An Associated Press article analyzes the future of Turkey and other nations attempting to join the European Union. The article asks whether the EU is willing to accept 10 new members, mostly Eastern European countries, and possibly Turkey—whose own negotiations to join the EU have been going on for 10 years. With the voters of France and the Netherlands rejecting the proposed European Union constitution, how does this rejection play out in the Turkey’s membership negotiations into the EU?
Turkey has been a wildcard of an anomaly with the European Union. The nation straddles three continents—Europe, Asia, and Africa. Throughout history, it has been a strategic link in the trade routes between Europe and Asia. The Eastern Roman Empire—The Byzantine Empire—was formed in the Middle Ages with Constantinople as its capital (Now known as modern-day Istanbul). Turkey is currently a member of NATO, and is the only Muslim nation with a democratically elected government. Turkey is probably the most “Westernized” nation in the Muslim world. Its government and foreign policy has stressed a desire to join the European Union as a means to economically expand its trade and business ties with Europe. The problem with Turkey is that it is a large, rapidly growing Second World nation with a population of 70 million that is predominantly ethnic Turkish, and Muslim. This is a hard pill for the members of the European nations to swallow, considering that as an EU member, Turkey would become the second largest nation in the EU after Germany, which has a population of 80 million. Another problem the EU has is with immigration. Almost all the nations in the EU are comprised of their own ethnicities—the French live in France, the Germans live in Germany, the Dutch live in the Netherlands. They all have their separate languages and cultures. The nations of the EU have had a deeper, xenophobic fear of allowing foreign immigrants to become naturalized citizens, who would then degrade or dilute their natural culture. So barriers and restrictions to naturalized citizenship in European nations are set at a high level. In addition, immigration into EU countries is limited as a means to keep foreigners out of the country. An EU Turkey would allow Turkish citizens to move anywhere in Europe. Finally, there is a security issue at stake. For Turkey to be admitted into the EU would cause the EU’s borders to extend into the Middle East, bordering Syria and Iraq. Such an extension of borders could allow terrorists to slip into Turkey, and thus into the EU for future planned terrorist attacks. An EU Turkey with a growing population, predominantly Muslim, ethnic, with borders on an unstable Middle East, also poses another threat to Europeans. It is a threat that French, German, and Dutch citizens would have to accept the growing power of Turkish legislators in the European Parliament to make decisions affecting their lives, or their sovereignty. All of these fears had an influence in the rejection of the constitution by both France and the Netherlands.
The European Union has got to stop toying with Turkey’s membership and start making the hard choice of whether to let Turkey join, or not. By allowing Turkey to join the EU, this expands cultural and economic ties between both Europe and Turkey, and Europe and the Middle East. It provides a model to the world where a Muslim nation can be both a major power and a democracy. Turkey can become a bridge between the First World countries of Europe and the Third World countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. If the European Union rejects Turkey, this may force Turkey to become isolated in the world—neither a part of a European block, nor a Middle Eastern block, nor a Russian or Asian block of economic trade zones. Turkey’s economic isolationism from any trade blocks could cause resentment or anger among the Turkish population against Europe. This could result in a rise of nationalism within Turkey. The worst-case scenario would be for a rise of nationalism combined with religious extremism. This combination could allow for Islamic fundamentalists to seize power in Turkey, institute a theocratic government, then exporting their fundamentalism into Europe through the Balkan Peninsula in the form of state-sponsored terrorism.
Turkey is the wildcard in the EU. The leaders of the European Union and Turkey have got to learn how to play this card correctly which would benefit both the nations in the EU and Turkey. Any other way, could become a major disaster.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
To say that only Germans live in Germany and Dutch in the Netherlands gives some kind of wrong picture. I would therefore like to add that every fifth baby born in Germany is Turkish. If you look into a city like Amsterdam, you will find a population as diverse as San Francisco. The fear of people to allow free movement is the fear of being no longer able to handle the millions of asylants already living in the Netherlands or Germany or France. Americans don't understand that whoever is in one of these countries gets cared for with social security money, free education for the children, free healthcare, and housing. Every single refugee from Albania, Bosnia, Turkey (the Curds) is taking care of by the tax payer who is facing a skyrocketing taxrate. In 2001 when I left Germany, I already paid 55% of my salary as taxes and this increased since then. To allow free movement, Germany and the Netherlands would have to change from a wellfare state into a corporate society like America first (where the poor die in the dust and nobody cares). This is the question the Dutch and French citizens had to decide with a vote pro and con free movement. The Germans btw. did not vote on this, the government was the one to decide pro free movement without offering the referendum option to the citizens. I am sure the citizens would have voted against.
Perhaps my statement of only Germans living in Germany and Dutch only living in the Netherlands has been mis-worded on my part. There is certainly large ethnic populations living in the various cities of Europe, providing a wide diversity for those cities. What I probably should have said was that there is a perception of only Germans living in Germany and Dutch only living in the Netherlands. This perception could reinforce a xenophobic fear among the native Europeans that minorities are coming in to take over their country's and their cultures.
I was not completely aware of the high taxes and high social welfare benefits that the European nations give to ethnic asylants. However, this doesn't surprise me, given that the European social welfare state is much larger than that of the United States. Asylants and immigrants coming in to Europe would probably want to emigrate to those European countries which would provide greater social welfare benefits to them--possibly Germany, France, and the Netherlands for their modernized, and diverse economies for example. These benefits provided to immigrants would have to be paid for by increasing taxes (your example of the 55% tax rate on your salary, and rising). The higher taxes that burden these countries populations can also reinforce the xonophobic fears of immigration, thus reinforcing the views--first among extremist and hard-liners, then trickling down to the general population--that only Germans should live in Germany and Dutch should live in Netherlands. Eric Hopp
Yes, you brought it right to the point, Eric. The sad thing in this story is that the lowest ones on the totem pole, the asylants, will get blamed for the high taxes, the lower living standard and who knows what else. It's the government that should be blamed for. Free movement without presenting a responsible answer to the question who is going to pay for that all, increases fears and racism.
Post a Comment