Cyprus-Forum.com

[brother]

Prof. Torfs vs. Prof. De Vos on Turkey's Possible Membership

Interview with Prof. Rik Torfs, Prof. Marc De Vos

Published: Friday 17, 2004
zaman.com

Prof. Rik Torfs from Leuven University and Prof. Marc De Vos from Gent University, discussed possible Turkish membership for ZAMAN daily at the end of October at Leuven University, with students actively engaged in the debate. While Prof. Torfs argued that Turkey's membership posed a certain risk to EU institutions, but nonetheless it was worth taking the risk, Prof. De Vos said Turkey was a huge challenge that the EU could not handle. The debate was moderated by ZAMAN's Brussels representative, Selcuk Gültasli. The following are excerpts from this debate:

Gültasli: I want to start with a very basic question. Is Turkey a part of Europe?

De Vos: That of course depends on how you define Europe. For me, the issue of Turkey is not whether it has fulfilled the Copenhagen Criteria or whether it is admissible or not. I think the Copenhagen Criteria is irrelevant in this argument. The fundamental issue is the kind of Europe we want. Turkey has come a long way starting in 1959 and has now reached a point of no return. Turkey received a conditional "yes" from the Commission on October 6. When you look at the yardstick for EU membership, it is the Copenhagen Criteria, i.e. democracy, supremacy of the law, respect for minorities and free market economy. These are the only criteria we will be deciding upon whether Turkey should be admitted or not. My point is that these criteria cannot suffice as the yardstick to determine the future of the EU. If you use human rights, democracy and free market economy as the only yardstick, we will sooner or later become a second United Nations mixed with some sort of World Trade Organization at the European level. That is not the kind of institution the founding fathers of Europe foresaw. Their vision was more of a federalist one which is still under debate. So the question is not about Turkey but about us. Where do we want the EU borders to stop? I argue that current criteria are not sufficient to determine our borders. And it should not be the only yardstick when we are discussing Turkey's candidacy.

Torfs: I can say "yes" or "no," but it will be too short. I agree the question is, of course, more complicated than the Copenhagen Criteria can measure. It is obvious that if Europe is not more than that, then it is a building without a soul. With regard to Turkey, one can ask, first of all, geographically is it part of Europe? A question that we very oftenly confront these days. So, then the question is what is geography? On the one hand you can say most of Turkey is in Asia Minor but on the other hand you can say Istanbul, one of the most important cities in European history is in Europe, and is Turkish. Besides there are so many historical ties between Europe and Turkey. Why Turkey and Greece are so against each other is because they know each other very well. You cannot be enemies if you do not know each other. I also like the argument that Alaska was part of Russia but then it was sold to the United .States. I can imagine some will say that Alaska is even disconnected with the rest of U. S. and even much more connected to Siberia. Rightly so, because Alaska is much closer to Siberia, but I think few people will challenge the fact that Alaska is part of United States today.

I fully agree that democracy, human rights and free market are not enough to become European, then we have to find more common basics. The fact that Turkey could be introduced as a part of the EU can be a good opportunity to reflect on what Europe really is. In the past it was very easy, the common values between six countries, the founders of the EU, were obvious, differences between France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands are very small. But it is now more important what Europe is, when others which are obviously less similar, join. It is even becoming more difficult especially when the construction of Europe is at stake. Some argue that we could have problems with Turkey because it is an Islamic country, but we had more serious problems with Orthodox countries in the past than with the others. It is not a mere coincidence that we have only Greece and Cyprus (a part of Cyprus), two more or less Orthodox countries in the Club, but not Romania and Bulgaria, the true Orthodox countries, which are still waiting. Apparently, we had an implicit Catholic-Protestant point view of Europe and now maybe it is time to think that European values also exist out of that circle. To put it short, Turkey's membership will help us go beyond the Copenhagen Criteria when we define what Europe is.


Gültasli - But I could not quite understand what you said on Turkey? Is it part of Europe or should it be?

Torfs- Firstly, if all the criteria, particularly those on human rights and democracy are met, I should say "yes." But I would 'yes' to Ukraine as well. I would even go a bit too far, as one of our former prime ministers Leo Tindemans said, why not Canada?

Gültasli - Prof. De Vos, you said the Copenhagen Criteria is not sufficient but then Turks could well argue that these criteria that have been on the table since 1993, applied to Eastern Europeans. Why would it be less sufficient for Turkey now? Isn't this a different treatment? Isn't there pacta sunt servanda??? (every treaty in force is binding upon the parties concerned and must be performed by them in good faith) in international relations?

De Vos- I think you are right. If we could take a look from the very beginning we could be much freer about our decision. I can read you the Association Agreement, you can see the mention of membership.now here. I can read it to you, it is about strenghtening trade and the final stage is the customs union which we already reached.

