairs. No attempts at compromise, no shades of belief; it's black and white; and the newspapers don't balk at publishing radically opposing views, often on the same page. But the time for monologues is over. Both institutions which have the power of decision (the European Council for the opening of negotiations, the European Parliament for the final approval of the potential accession treaty) will take position. Several MEPs have already voiced their opinions individually; and now, to borrow a phrase from their president, Josep Borrell, they will have to "discuss their ideas with each other and with the European Commission". They will take position at the plenary session of 1 and 2 December. The Heads of State and Government will do so at the Summit of 17 December, and they will doubtless hold a preliminary exchange of views at the European Council of 5 November.
The fundamental questions will finally be debated: the European character of Turkey, the impact of its possible accession on the future of the Union and its institutional, political and financial workings. The "Copenhagen Criteria", which are usually referred to, do not raise any of these fundamental questions. These criteria are obviously essential for an application to be retained; there is no room in the Union for any country which does not guarantee democracy, human rights, minority rights and their protection. But in reality, the Copenhagen Criteria also contain something else. Sylvie Goulard, a member of President Prodi's team of advisers up to last month, reminds us of this in her book, "Le Grand Turc et la République de Venise". The text of the "criteria", so often reproduced, is just the "abridged version" of the actual criteria. The integral text also contains the following passage: "The Union's capacity to assimilate new members whilst maintaining the pace of integration is also an important element". Concerns about safeguarding "the pace" of European construction was clearly in the minds of the Heads of Government in 1993. Our weekly "European Library" will come back to Ms Goulard's energetic and insightful book, the title of which refers to a passage from Molière's "The Miser": "I have, especially for matchmaking, the most wonderful talent. There are no two persons in the world I could not couple together; and I believe that, if I took it into my head, I could make the Grand Turk marry the Republic of Venice". Delightful, isn't it?
Autonomous role. I feel that the criteria which relate to democracy, human rights and respect for minorities are not sufficient in the case of Turkey, quite simply because I have every faith in Turkey, and I know that sooner or later they will observe them; but even when that day comes, the fundamental questions may not have had reassuring answers. My reservations may give the impression of a negative attitude towards Turkey; but nothing could be further from the truth. Past wars don't bother me (which I will explain in due course). I believe that Turkish Islamism is overall very moderate (it is no coincidence that Turkey finds itself in the terrorists' firing line). I also believe in Turkey's prospects for economic development. I believe that it is in Turkey's nature to stand by commitments made. But I wonder whether accession is the right thing, for the EU as well as for Turkey. The latter, I feel, is not yet aware of just how much sovereignty it would have to lose to its status as a Member State, and it has an autonomous and strategic role to play in the region, just as Russia has in its region. The EU cannot play this role.
A reason to take pause. From his work on the Turkish dossier, there can be no doubt that Günter Verheugen's knowledge is considerably greater than mine. But in amongst many pertinent and enlightening comments at Wednesday's debate in the European Parliament, he made one statement which left me incredulous. He said that if the Commission had recommended a delay of one or two years before opening negotiations (not a "no", just a postponement), "the consequence of this in Turkey would be an immediate end to reforms underway". We must deduce from this that Turkey wouldn't go out of its way to establish gender equality because it believes it to be right and indispensable, but just to get the green light for accession negotiations. That it would make no effort to respect the rights of minorities because fairness dictates it, merely in order to sweep aside the reluctance of Brussels. The same for decriminalising adultery, banning torture and all the rest. If Mr Verheugen's statement was correct, this would be a powerful reason indeed to hang back. (F.R.)