It is acceptable to be opposed to Turkish acceptance into the European Union if objections are made on legitimate grounds of, say, criticism of Turkey’s mistreatment of its Kurdish minority or concern over the power of Turkish generals in the country. But it is uncalled for and a reflection of anti-Islamic bigotry to oppose Turkish acceptance irrespective of Turkey’s fulfillment of the Copenhagen requirements. Many nations are opposed to Turkish entrance on the grounds that Turkey simply does not belong in the European Union. Why? They beat-around-the-bush claiming that Turkey is divorced from the heart of Europe. But this is unfounded. The Ottoman Empire started as a European dynasty, the Congress of Vienna recognized Turkey is an integral part of Europe and the now famous phrase of “the sick man of Europe” was not original in reference to Britain but to the Ottoman Empire. So why are so many Europeans opposed to Turkish entry even if Turkey mets all requirements for entry. What could be the cause of such uncompromising opposition divorced from any rational assessment. The cause of their objection is clear: Islam. They are opposed to Turkey solely because it is a Muslim nation. Unlike Albania and Kosovo, which one day may win EU acceptance, Turkey is very populated and many Western Europeans worry that the open-borders that EU acceptance would entail would lead to a huge increase in Turks populating European cities. They would deny their opposition is rested on Islam, but it is hard to believe that ceteris paribus Turkey would arose such strong opposition if it was a Christian nation.
No one has been more bigoted and vocal in his opposition then French President Nicholas Sarkozy. Sarkozy has long been opposed to Turkish acceptance and stated that France will only (reluctantly) support the decision, all EU nations must accept new members, if a French referendum is supportive. If the vote came of pass under his presidency, Sarkozy would campaign against.
The French president has gone one step further in his rhetoric by further dismissing Turkey by stating that European leaders should stop “lying” to Turkey about full membership because they all know the country will never be accepted as such.
The president stated that Turkey is in “Asia Minor” and that he will not be the one to “tell French schoolchildren that the borders of Europe extend to Syria and Iraq.” This is another one of the arguments. Turkey’s acceptance would increase EU borders to several Middle Eastern nations. Sarkozy believes this to be unimaginable, but why not? Why can’t Europe borders touch, say, Iran? Is there something uncouth in that? And would Sarkozy dismiss an Israeli request for EU membership, if he would dismiss it all, on the same grounds that Europe borders’ cannot reach to Lebanon? It it unlikely and Israel has been banded about as a possible member, though that it unlikely.
Sarkozy’s rhetoric is nothing by laced bigotry. It is Islam, pure and simply. The French want to offer Turkey as special relationship instead (this may be better than Turkey if it included the country in the EU common market will keeping Turkey outside of burdensome, anti-business EU regulation. EU environmental regulatory implementation would only cost Turkey $200 billion).
Because of the words of Sarkozy and his like, Turkey’s enthusiasm for the EU has been waning a bit. But, in the end, will Turkey entry the Union? Most likely if the nation still aspires to. Sarkozy will eventually leave office and Turkey is still years away from the final decision. Turkey is simply too important as a market, a young and dynamic economy, a regional power, an energy hub, and a gateway to the Muslim world for Europe to say NO.
Turkey is Europe.
Source: The Economist.
