Is Cameron’s Turkish delight good for Europe’s waistline?

It is safe to say that Mr Cameron is not a passionate supporter of many EU policies but if there is one that he wholeheartedly supports then that is the process of EU enlargement. But is his eagerness to accelerate Turkey's accession good for the EU?

As a Greek I would very much like to see Turkey join the EU eventually. Having our neighbour as part of our community of nations is an ideal way to address and resolve our disagreements in the context of a union that has facilitated the resolution of many cross-border differences among its members.

Mr Cameron's wish to see Turkey join the EU is also easily understandable. Turkey is a vast country that holds a geopolitically significant position, hugely important in strategic and energy terms. It is also a big market, with its young population of 70 million ready to consume British products and services. More importantly Turkey is atlanticist; despite recent spats with the US it has traditionally been very pro-American. With Turkey joining the club Cameron believes that he'll acquire another strong pro-US ally around the European Council table.

That is all obvious and comprehensive. But Mr Cameron's motives go beyond all that. I suspect that he sees further enlargement of the EU, especially when it comes to a nation as big and assertive as Turkey, as a unique opportunity to dilute the process towards an ever closer union. The more you widen the EU the harder it becomes to deepen the process of European integration. More member states means less political union and the Conservatives' wish to see the EU turn into a loose trading block bolds well with the idea of non-stop enlargement of the European Union.

So it is worth considering whether rushing Turkey's accession, at this particular point in the EU's evolution, is a good idea. The union is still getting to grips with the last two accession rounds. It took years of painful negotiations (and failed referendums) to agree the institutional engineering that will make an EU of 27 member states work effectively. Is the EU ready to undertake, in the short term, the institutional changes necessary to accommodate more members?

Furthermore, it will be premature to admit Turkey before its process of democratic reform has taken root. EU accession has proven a strong incentive for candidate countries to adopt the principles of democracy, rule of law and respect of human rights that form the building blocs of European integration. But, considering how slowly the reform process is progressing in Turkey, the EU has to be firm with its Anatolian partner. The army's influence in politics, the economy and the judiciary is still very strong, reminding many in Europe that Turkey has long to go before a fully democratic system is established.

The Kurdish issue also remains unresolved and many question whether the EU wishes to import a problem that has both an internal and external destabilising dimension. The Turkey-Iraq border resembles a warzone and relations between Turkey and the Kurdish north of Iraq remain tense, not least over who will control Kirkuk's energy sources. Admitting Turkey before such conflicts are resolved will be a huge gamble, to put it mildly, for the EU.

Last but not least is the issue of Turkey's refusal to recognise one of the EU's member states, namely Cyprus. It is very hard to admit into our community a candidate country that refuses to recognise one of our EU partners.

Returning to Mr Cameron it is worth noting that, despite his grand statements, his rhetoric appears, under close scrutiny, a tad hypocritical. Brandishing his anti-immigration credentials he admitted that, by imposing restrictions on the right of Turkish people to live and work in the UK, he will deny Turkey one of the fundamental rights of EU membership, that of the free movement of its people. He also failed to mention that admitting a rural and still developing country will require a considerable investment on Europe's part. The EU budget will have to be enlarged to allow for the CAP, regional and cohesion funds necessary to bring the Turkish economy in line with that of its EU partners. Is Mr Cameron prepared to see such an increase of the EU budget?

Mr Cameron and I agree that Turkey should become a member of the European Union. But that should happen at a time and pace that is appropriate both for Turkey and the EU.

Photo: Vandelizer 2009

Petros Fassoulas is member of the European Movement’s national executive and chairman of the European Movement in London

27 Jul 2010 16:11

Tags

 

Comments

• Posted by Stamatis on 27 July 2010, 5:24:19 PM

  Maybe Cameron´s thinking "Why have one Trojan Horse (UK)within the EU when you can have two (UK, Turkey)?".

• Posted by G Simpson on 28 July 2010, 5:13:26 PM

  Cameron wants Turkey in to weaken the EU politically. Those pushing for enlargement are frequently Euro-sceptics becos a larger EU wil lbe much more difficult to unite. Europe has to 'end' somewhere and it is reaching a point of becoming too large, especially if you consider Ukraine and one or two other smaller east european states also seek to join. Turkey should have 'special' trading status but full member, no. If Turkey joins, why not Israel? Why not other neighbouring countries such as Armenia or even some Arab states etc, etc.

• Posted by mehmet on 01 August 2010, 10:00:35 AM

  The majority of issues that are put forward as a problem with Turkey's accession to the EU, were and for some still are a problem for some of the member states. From an economic and population perspective, the 4 countries that were admitted into the Union during 2004 and 2007 Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania, without all other admitted, only these 4 combined, have a larger population than Turkey and not relatively richer. In fact, besides Poland, other 3 is poorer than Turkey both in terms of total economy and in terms of "per capita". They more or less have same issues in infrastructure, and had mostly same problems in terms of constitution and laws. The difference with Turkey lies in a different area. For first, these countries did not have any hardcore enemies in the EU that would block their accession as Turkey does, and they are Christian countries. As for Cyprus, the author fails to mention about the 2004 Annan plan where Turkish Cypriots accepted the UN unification plan whereas the Greek Cypriots rejected but still taken into the Union which was a huge mistake, just because Greece threatened to block Poland's accession unless Cyprus was admitted. What could Turkey have done besides enforcing the UN plan? The Cyprus issue is used as a scapegoat by opponents of Turkey in the Union as putting forward the reason of not being Christian would anger the Muslim communities living in the EU and it would not be an appropriate reason for a Union with high ideals. The real problem is, the EU should have stated in the first place that it has no intention of admitting Turkey into the Union. It would be hard on but eventually Turkish society would come to terms with it as a matter of differing opinions between EU and Turkey. But EU used membership as a bargaining chip blackmailing Turkey for a great deal of issues, enforced many laws, put Turkish governments in a hard spot against their public only to say "Sorry no" after decades. That is the part where the EU made the biggest mistake, by lying to and humiliating Turkey, which will create a huge angered state on their borders, with a forever divided Cyprus.