EU Enlargement and Turkey
Dr. George Voskopoulos
September 08, 2005
The issue of EU enlargement has topped the priority agenda not only of member states, but also the European peoples who have recently communicated messages to political elites concerning the future of the EU and its strategic orientation.
The rejection of the Constitutions Treaty in France and the Netherlands was indirectly but substantially linked to EU enlargement and the fear that newcomers will deterio-rate the allocation of funding and will negatively affect the integration process. More-over, many expressed a certain “islamophobia” towards a potential Muslim member.
The issue should be scrutinized through the Europeanist – Atlanticist divide and the incompatible strategies suggested by the two alternative but contending models of in-tegration.
The most-stern proponents of Atlanticism within the EU, along the US, support Tur-key’s accession on the basis of the dynamic of the country, its annual rate of devel-opment and the need to send a message to the Muslim world that Islam does not con-stitute a cultural or religious handicap in the evaluation process.
The UK has adopted this view, which is fully compatible with British aspirations, their limited views on the issue of a politically united Europe and their desire to shape a EU within a common market framework. The same view is shared by the US that has supported EU enlargement ever since the end of the Cold War.
The problems with the British vision of the EU is that first it is formulated on a lim-ited framework of national interest and second, it does not take into account the mes-sages sent from Paris and Amsterdam. The general concept Europeanists share about London is that it wishes to be in Europe but not part of it.
On the other hand, the Europeanist view is formulated through a cost-gain ratio analy-sis and the messages conveyed by the French and Dutch electorates. It is a view that sets directly or indirectly a limit to the geographical overstretch of the EU and its abil-ity to operate as an integrative force. It focuses on a number of burning issues such as the financial and political cost of accepting Turkey, its institutional role in a EU where the population criterion will determine its political weight and the limited ac-ceptance of the European ideal in Turkey.
Atlanticists see Turkey as a thriving market, undermining the political consequences of accepting a country with shallow democratic tradition and a military elite that di-rectly or indirectly sets the rules of the political, social and economic game.
Europeanists see Turkish accession as a political choice of high risk for the process of political integration. They base their evaluation on the Turkish-American strategic ties, Turkish political culture and Ankara’s failure to apply the rules and prerequisites set by the EU (i.e. recognition of Cyprus).
Under the above dichotomy, Turkish accession is evaluated with different and often incompatible criteria, based on the vision of the current members of Europe. The issue builds upon the ideological divide between the two trends, Europeanism-political in-tegration-political and social cohesion and Atlanticism-Europe as a civilian power, a free market area.
In any case, Turkish accession should not be an issue of culture or religion, but a con-scious choice related to the role of the EU in the new world order. The decision will reflect the strategic orientation of the EU and will affect the future and cohesion of Europe. Actually this decision may accelerate the process of political integration through enhanced cooperation, a message conveyed strongly by the French referen-dum.
The rejection of the Constitutions Treaty in France and the Netherlands was indirectly but substantially linked to EU enlargement and the fear that newcomers will deterio-rate the allocation of funding and will negatively affect the integration process. More-over, many expressed a certain “islamophobia” towards a potential Muslim member.
The issue should be scrutinized through the Europeanist – Atlanticist divide and the incompatible strategies suggested by the two alternative but contending models of in-tegration.
The most-stern proponents of Atlanticism within the EU, along the US, support Tur-key’s accession on the basis of the dynamic of the country, its annual rate of devel-opment and the need to send a message to the Muslim world that Islam does not con-stitute a cultural or religious handicap in the evaluation process.
The UK has adopted this view, which is fully compatible with British aspirations, their limited views on the issue of a politically united Europe and their desire to shape a EU within a common market framework. The same view is shared by the US that has supported EU enlargement ever since the end of the Cold War.
The problems with the British vision of the EU is that first it is formulated on a lim-ited framework of national interest and second, it does not take into account the mes-sages sent from Paris and Amsterdam. The general concept Europeanists share about London is that it wishes to be in Europe but not part of it.
On the other hand, the Europeanist view is formulated through a cost-gain ratio analy-sis and the messages conveyed by the French and Dutch electorates. It is a view that sets directly or indirectly a limit to the geographical overstretch of the EU and its abil-ity to operate as an integrative force. It focuses on a number of burning issues such as the financial and political cost of accepting Turkey, its institutional role in a EU where the population criterion will determine its political weight and the limited ac-ceptance of the European ideal in Turkey.
Atlanticists see Turkey as a thriving market, undermining the political consequences of accepting a country with shallow democratic tradition and a military elite that di-rectly or indirectly sets the rules of the political, social and economic game.
Europeanists see Turkish accession as a political choice of high risk for the process of political integration. They base their evaluation on the Turkish-American strategic ties, Turkish political culture and Ankara’s failure to apply the rules and prerequisites set by the EU (i.e. recognition of Cyprus).
Under the above dichotomy, Turkish accession is evaluated with different and often incompatible criteria, based on the vision of the current members of Europe. The issue builds upon the ideological divide between the two trends, Europeanism-political in-tegration-political and social cohesion and Atlanticism-Europe as a civilian power, a free market area.
In any case, Turkish accession should not be an issue of culture or religion, but a con-scious choice related to the role of the EU in the new world order. The decision will reflect the strategic orientation of the EU and will affect the future and cohesion of Europe. Actually this decision may accelerate the process of political integration through enhanced cooperation, a message conveyed strongly by the French referen-dum.
Print
Email
