Turkey-EU to start talks on membership [Archive]

View Full Version : Turkey-EU to start talks on membership

Sayhey

Dec 20, 2004, 01:52 AM

If I missed a previous thread on this, please forgive me, but I thought it deserved discussion.

Historic Turkey-EU deal welcomed

The European Union's decision to begin entry talks with Turkey has received a widespread welcome.

But Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan will face tough questions at home about what he has signed up to.

The deal came after Ankara agreed it would tacitly acknowledge the Cyprus government - a key EU demand for talks to begin.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell said Turkey within the EU would be "a positive force for democracy".

The deal was struck after two days of tough and at times heated talks in Brussels.

Mr Erdogan insisted the protocol was not a formal recognition of Cyprus.

"We did not obtain all that we wanted 100%", he told a news conference, "but we can say that it was a success."
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4106801.stm)

This is a very long range process (most likely 10 to 15 years), but it is a significant development for Europe and the Middle East. If the process forces Turkey toward higher standards of democratic norms and human rights, it will be great. If it brings about an integration of a new, changed Turkey into Europe it will be even better.

Zaid

Dec 20, 2004, 05:37 AM

If I missed a previous thread on this, please forgive me, but I thought it deserved discussion.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4106801.stm)

This is a very long range process (most likely 10 to 15 years), but it is a significant development for Europe and the Middle East. If the process forces Turkey toward higher standards of democratic norms and human rights, it will be great. If it brings about an integration of a new, changed Turkey into Europe it will be even better.

Agreed. This is one of the major reasons why I'd support Turkish membership. It will also force resolution of the Cyprus issue.

I do, however, sometimes wonder if the Union is becoming too big. With its current structure, I it can't expand much further without entering the relms of perpetual deadlock (though I am sure some would argue that we are already there.) If the EU is to not expand itself into complete ineffectiveness, something needs to be done about its structure.

Of course I'd like to see the whole thing become more directly democratic. Even then it's still going to take a bit of a culture change for the solidarity of politcal comon ground to overcome the solidarity of nationality.

Hoef

Dec 20, 2004, 06:54 AM

Zaid

Dec 20, 2004, 08:55 AM

Does anyone know the strategy behind the European Union? .... Just add as many countries as possible? A common identity and value system doesn't seem to be of importance. It is amazing how many demonstrations this thing created throughout Europe.

Primarily its purpose is to be an economic union, (with the aim of 'moving toward an ever closer union of the members'). It is not (yet) a real political union, much as some (myself included) would like it to be.

IMHO

There seem to be a few, quite distinct, arguments that people seem to have against Turkey entering the Union. These aren’t in any particular order, and are just my impressions of the arguments.

[This post has turned out to be much longer than I intended and is mostly on-the-sleeve type rhetoric. I’m liable to change my mind if presented with another argument and after some thought ]

The Strategic Argument
An EU including Turkey would have Iran, Syria and Iraq on its borders. Besides the risk of entanglement (of sorts) within the region, it may open up a whole new route of easy access for illegal immigrants.

I don’t really subscribe to this view. Turkey is very different to its neighbours, ethnically, linguistically and socially. It is a very secular society (despite being 99% Muslim) and has done a good job of not getting entangled in the ME thus far. Also a fully democratic, secular Turkey (which it will have to be in order to join the union) will be a positive force for democracy in the region.

The Cost Argument
Turkey will by far be the poorest country in the Union when it joins. Many worry that it would be eligible for massive amounts of development money within the EU budget and net recipients of EU money will be loathe seeing Turkey getting money while they move to a net contributor status. (I’m especially thinking of Spain here) Personally I think it’s about time that the net-recipient countries started returning the favour.

If, however, over the next ten to fifteen years the EU helps the Turkish economy, by opening up the EU market, Turkey could be in a much better position than it is now. Bringing Turkish living standards up to the EU average (both before and after joining) would also be money well spent for two reasons.

