Quote:

Turkey and the EU, Part I: Truth and Consequences

Written by Melita Teale
Published November 09, 2006


I love the Economist for how clear its biases are. They’re not always in the words. Sometimes it’s in the arrangement. Turkish affairs, no matter what side of the Bosporus they take place on, are covered in the “Europe” section of the magazine – never “Asia” or “Middle East”.

Turkey, we are given to understand, is a European country. And though the Economist very conscientiously reports problems with Turkish democracy, freedom of speech, and minority rights, it also very clearly and credibly reports it’s in Europe’s interest to eventually include Turkey in the European Union (EU).

This week the Economist published a mournful article about the difficulties in getting Turkey into the EU, besides those the European Commission (EC) brought up in its November 8 report on the country.

Apparently the idea of joining the EU seems to be less popular in Turkey than it once was. It seems Turkish perceptions of the West in general are suffering from the situation in Iraq, as well as from the political demands made by the EU (which isn’t offering solid rewards for compliance). But I doubt the Turkish street is the problem with accession talks.

I lived in the Schengen area for years. I can promise that most people there weren’t anxious to have Turkey in the EU. In the course of my French international affairs degree, I met very few Christian Europeans who would agree Turkey was a part of Europe.

The many reasons it wasn’t a part of Europe were on the lips of everyone from my professors to my postmen. The multi-generational Turkish ghettos in the cities where I stayed were shocking evidence that what was Turkish was not considered European.

Too bad. Call me an Economista, but it seems to me that the EU stands to gain by Turkish admission if it’s done right, that Turkey is indeed physically and historically European, and that efforts to deny this are bogus.

From here I also see clear benefits to Turkey joining the EU, aside from all the subsidies and rights of circulation that might kickstart an economy that could become a powerhouse. I don't doubt Turkish people see them too.

A great benefit I see is political. Right now, the country has a parallel system of government wherein the military slaps down the elected government any time it veers too far away from Kemalism. That’s better than it sounds from a European point of view, since Kemalism is a deeply secular and Europhile way of thinking.

According to Stephen Kinzer's Crescent and Star: Turkey Between Two Worlds, non-religious Turkish citizens are sick of notoriously corrupt mainstream political parties. Therefore, they vote for famously incorruptible Islamist parties like the ruling AKP in the understanding that if the party becomes too socially radical the Kemalist military won’t allow it to stay in power. Indeed, this was the case regarding the Islamist Virtue party, which was removed from power in 1997.

So apparently it’s not so bad – but it’s still military rule.

Far better would be an overarching structure like the EU, which can use a system of economic or diplomatic sticks and carrots to keep national governments in social and financial check. What better replacement for military rule than a representative body that speaks directly for the interest of the European population as a whole?

There, however, is the rub. Right now, direct representation and democracy are just not what the EU is about. This is why a rejection of Turkey by the EU as it exists now is both almost certain and profoundly unfair.

The Economist can put Turkey in whichever section it sees fit and Turkey can put every EC recommendation made this week into vigorous action. They would both be right to do so. But it won’t change the fact that until the EU corrects its shocking democratic deficit, Turkey’s accession is very unlikely and rather less attractive than it could be.

Later: Turkey and the EU, Part II: A European Voice