|
|
|
December 17th 2004: the day the
European Council
lost the EU people’s confidence
?
|
by
Franck Biancheri
: President of TIESWeb
and Director for Studies and Strategy of
Europe 2020. |
|
| 01/12/2004 |
|
All
around the EU, and in particular
in countries where referenda on
the EU Constitution will take place,
the question of possible Turkey’s
accession to the EU has become,
by far, the prominent topic of people’s
discussions when it comes to EU’s
future. And, if one agrees to
ignore the surveys and polls paid
either directly by Turkish money,
or by pro-Turkish lobbyists, the
simple fact is that a very large
majority of European citizens (from
60% to 90% depending on the country)
are opposed to it. Leaders
could estimate that it does not
matter and that the fact of being
a leader requires sometimes to go
beyond, or against people’s
will. That is sometimes true but
always a tricky issue in democracy.
Good leaders rather tend to
be able to explain their decisions
and to convince in the end their
people that they made the right
choice. When we look at the Turkish
question, it essentially looks like
the contrary process: the more people
are aware of what our leaders want
to do (give a greenlight on December
17th to accession’s negotiations
with Turkey), the more they are
against. We can indeed draw
a direct connection between the
level of information on this question
and the level of worries or refusal
of Turkish membership in the future.
The
case of Turkey’s accession
seems to fasten the process of disconnection
between European citizens and their
leaders. Such a trend could be treated
as a not very threatening issue
if three big dangers were not directly
tied to it:
1.
Turkey is becoming the major factor
which will play against the ratification
of the EU constitution in all countries
(but UK) where referenda will be
hold. Emphasis has
been put a lot recently on the opposition
coming from people critical of a
lack of social content of the Constitution
project and has therefore put in
the shadow the truly growing threat
that the “Turkish case”
does represent. Indeed the question
of Turkey is affecting voters from
the entire political spectrum in
each country (and not only the “left”
as for social questions); and worst
than that it is directly echoing
the very growing political trend
of the past 2 decades, the increasing
scores of xenophobic, racist, rightist
extremist or populist movements.
The combination of these two factors
can be devastating. And it leads
me to the second danger.
2. By the end of this
decade, one of the biggest political
risks faced by the EU is not a “collapse”
or a “deconstruction”,
but a democratic risk : that being
increasingly dominated by political
forces sharing anti-democratic and
very little democratic agendas,
organized on a trans-European basis.
Europe 2020 developed this scenario,
known as “2009:
when the grand-sons of Hitler, Petain,
Mussolini and Franco will take over
the EU” in 1998; and the
past years have made nothing but
convince a growing number of analysts
that the possibility is definitely
there now of such an outcome. Opening
the door to an accession of Turkey
to the EU will speed up the process
leading to this very dangerous future
as it will strengthen the trends
which may define a ‘national-europeism’
that those forces will be using
to make electoral scores, an ideology
opposing the ‘Europeans’
to the others whether they have
other religions, colors of skin,
.. . ‘Hell is full of good
intentions’: surprisingly
enough to those who advocate the
fact that taking Turkey in will
demonstrate the ability of the EU
to be a ‘trans-civilization
bridge’, such a move will
indeed push the EU within the arms
of its most xenophobic political
forces, looking at the ‘outside’
as a place full of ‘enemies’
and ‘dangers’ (such
a trend is already affecting the
USA) which connects directly to
the third danger.
3. By generating ‘hopes’
that will not be fulfilled, the
European Council on December 17th
will create the basis for bitter
and long lasting tensions between
the people of EU and Turkey.
By not daring to act as leaders
whose role is to create the future
so that it is a sustainable way,
they will leave our people, on both
sides of the EU/Turkey border, in
charge of solving it and it will
be done brutally, with no diplomatic
skills, no attention paid for the
other side. Today, our leaders
have the possibility to clearly
send a double signal to Turkey "Yes
you are a great country" and
Yes we want to build a very special
partnership with you", but
"No your request of joining
the EU has not a single chance to
become real at least for the next
two decades. Therefore let’s
build something new together".
If the message is not this one,
then what will happen is very simple:
before the end of this decade, there
will not be one single ‘pro-Turkey
membership’ elected leader
left in the EU. Voters tend to be
smart. If they cannot act directly
(which is the case on EU affairs),
then they will do it indirectly.
Turkey will become (in fact has
already started to become) an internal
national electoral issue. Voters
will start integrating the fact
that a candidate is in favor or
against Turkey’s membership
to cast their national vote. And
in each national party, there will
be enough ‘anti-Turkey’s
accession’ leaders to provide
a sufficient choice.