1. It provides a larger, wealthier market for European goods and services.
2. It will stem the flow of cheap, unskilled Turkish labour into other EU countries
This last point brings us onto the …

Cheap Labour Argument
A flood of cheap unskilled Turkish labour will cause enormous strain on employment in European economies and could put severe strain on the welfare states of Western Europe

I can’t see Turkey joining without at least a 5 – 10 year restriction on the dropping of immigration requirements for Turks. Also the simultaneous attempts to bring up Turkish living standards to EU standards will also help reduce the number of people wanting to leave.

While this will be an issue, I don’t think it will be as bad as people think; at least not in the long term.

The effect on a unified Europe Argument
Sorry don’t really have a better name for this one. There is an argument that the enlargement of the union to include so many new countries just makes the union harder to run and makes the likelihood of a closer political union less likely.

There are still many in Europe that would like to see the EU develop into a single unified political entity that would be able to have sufficient political and economic clout to act as a counter point to the US. This constant enlargement weakens the political aspects of the Union by making it more ineffectual; even if it’s economic effects are positive.

I would like to see a powerful unified EU, but I think that now is probably the best time to get all these countries into the union before the political union has progressed too far. Enlargement after political union has moved far along the line will be an even messier affair. In the meantime you get a larger common market, which will in the end make for a stronger EU.
And if you’re not a fan of ‘ever closer political union’ then the enlargements are exactly what you’d want :)

The Human Rights Argument
No real argument here. For Turkey to join its laws will have to be brought in line with a host of European Directives and Conventions covering human rights, discrimination etc. If dangling the EU membership carrot gets Turkey to seriously come up to European standards on human rights etc, then that alone would be a convincing argument in favour of talks.

It will also once and for all force a resolution to the Cyprus issue.

Also a secular democratic Muslim country with EU-strength human rights protections will do more for democracy and human rights in the Middle East than just about anything I can think of. (Other than supporting and propping up those corrupt governments in the first place of course! )

The Racist/Ethnocentric Argument
This basically goes along the lines of: They’re different!
An EU including Turkey will see the proportion of Muslims in the Union jump from 3% to 22%. This scares many people.

The people worrying that this will cause a rise in extremism etc should remember that Turks are by and large secular, and probably have more in common socially with Christian Europeans than with the mainly Arab Muslims in the union now. Germany’s large Turkish population is also somewhat more religiously conservative than the average urban Turk.

Europe also has to be careful about ostracising the Muslims in its midst. This will only drive youngsters with no economic prospects, facing racism etc right towards fundamentalists which will only exacerbate the problem. It’s a viscous feedback loop.

Those that have objections because they want to keep the EU as a ‘Christian Only club’ should bloody grow up. Such arguments have no place in a pluralistic democratic secular society.

This has turned into a much longer post than I intended, and I’ve only just touched on the major arguments. It’s a complex issue with no clear answers, though ultimately I think that the benefits to the Union of Turkish membership outweigh the difficulties. I think starting the talks is the rights decision.

miloblithe

Dec 20, 2004, 09:23 AM

Overall, I think the EU is looking to add as many countries as makes sense and it reaches its natural conclusion, but wherever that might be is debateble. Some argue it's reached a good size already. Others probably want to see the rest of "western" Europe join. Others probably want to complete most of the Europe map going east (but how far east does Europe go? Gerogia? Kazakhstan? Russia?). Some think 50 sounds about like an ideal number. Some go much further, arguing that inlcuding the Mediteranean countries makes a great deal of economic sense if it is to be primarily a trade union.

The overall strategy of the EU depends on who's influence is greatest. The UK, for example, has tended to want the EU to be a trade union, and that's it. They would push for expansion in the number of countries in the hopes that it would lead to _less_ 'deepending' of the EU. Some others want to concentrate on deepening and leave off expansion. Still others want both.

