October 07, 2004Turkey's Accession to the UnionThe European Commission recently raised the bar on accession, in a move clearly designed to appease detractors of Turkey's accession bid. Turkey wasn't happy, and the new policies will give ammunition to those seeking to stall or prevent a Turkish accession bid. But what's the fuss about? To the layman, it looks like those who would keep the Turks out of the union do so for reasons of religion, geography, discrimination and a host of other potential problems and apparently morally unjustifiable discrimination. There are many reasons, I probably can't cover them all, and I'm probably wrong in a few cases, but I can certainly try to bring my understanding of the issues to light. Let's start with a controversial issue... Turkey's a Muslim country. Won't that have negative effects? Interesting question. There are people who immediately claim religious discrimination when they hear this, but the truth is that it's a real fear among some Europeans, born not of discrimination, but of recent events and a sense that there are significant and influential elements in the Muslim faith that want either bad things to happen to members of other faiths, or who believe that the Muslim faith has a duty to spread, convert and grow. You don't deal with such fears by labelling those who are afraid as bad people, that will just make things worse. Turkey is indeed 99.8% Muslim, but one needs to get away from the perception of the Muslim faith that we get as a consequence of seeing pictures of Palestine and Baghdad, and hearing the news every day. Turkey has evolved over time as a consequence of being geographically proximate to Europe, because of it's own progressive reforms (including universal suffrage, over 85% literacy, heavy involvement with international organizations, etc), and also because of a successful tourist industry which saw 14 million foreigners visiting Turkey in 2003. This evolution has made it far more western than most people realise, and although one will find deep (and precious) traditions relflected in many areas and aspects of the country, it is not as religiously, culturally or politically different from the west as many seem to believe. Of course were Turkey to join, there would be an inflow of Turks as the labour market adjusted, and the cultural adjustment that comes with that. This is largely a good thing, as there is a shortage of certain types of labour (unskilled, mostly) in the Union, and this will help fill those gaps, thus increasing our productivity. It will also allow Turks to more easily join European firms, benefiting from the training provided by such jobs, and integrating them faster and more successfully into a European way of life. This picture may be too rosy for some, but consider the alternative... Leave them out, thus slowing the progress their country is making, and creating resentment, slowing international integration, reinforcing religious boundaries and differences and forgoing the opportunities represented by accession.
Yes, they are indeed numerous. A 2000 census put their population at 67.8 million. Their projected population growth would make them the largest country in the Union by the time they joined in 10 to 15 years. This poses some problems, and has some benefits. First the problems... The EU constitution contains a principle called double majority voting. [iht.com] This principle means that Turkey would have a huge vote in EU affairs due to the size of its population, which gives rise to a great deal of resistance regarding its accession from current large member states. This volume of people joining the Union and having the automatic right to travel, live and work freely within any member of the Union, would give rise to significant labour market adjustment. While in the long run such adjustment may lead to a better situation for all, the adjustment itself is bound to be difficult and painful, especially for countries where trade unions have traditionally had significant strength. And now the benefits... The EU has an aging population, and Turkey's demographic pyramid is the other way up. Their accession would rejuvenate (in demographic terms) the population of the EU, which helps in a number of ways, most specifically with the pension problems faced by most member states. Of course this also implies that they would represent a growing proportion of the Union's population over time, and that causes concern in some people's minds, but this is a problem we will have to deal with as a planet sooner or later anyway, and the sooner we deal with it, the smoother the transition will be. As far as the problems above are concerned, the simplest question cuts to the core of the voting argument. So Turkey would have a vote in proportion to its population size... So What? Is anyone saying that they should be allowed to join but be placed in an inferior position to other member states? Should their larger population be proportionally under-represented? Of course not. The voting problems are not new and we have only just recovered from those caused by Spain and Poland getting too many votes as Chirac forced through a bad deal so that he could appear to have succeeded in getting a deal at all. Voting issues are not new, and are merely a difficult linear programming problem to solve. The end solution will always be the same : strategic blocs of countries will be able to veto, the UK will whine until it gets an opt-out of every single binding decision (while claiming to lead from the front) and the Union will march reluctantly forward so that 20 years later, they can claim credit for the success, or say "I told you so" if it all goes pear-shaped. But Turkey has borders with Iraq, Iran and Syria!! So what? As the Union grows, this was bound to happen sooner or later. The only real fear is that we might have to actually get involved if something bad happened down there instead of waiting until it gets so bad the Americans decide to do something about it (vis. Croatia and Serbia). It would do the union some good to grab some of these regional problems by the horns and decide to manage them proactively instead of watching entire countries go up in flames and then be the reluctant partners of a NATO coalition or UN peacekeeping force that goes in to mop up the dead bodies and protect what remains of the population. What is more, as Turkey adjusts towards EU membership, so this adjustment reflects upon its neighbours to the east. As Turkey demonstrates how a fully Muslim country can have universal suffrage, solid democracy, peaceful co-operation and integration with western countries and economic and social improvement all at the same time, so the countries to the east will have that as an example of what they could do. Far better to induce social and political change in this way than by sending in armies. The example being set by Turkey is of inestimable value, because it is undergoing a voluntary self-induced change, rather than coerced conversion imposed by the west. As such it demonstrates that such changes can bring vast benefits without destroying values or traditions, rather than the current middle-eastern perception that the west seeks to forcibly change other countries to match the western mould, disrepecting their religions and traditions in the process. Conclusion So should Turkey be allowed to join the EU? Well there's no doubt that it will be difficult, and that there are a lot of problems to solve along the way, but that's why everyone quotes a 10-15 year negotiation period. But it's the Union that needs to adjust - the CAP has to be dismantled, the Textile protections will also have to be reviewed, voting rights will have to be adjusted, labour markets prepared, and populations educated. I think Turkey is almost ready. If Turkey can't be part of the EU, then something else needs to be done, rather than just walking away from this integration opportunity. A "collaboration agreement" or anything of the kind doesn't cut it. Maybe the EU isn't ambitious enough anymore, and we need a new regional grouping that can be bigger, with less integrative luggage and a clean slate, that can start as a shallow union, but also with the principle of becoming "ever deeper". If the ultimate goal is peace and prosperity for all, then we need a vision that goes beyond the next commission decision, and Turkey is the first step in this vision, not the final frontier. More info : Comments
Post a comment
|