| 摘要 | The decision that Europe’s heads of state and government are due to take on 17 December regarding the opening of negotiations for Turkey to become a full member of the European Union is serving as a catalyst for the fears, spectres, perplexity, doubts and ambiguities that surround European construction.
Few would dispute the importance for Europe of a Turkey that is firmly anchored to the West and has completed its transformation into a modern democratic society. Indeed, many would go even further and acknowledge that Turkish membership of the Union will bring economic and strategic advantages and opportunities: from its market potential to its role as an energy transit country, from an EU presence in regions particularly crucial to our future – the southern Caucasus, the Mediterranean and the Middle East – to the demonstration that mankind is not inevitably destined to suffer a clash of civilisations.
In relation to European identity, or the defining features Europe’s incipient identity, the controversy over Turkish membership unfolds on two fronts that are clearly encapsulated in the wording of Article 1.2 of the draft European Constitution: “The Union shall be open to all European states which respect its values and are committed to promoting them together”. In a nutshell, the issue is whether Turkey is part of Europe and is compatible with our project. The matter of Turkey’s Europeanness obliges us to address once and for all the question of Europe’s limits and the principles underpinning the Union. In fact, defining the nature of this common adventure will provide the answer to the question concerning the potential disfigurement of the project caused by the entry of an overwhelmingly Muslim country, which, on the basis of current demographic forecasts, will have a bigger population than Germany before long.
Viewed in these terms, it is no surprise that the most heated debates on the Turkey question arise in the EU’s founding members, particularly France and Germany, or that these countries should be witnessing a nostalgic fondness for the prosperous, cohesive, manageable and homogenous original Community of Six. Turkey has served to bring to the fore a process that was set in motion with the entry of Britain and has been consolidated with the recent fifth enlargement. The European Union is no longer what it used to be. European unification -a dream held by so many generations, a historic responsibility incumbent on all of us- is now a reality, but its inherent asymmetries, diversity and even heterogeneousness can trigger vertigo. A further reason why the Union is no longer what it used to be is that we often forget that the growing Muslim communities are European citizens also. According to forecasts, when Turkey eventually joins it will account for approximately 15% of the total population of the Union, a thought that stirs fears and fantasies. Even before then, however, the number of Europeans of Muslim persuasion is likely to exceed that figure.
The Union is not what it used to be: who are we and who do we want to be as Europeans? What do we want to achieve together? How do we want to carry forward our common project?
Who are we? Europeanness is given by three factors: geography, history/culture and perception (so-called ‘enjoyment of status’). From the geographical standpoint, as the Ahtisaari Report recalls, ‘after the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey’s territory was reduced to the point where only 3% fell within continental Europe. However, 11% of the Turkish populations as well as Turkey’s economic and cultural capital, Istanbul, are to be found within that space.” Moreover, Europe’s culture and history are steeped in Turkish influence: Troy, Pergammon, Antioch and Byzantium are all indispensable points of reference in our self-understanding as Europeans; Turkey, perceived as ‘the sick man of Europe’, in the words of Czar Nicholas I; Turkey, part of the European Concert that decided the future of Europe after the Crimean War. Lastly, with regard to ‘enjoyment of status’, it should be recalled that, until now, nobody had questioned Turkey’s vocation to be part of the European project. Since 1963, the European Community and then the Union – as well as individual member countries – have undertaken many initiatives in support of Turkey’s candidacy. The European project, in sum, is a legal construct, grounded on principles and values that have been fashioned on this historical, cultural and geographical canvas. To put it another way, the European project is defined by the principles and values clearly set out in the Copenhagen criteria: secularity (i.e. religion is a strictly private matter), a fully consolidated democratic institutional framework, a market economy, and the reaffirmation of human rights as the guiding principles of political and social life, as the true hallmark of Europe, Europe’s banner. According to the European Commission’s Report, the progress made by Turkey on these criteria warrants the opening of talks. This gives an indication of the road ahead -it is not a question of Turkey joining tomorrow – but the Union cannot apply double standards (as stated above, we are a construct based on law) and should not apply to Turkey interpretations that are different to those we have just implemented for the recently-concluded fifth enlargement.
What do we want to achieve together as Europeans? This was the real slogan of the debate in the Convention and later in the Intergovernmental Conference. For all the self-criticism engaged in, we should not overlook the pointers provided by the Constitution. Despite the imperfections and shortcomings highlighted in comparison to the undeniable achievements and progress made, the constitutional debate addressed the fundamental aspirations of the people of Europe: more Europe for more prosperity; more Europe for a greater European presence in the world. Regarding prosperity, the doubts concerning Turkish membership focus exclusively on the short-term cost (Turkey is a large and poor country), but this cannot be the decisive argument for a Union which is already a hegemonic economic power. Regarding security and Europe’s projection on the world stage, few would dispute Turkey’s contribution in strategic terms, as mentioned earlier.
Lastly, how should the project be carried forward? Here too the answer lies in the new Constitution, despite the error of double-majority. The European Union is neither a federal nor an intergovernmental project; it should not weaken, let alone clash with, the member states. It has to be viewed in a very different light, namely, the Union as a common institutional framework with multiple interconnected and many-faceted networks. Some such networks, the euro or police and judicial cooperation for instance, are already operational. For others, such as Defence, which is being shaped at present, Turkey’s participation can only prove beneficial.
Europe is not what it used to be. Our European project, still one of the most attractive adventures ever undertaken by humankind, is that of a prosperous and culturally-mixed Europe, free of nostalgia and certain of its values. A Europe that seeks to be a powerful force in the world and observes serenely and with interest Turkey’s transformation, which will eventually enable it to become a full member. |
