The arguments of those in favour of Turkish accession are, objectivity, impressive: a reinforcement of the power and economic weight of the EU; definitive proof that the EU is no " Christian club"; an end to the theory of the "clash of civilisations"; fidelity to commitments taken long ago, and so on. Just as impressive is the brochure of the Rotary club of Istanbul ("did you know that..."), which contains a fascinating photographic documentation to illustrate the historical, religious, cultural, artistic and other links between Turkey and Europe: it is the birthplace of Abraham and of Homer, it shares history with Greece, Rome, and then with Christianity, it took in Jews when they were forced to flee from European countries and Russia, it is a permanent bridge between different cultures, a member of the Council of Europe since 1949... the very name of Europe, and the legend behind it, come to us from Turkey.
The wisdom of Javier Solana. Given the above and the splendour of the monuments bequeathed to us by almost all past civilisations on this territory since Troy, the weakness in this argument is that none of this proves that Turkey is predestined to become a member of the EU. There are indisputable signs, some of which are deeply moving, of a long shared history (the Austrians will understand better than any that although this history has also seen its conflicts, that is true even between the European countries), but these alone cannot determine the nature of tomorrow's relationship. The following comes from recent declarations by Javier Solana before the negotiations began: [ Declarations by Javier Solana that the "Bel-RTL-Le Soir Grand Jury" of 29 September, quoted by Jurek Kuczkiewicz and Philippe Regnier and translated by us.]: There is a “huge risk of leaving Turkey without an anchor in the world. Consider the situation in the Middle East, Iraq, Iran and the whole wider region, which is of great strategic importance to us: it would not be a positive idea to leave Turkey alone. One way or another, it is in our own interests to have Turkey is close to us as possible. Security, which also means peace, is invaluable and Turkey is, without a doubt, an instrument of stability. For the citizen of the Union, it is better to have Turkey on our side than... I don't know where". This perfectly proves the need for a close and trusting relationship, but the word "accession" was not used. When asked about the possibility of a close partnership instead of accession, Mr Solana answered: "but this is not the time to be saying that! Our offer was for Turkey to be a candidate. We are starting that process to move towards that goal. If, between now and then, it becomes clear (...) that it will be impossible to absorb the country of that size, for economic reasons, for example, that will be the time to take the appropriate decision". He went on to say: "Bear in mind that at least one country of the Union is planning a referendum. Respecting our commitments, thinking about strategies and respecting the state of mind of our citizens: all of this is important. Finding a balance between the three factors is the hard part".
Javier Solana is thus calling upon us to ask all the questions, not just those which relate to these vital close links between EU and Turkey, but also those which should be of concern to any European who wants a European Union which is capable of becoming politically autonomous and developing genuine common policies. These questions are: is it possible to bring thousands and thousands of kilometres of Asian territory into the Union, without watering it down? Would the solidarity policies (CAP, structural policies, cohesion) be financially and administratively viable? Would it not push those institutions which are already fragile over the edge for good? We may also think about the validity of the argument that in the absence of accession, the Turkish policy of reforms would be abandoned overnight. This is a doubly cynical argument, because it would mean that Turkey's desire for democratisation, the respect for human rights, minorities, etc, would not be something the country felt it wanted, but merely a negotiation strategy.
The path is traced. So, what happens now? It seems to me that the path of wisdom has been clearly traced out: a) negotiate in good faith, in line with the commitments taken; b) not just hide behind the "Copenhagen criteria” if we have any fundamental misgivings to raise (see this column yesterday); c) not hesitate to stress the possibilities and advantages (particularly for Turkey itself) of an alternative solution. A split between the EU and Turkey would be disastrous, for the historical and cultural reasons indicated above, and those referred to by Javier Solana. But an alternative solution is only a possibility if it is attractive and convincing. Ideas are beginning to circulate, I will take stock of them tomorrow.
(F.R.)