Turkey: Where does it belong?

With a population that is mostly made up of Muslims it differs to a great extent from most western countries, but it also differs from many Arab countries, because when it comes to legislation and constitution it is highly secular. Thus using geographical terms in a descriptive manner, many consider Turkey to be both a western and an eastern country; hence it is often called ‘Eurasian’. Some label it too as an Islamic state combined with democratic principles, without recent western interventions. This makes it not just highly interesting, it also shows that widespread adherence to Islam does not simply rule out more positive outlooks than is often seen, thought or expected. This is not to say that there aren’t many problematic issues of course, but we’ll find those even in the best of societies.

If we now take the geographical location of Turkey in a more literal sense we can point to another aspect, which is the gap it bridges between Europe, as the incarnation of western values, and Syria and Iraq, as points of departure for more Islamic oriented beliefs. In the current political climate only someone who wants to see ideologies heading for a dogmatic clash would neglect the opportunities this hybrid country can offer us. As I will argue, Turkey needs to be granted access to the European Union, unless we want to waste the valuable potential it has to offer in today’s struggle for cultural dominance.

But letting Turkey enter the European Union will stir up emotions and fuel opposition. France’s Sarkozy does not exactly talk as if he’ll give Turkey a warm welcome, and will probably let the outcome depend on a referendum. Reminding ourselves that he stems from one of the countries that rejected the European Constitution, we have good reason to think the French are to a great extent unwilling to welcome the country within European boundaries. Indeed, one of Sarkozy’s arguments is that Europe must fix its borders, for we simply cannot usurp all the countries into our political organization if we do not want to undermine unity and success.

However intuitively plausible this might seem, it is not. Europe’s strength has since long been grounded in its openness towards that which is ‘the other’. If we hadn’t chosen to cooperate, there would have been no European Union. It is not some metaphysical, cultural connection we share with the French that we do not share with Turks; it is our political and infrastructural relationship that differentiates our connection more than anything else. Europe as we have come to know it started as an initiative to move forwards. And yes, it has been presented and interpreted as an entity that must prevent another war among its member states; however the process started for economical reasons, best achieved not by imposing new laws, but by getting rid of obstacles. Turkey doesn’t lay in central Europe of course, which for many greatly weakens its claim to be a part of this continent’s political union. Some of its roots do undeniably lay in European soil however, both in political-economical terms as in Google Maps screenshots. We can see easily grasp this by glancing at the historical processes that have not only brought us to where we are now, but also Turkey. For it has been an associate member since 1963, one of the first countries that joined the European Council (1949) and one of the founders of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 1961) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE, 1973). Two more recent ones can be added to that list: They have been an associate member of the Western European Union since 1992 and are a part of the Western European and Other Groups (WEOG) at the United Nations. Though their aim of becoming a full, officially recognized member is widely known, they have not been granted this ‘highest of honors’ yet.

Some reasons have already been mentioned. Another one not yet: The open boundaries. Many people fear a flood of immigrants from east to west; especially right winged people (and the politicians that speak on behalf of them) do not like this prospect at all. A temporary constraint on settling for other purposes than labor can of course be considered to solve the matter (though the realization that this cannot stay that way should be memorized). As many see it Turkey has a long way to go before all European demands are met anyway: A law that forbids insulting the Turkish nation will need to be disposed, women rights are not lacking in theory but are in practice not up to our standards and uniting Cyprus also poses serious problems. Since these are far from the only problems, isn’t it easier to just opt-out of entering altogether? I don’t think it is. I think our aims are correct, but the demands are wrongly put by focusing too much on the wish for (immediate) solutions. Our questions when reflecting should rather be: Do these objections function as legitimate arguments for a delay in entering the European Union? Some of them might, but all of them? We can imagine many countries struggling with problems, and diverse as these might be, why should they imply exclusion? Won’t it be easier and/or better to solve them from within, that is to say with explicit help from Brussels?

And I just ironically used the words ‘highest of honors’. But whose honor it is anyway? Although it seems Turkey can gain a lot, it is not any less so from the continental perspective. Some examples will probably speak of Turkey’s large army, a new bridge between western and Arab cultures and the inclusion of a large and relatively well developed economy. I’d like to stress that this is more than mere economic advantage. Thankfully, quite a lot of politicians are aware of this and do not want to waste the opportunity of improving mutual understanding between nations and the civilians that live under its flags. Now the realism involved can be questioned. It is not proven that Turkey will indeed improve our relations to other nations at all. No, but it does seem very persuasive. Even if it does not seem so to you, there is another side to this argument. What if we refuse to allow Turkey to get closer? Since a high percentage of its civilians are Muslim and a clear trend can be spotted of greatly improving economical ties with Arab regions, we might reasonably suspect that they will tend to turn eastwards more quickly than westwards. This is again an argument constructed as ‘if…then’, based on assumptions. But as Wittgenstein once said: “At the end of reasons comes persuasion”.

So we might ask ourselves now: What is in it for us? What is in it for them? Negative facts can be found on either side, but I do think the prospects are positive, on both sides of the line. We know we can help them, we suspect they can help us. It seems less risky than many of our hedge-funds; I say we should go for it.