Gültas¸l?: There is the 28th article of that Association Agreement which is about membership. Can we have a look at that?

De Vos-Yes, sure. But that is conditional. There is no commitment. Also in 1963, we did not have a European Union. It was an economic community then. We did also have association agreements with Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Israel etc. Coming to your question why Turkey is being treated differently. First of all, honestly speaking, we put ourselves in an impossible situation. It was a Cold War strategy, that was the background, so now we are in a situation where the risk of saying "no" is higher than saying "yes." That is not the situation I have chosen. So I dare go for honesty once. So why should we adopt a different criteria for Turkey? I think the bottomline is that the historical reintegration of Eastern Europeans, the victims who fell on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain, was seen as an opportunity. After 50 years, we had the opportunity to right the wrongs. It was the sense of a historic opportunity and duty that these countries should be part of Europe. In that sense, I think Turkey is different. You can claim that we have common history, we have historical ties. But we have historical ties with most parts of the globe. But it does not mean that the Ottoman Empire was European because it occupied a certain part of Europe. It occupied even a larger part of Arab countries in Asia and Africa. So shouldn't Turkey be in the Arab League rather than in the European Union? Let's be honest for once, let's admit that it is a different case so it is not entirely astonishing that we are looking much closer to the issue of Turkey than we looked at Eastern Europe. But if I were Turkish, I would have exactly the same attitude, why I am gonna be excluded after 40 years. After all, much too late and why agree to change directions. Yes, you are not fairly treated. We should have been honest from the very start and we were not. But we could not be honest at that time because of the geopolitical context of the time. I think it will be in the interest of both parties if we can take a fresh look at things. We should find a middle road.

Gültasli -What are your concerns about a possible membership of Turkey? What harm can Turkey do to the European project?

De Vos- A number of things: History has been mentioned. Political culture, a general culture excluding religion, as if we are not a Christian club. We already have a sizable percentage of Muslims in our countries. Because of demography, Muslims will constitute 27 percent in the next few decades, in a Europe that excludes Turkey. We already have some problems integrating Muslims into our societies. Of course, I know that Turkey is a special Muslim state. Since the Kemalist revolution, you have tried to create a secular system. Wonderful, a great achievement. But when you look at your history, that secularization has always been under pressure. Under the pressure of Kemal Atatürk, under the pressure of the army and now under the pressure of the EU. What happens if that pressure goes away? You often see in the Islamic countries that when the pressure goes away, political Islam comes to the fore. In my opinion, that is a question mark, I respect the secular nature of the country but what will happen if the pressure fades away. If you look at the studies of Turkish universities, I found it troublesome in case the pressure goes away. For me, secularism is still a problem. Let's not forget that the Commission report still asks for improvements in human rights, women's rights etc. Demography is also an issue when we still have problems integrating our small Muslim population, and because of demographic trends, Turkey could be 85 million by the time it joins. I don't know yet and I am not a scared, Islamphobic person but I think we have to consider it.

Then I have geography. Geography matters. Cyprus, Alaska, Malta, you can always have oddities. In case of Turkey, you will be bordering Syria, Iraq and Iran and these are not the most stable countries in the world. It is likely that they are not gonna become so overnight. Who will be our neighbors and where will our borders pass through when Turkey joins?


Finally, economy. I think Turkey could be an asset as it is today. However, we just admitted 10 new countries and will do a lot to digest them, we not only have to make them develop but also should be careful not to squander too much wealth there. Finally, we are already in a vulnerable situation where we have to integrate the newcomers and face a population decrease. We are not ready institutionally and politically. The EU cannot function as it did when it had 15.members. It now has 25 and could be 27 soon.

Torfs - Well I would not immediately say a different treatment, but in any case Turkey brings a different reflection process. Turkey's case is an issue that takes us deeper into what Europe is than Hungary or the Czech Republic. So it forces us to think about the European identity, which is good. We did not do it quite often. Europe has always been defined for its pragmatic and defense purposes, world wars, Cold War or economic depression. There I agree with De Vos that several elements are not good for Turkey. Pacta sunct servanda is not very appealing to Turkey. If we tell people that we have to admit Turkey because we committed ourselves, people won't be convinced. I also agree that the agreement of 1963 could be interpreted in different ways. Pacta sunt servanda is a nice principle, however, it was in the Cold War years and the EU was then an economic community with six members. We also have the principle of rebus sic stantibus (extraordinary circumstances can lead to the termination of a treaty). So what I am saying is that this is a defensive argument, it is not appealing and not helping Turkey's cause. I think the same is true for the geostrategic argument. The worst advocate for Turkey's entrance is very often George W. Bush. When he says Turkey should be a part of the EU, this is counter-productive, for most Europeans are simply saying that an EU that admits Turkey would rather be serving U. S. interests. It is not a solid base to create an EU which has a content and a soul. Both legal and strategic approaches are not good enough to convince people that Turkey's entrance is something valuable and that is what we have to show. We have to demonstrate that EU membership is not only good for Turkey but also a form of enrichment for EU countries. Not just a stragetic move or a contract but a move that will enrich us. For me, the big question is, can we really in Europe cope with a democracy that accepts the supremacy of the law and at the same time is an open society that can integrate diversity? Can we have a Europe which is advanced, democratic and at the same time diverse? It is, of course, more difficult to be democratic and diverse. It is not difficult to be a democrat when you live in a small town in Switzerland and when you go to the market place and vote by raising your hand. That is an easy way of democracy. The more diversity comes in, the more challenging the functioning of democracy.becomes.