Summarizing
bluntly the situation,
to give people of the European Union
and of Turkey a signal that Turkey
may be member of the EU in the coming
two decades would a dramatic political
mistake for the EU as well as for
Turkey. First because it will be
a lie (whatever political scenario
is adopted there is no way a majority
of EU citizens will accept such
a membership in the next 20 years;
all trends are going in the opposite
direction); second because it would
prevent the EU to push EU-Turkey
relations into the only available
constructive option for decades
to come: to integrate Turkey within
the new EU Neighbourhood policy.
So,
our leaders' main preoccupation
on December 17th should be to keep
open this option for the short term
future (in 4/5 years it will obviously
become THE only possible way to
move forward for EU/turkey relations)[1]
because they have to deal with a
huge backlog of lies from our side
(essentially the last 40 years of
EU leaders and institutions declarations);
and because at this
stage, Turkish leadership and elites
have still not yet understood what
the EU really is.
For
having done many conferences in
Turkey in the past twelve years,
I have noticed that essentially
the Turkish positions have not changed
a bit, while in the meantime the
EU has drastically changed.
For instance, they keep on believing
that there will be genuine ‘negotiations’
between them and the EU for the
accession; while everybody in the
EU knows that there will be nothing
close to that: Turkey will have
to adopt the ‘acquis communautaire’
and will be obliged to comply ‘in
practice’ (not just in theory)
with all EU legal, political, social
constraints. Full stop. So
rather than playing the negative
process[2] such as ‘let’s
the Turks discover the ‘hard
way’ that they do not want
to get in the EU because they are
not ready to change up to the extent
the EU will require’, our
leaders should really make clear
from the conditions before negotiations
even start that the path will be
extremely tough. For
instance, in no ways should it be
allowed for Turkey to even think
starting negotiations without having
beforehand recognized Cyprus (one
of the current 25 EU members); neither
without having ‘cleaned’
his own past and recognized the
Armenian genocide.
Beyond Turkey, our leaders must
also know that the lack of such
pre-conditions will just increase
EU voters' feeling that they should
oppose our leaders’ vision
of Europe’s future. Such
a feeling will drastically increase
the abstention and No votes in the
referenda on the EU constitution.
Speaking
of referenda, our leaders will also
be wise to acknowledge the fact
that most probably a large number
of EU Member states would in the
end generate referenda on any possible
Turkish membership[3]; most probably
under public opinion pressure, and
with support of the political forces
opposed to the accession of Turkey
(both will largely dominate the
EU political scene of the coming
years).
To
conclude, if the Council is not
able to decide in a way that answers
Turkish leaders' call for recognition
as being a full partner (and the
possibility to be a partner is part
of that request; much more than
the candid will to become a true
member of the EU) while clearly
indicating the minimum pre-negotiations
necessary steps (Cyprus, Armenian
genocide) and indicating the way
for the alternative of relation
anchored within EU neighbourhood
policy, then the Council will lose
its credibility as embodying the
EU’s general interest.
The
Commission already lost it on October
6th; the Parliament never had it.
For the sake of EU’s future
Constitution, let’s hope that
our national leaders will be aware
that their collective ability to
resist Ankara’s pressure will
definitely determine EU’s
political future.
Not
because Turkey will join or not.
It will not. But because the xenophobic,
populist and extremist political
forces will find new strengths if
our leaders are not up to the challenge;
and in the process will help defeat
the Constitution project.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]
The fact that the European Parliament’s
Commission on Foreign affairs just
recommended the contrary is another
proof that this is the only correct
choice. The Parliament is run by
a coalition of parties (PSE and
EPP) which together did not even
represent 30% of European voters
(as from EU elections of June 2004)
and where decisions are not made
following voters expectations but
through lobbying and internal compromises.
At least it cannot loose public
credibility, because it never got
it.
[2]
I suspect that a large number of
our current political leaders and
Eurocrats are betting that Turkey
will be obliged to stop on its way
to accession because of the impossible
challenge it will represent to its
structure and culture.
[3]
France is far from being the only
country which will go this way.
As soon as France will officially
go for it, it is certain that many
other countries will find entitled
to do so.
Paris
Franck Biancheri
|
|
|
|
|
Subscription
|
|
|
Special
Files |
|
|
Interviews
|
|
|
News
Headlines |
|
|
Quiz
|
| |
|
| |
|