What the public retains of the matter. Media reaction to the vote in the European Parliament on Turkey (see yesterday's bulletin, p.3 and on) confirmed that public opinion cannot be bothered with an excessive number of considerations, conditions, recommendations, delays and cautionary clauses. What the public does retain is the no-vote or the yes-vote to opening membership talks. Part of the Parliament was in favour of the first option, and part was for negotiation aimed at privileged partnership excluding membership. The former won - hands down. This, as far as the public sees it, is quite simply a go-ahead for Turkey's membership. The same will be true of the decision by the European Council. It is therefore an undeniable political success for the Turkish government first of all, then for the Member States and the political forces in favour of Turkey's membership to the EU.
Strict but hardly perceptible conditions. The reality is of course more mitigated. The Parliament included in its resolution a number of conditions that the Turkish authorities rejected the day before, and above all: recognition of the genocide against the Armenians, recognition of the Republic of Cyprus, explicit recognition of the rights of the "Kurdish people", more requirements of a general nature such as freedom of action for the religious communities and minorities, women's rights, and trade union rights. These are normal requirements on the part of a Parliament, and they have and will have their importance in the future, but for now they are not very noticeable.
Dual purpose arguments. What I consider to be striking is that not only parliamentary debates but also the avalanche of positions taken, the round tables, colloquia, conferences, televised debates, etc. that have succeeded each other at an impressive rate since November have not managed to bring these positions any closer to each other. One's own, well-rooted convictions have been confirmed - a curious but significant phenomenon as the same arguments are being used sometimes for and sometimes against Turkey's membership. For example, displacement of the Union's external borders as far as Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc. is, for some, madness that will drag Europe into conflicts that it ought to steer well clear of, while, for others, this same displacement will provide a unique opportunity to directly participate in stabilising the troubled zones in conflict. At a more general level, some believe only Turkey's accession can give the EU the dimension that it essentially needs to acquire real weight in world affairs, whereas others believe it would remove from the Union all possibility of becoming a political player on the international scene as it would be transformed into no more than a free trade and cooperation area. Some say that, by taking Turkey in as a member, the EU would prove it is possible to have Christians and Muslims living together within a unique entity and that the "shock of civilisations" can be avoided. For others to imagine that inclusion of Turkey, Israel's almost exclusive ally in the Middle East, may give rise to sympathy toward Europe from Arabs or other Muslims, is to show proof that they totally lack any political culture.
Opposite votes for a shared objective. The parliamentary vote was largely (but not only) determined by the position of left-wing forces, from the Socialist Party to the Greens. Their choice rests on the conviction that, if the conditions set by the EP are respected, Turkey's accession will be positive not only for Turkey but also for the EU. The final declaration by Harlem Désir, Vice-President of the Socialist Group, is that which, I believe, best summarises this optimistic position: "It shows respect of the word given to the Turkish people, at the same time as the victory of democratic reason over fear and prejudice. It is a sign of confidence in the strength of European values". Other political forces voting "yes" did so for opposite reasons, that is, the certainty that the EU including Turkey will not be able to develop political integration and its supranational character, but will evolve in an intergovernmental way more in accordance with their guidelines. And it is precisely the fear that things will evolve like this that explains the negative vote from centre-right political forces that want the EU to be consolidated in the sense of integration.
Such ambiguities make me feel that, at the end of the day, the Parliament's vote and the decision taken by the Summit to follow will partly be based on equivocation. Political forces that pursue the same goal (strengthening of European unity and the weight of Europe in the world) voted against. I believe that nothing has yet been settled, either for Turkey's accession or for the evolution of Europe in general. If public opinion does not take the opening of accession talks in a negative way when it comes to consolidating European unity, then anything is possible. For better or for worse. (F.R.)