Pour réagir à cet article, cliquez ici

8 décembre 2004

By Gunduz Aktan, Turkish Daily News

TDN- At the Abant platform held on Dec. 3 and 4, organized by Bahçesehir University, Leuven University and the European Parliament, debates centered on the identity problems based on the cultural and religious disparity between Turkey and Europe.

Professor Ilkay Sunar, who made the first presentation, roughly explained the superiority of the identity based on civilian and political culture. In order to overcome the conflicts and wars that happened because of religious, linguistic and cultural disparities throughout the history, the European Union was trying to formulate a new identity based on democracy, human rights and multi-culturalism. Segregation of Turkey, which had fulfilled the Copenhagen criteria and made significant strides in adhering to the cultural and political identity of the EU, because of its difference in religion-language-culture, was contradictory.

No one doubts these statements reflect the truth. However, no one can ignore the importance of constants like religion and culture. Just like in the EU, some object to Turkey’s EU membership based on identity. Both sides believe the EU is a unification process like a nation-state. Turks who object to EU membership fear that Turkey will lose its national identity, including the founding principles of the republic and the national borders, within the EU. Europeans, who base their opinions on the same ideas, believe Turkey’s membership will alter Europe’s identity and even claim it would be the end of the union.

However, the EU is gradually moving away from a political unification similar to a nation-state. The EU Constitution is actually an international agreement. Referendums to be held in 10-11 countries for the EU Constitution would change the fact that it is an international agreement. Moreover, if one member, especially if one of the important ones, rejects the constitution at the referendum, the political unification will go backwards, even further than its present modest levels.

In this respect, France has certain peculiarities. The French-German rapprochement was the engine behind the EU. The French political class wanted the political unification of Europe to result in a strategic force that would be able to compete with the United States. In this unification, France and Germany would be equal as founding members, but the French would be the dominant partner, because it lacked the constraints imposed by World War II. The developments do not satisfy France’s expectations. With the Nice Treaty, Germany became more influential than France within the EU institutions. Even if a 10-country expansion, soon to be followed by three more countries, does not make this political unification impossible to achieve, it delays it for a considerable time. During the Iraq War, it was seen that some of the new members were closer to the United States than to France. Even if we ignore Britain, which is highly likely to reject the constitution, nothing is certain in France either.

Turkey’s membership efforts have no influence over these developments. However, French politicians behave like the political union is possible, but Turkey is an obstacle to achieving it. One feels this has more to do with the French impression that its part in Europe’s future will be ruined with our membership.

UDF leader François Bayrou’s statement should be understood from this perspective. Bayrou finds it normal for the EU to define its identity in accordance with the Turkish (Islamic) identity. It is the first time we have heard such an admission from such an important politician. However, such a method has certain dangers associated with it. In the past, the French and Germans defined themselves in reaction against each other and their self-identity was based in reaction to the Jews. They assigned their worst characteristics onto the other in order to cleanse themselves, but their definition of the identity eventually led to genocide and wars.

This is the perpetual problem faced by the EU, which has always failed to become multicultural. They might be able to resolve this issue if Turkey becomes a member. Instead, they constantly segregate us, claiming that we trample on the Kurds with a racist sentiment akin to the racist hate of their anti-Semitism and charge us with committing an Armenian genocide, while stating that these characteristics are the result of our identity. We are in dangerous waters.

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.as...