Culturally, I really wonder whether Turkey is that tremendously different from Europe, of course, it is different. Of course people can spot differences between Turkey and Denmark. But we also have our differences. Spain and Lithuania are not that similar and yet they are in the EU. It is a very diverse situation.

We already have had many relations with Turkey, especially in a very privileged way, through wars. We had Vienna in 1683. You do not fight people who you do not know. You have to know your adversaries to fight against them. But we had wars between France and Germany and now they are good friends. We did not have that many wars between France and Britain and they are not good friends.

Let's not forget Turkey was sometimes at the frontline of emancipation. Although Islam is the dominating religion, women already could vote in Turkey in the 1930s. For Belgium we had to wait until the late 1940s. Women in Turkey started to attend universities and become judges in the beginning of the 20th century, something which was very exceptional in Europe at that time.

With regards to religion, I personally do not believe that the fact that most Turks are Muslims does not play a part. I am sure this religious element plays an important part in the discussion. Of course, not openly! We do not hear very much in Europe that we are Christians but we hear more of the argument that we are no longer Christians. I think that is the difficulty. Europe now is pretty much secularized and we are not used to seeing people who are attached to their beliefs. When we see so many Turks who are believers, that makes us uneasy from time to time. Because we are used to very weak religious feelings, weak Catholics, weak Protestants. All of a sudden, we confront people who are religious and who really practice their religion. We are not very comfortable with it anymore. The lack of our own Christian identity makes it more difficult for us to cope with people who have a clearer religious identity. In that regard, it is true, of course, that we are not a Catholic or Protestant Europe, but we are living in a post-Christian society which makes it even more difficult.


De Vos- Even though I agree that we are now more secular than before, I disagree on one point. First of all, you cannot take the past as a sound reference. It does not mean that if you are well advanced in one part of your history, you always remain at that point. You cannot impose democracy, it should come from the inside, from bottom to top not from top to bottom Turkey is not a unidimensional country. It has many dimensions. When you are in Istanbul, you are in a different world and then in Anatolia, you are in a different culture.

Gültasli -There are two basic and very popular arguments in favor of Turkey's accession. One is Turkey's membership is a remedy for the clash of civilizations, to prevent it I mean, which has become very popular especially after 9/11. The other is the geostrategic argument, that is, if the EU wants to be a truly global player then it needs Turkey.

Torfs-- I will never be in favor of integration because of the fear of a clash. Negative arguments, emotions, fears play a part but we have to try to rationalize as much as possible. If we are going try to convince people on behalf of Turkey, we should find something positive, it cannot be out of fear. It is a great challenge to show that a country with a Muslim majority can fit into the Western democratic model by becoming an EU member. It is quite an achievement. That is something much more than the fear of the clash of civilizations. As for the geostragetic dimension, I think that can only be a result of Turkey's membership but not a good argument for accession.


De Vos- It is a great achievement, of course, if Turkey can be fully democratic, respecting human rights and minorities. But please do not tell me that you need the EU to attain that goal. I would rather like to see Turkey achieve that not through foreign pressure but by herself, proudly, standing on her own feet, not through the pressure of "infidels." I think you will be a much better model if you can achieve it on your own but not by being a part of the EU. Secondly, I do not believe in an automatic domino effect. I do not think Turkey's relations with her neighbors are that pleasant. I do not think that they will immediately, automatically follow the Turkish example. I fully agree that it is very crucial that a big Muslim country like Turkey can combine her religion with modern democratic institutions but that should be on her own.

On geo-strategy, Turkey is of course very strategically located, it has always been so. It is a bridge and I think being bridge should be Turkey's role rather than being enveloped into something else. Does the EU need Turkey as a geo-strategic partner? The answer is "yes." But Turkey is already in NATO. During the Iraq war, we saw that the EU could speak with one voice, even without Turkey. So the remedy is not Turkey but to deepen, to strenghten the institutional-political framework of the EU so that you can speak with one voice. I do not think Turkey will make the EU become one voice. Turkey will be better off by continuing to be a bridge rather than being a part of one culture.