However, many analysts of the EU believe that, contrary to the logic above, expansion has led to deepening. Each round of expansion was preceded (and followed) by new rounds of negotiation expanding the EU's powers and deepending the treaty. We're now talking about an EU Constitution that's followed on the heels of the latest round of expansion of 10 CEECs. The EU has taken over Balkan peacekeeping duties from NATO. It's developing its Rapid Reaction Force. And against this backdrop of increasing its military potential it negotiated a diplomatic deal with Iran on nonproliferation (that may have been entirely ineffective, but we'll see). In other words, In this last year or so, the EU grew from 15 to 25 countries AND emerged as a growing international player--and not just in trade agreements where it has been an international heavyweight for a while.

If the Constitution is ratified (a bit of a challenge with 25 member states and unanimity required, in theory), the euro zone expands, three more countries are added in the short term (Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia), the European army becomes more of a reality, and so on, the EU will emerge as a second pole in global affairs within a decade or two. By that time, we will probably be living in a multipolar world again (with more than two poles).

Thanatoast

Dec 20, 2004, 09:35 AM

takao

Dec 20, 2004, 09:42 AM

pretty much every political party is split through their lines (well except the ultra right wing ones ;) )

i'm already wondering how they gonna change the public attitude here in austria (which is rather negativ towards a turkey eu-membership)

personally i think turkey has still a lot more work to do
for example: 32% of all the people work in the agrarical sector compared to the 5% of the EU-25

Desertrat

Dec 20, 2004, 03:40 PM

Ugg

Dec 20, 2004, 04:30 PM

How is the EU looking on Russia and it's increasing level of dictatorialism? Are talking heads speaking on the issue, or are other things dominating right now? Or does anyone even think it will be a problem?

I get the impression that it is part of the reason for the big push to sign up new members before they are lured eastward by Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, all come to mind. The recent problems in the Ukraine clearly show this.

I think the EU is taking on more than it can reasonably handle but at the same time if they don't admit these marginalized European states, they'll only become breeding grounds for extremists.

Even though ten new members recently joined only Poland has a significant population, the Czech and SLovak republics are mid-sized as is Hungary. Slovenia, Malta, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and ? are all pretty tiny states and for these smaller states it is truly safer for them to be a part of the EU than not. In the case of Czech Rep., Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia, it was imperative that all join at the same time to avoid any Austro-Hungarian/Habsburg bickering. I think the same is true for Romania and Bulgaria. A crucial test will be the Balkans.

However, Turkey is unique with its ties to the Arab and Muslim world and is a highly polarized country with the majority of the wealth and industry in the western part. I read recently that if western or if I may, European Turkey were admitted on its own, its GDP would be on a par with Greece. The religious extremists are mostly in the east as well. Turkey has done a great deal in the past few years to bring its laws in line with EU expectations but it still has a long way to go. I really think it is better that Turkey join and provide a physcholocial buffer not only between the ME and the EU but also between Muslims within the EU and the EU itself.

I honestly can't see the EU expanding into Africa or going further east or South than Turkey. Turkey is manageable given its secular government but at the moment the other ME states and all the -stans are too embroiled in their own identity problems to provide anything other than a ball and chain to the EU. The potential flood of unskilled workers from those countries sends a chill down the spines of many Europeans.

Desertrat

Dec 20, 2004, 04:36 PM

"The potential flood of unskilled workers from those countries sends a chill down the spines of many Europeans."

Sounds like a familiar problem, doesn't it?

'Rat

miloblithe

Dec 20, 2004, 05:14 PM

miloblithe

Dec 20, 2004, 05:53 PM

Man. I didn't realize this. With the exchange rate where it is, the EU25 has a larger economy than the US when measured in one or the other currencies. In 2003:

EU25: 9752242.2 million euro
US: 9727722.8 million euro

2004 estimates:

EU25: 10200489.0 million euro
US: 9606388.5 million euro

2002 exports in millions of euro
EU15 1632.9
US 1312.6

2002 imports
EU15 1569.9
US 1821.1

Holy balance of payments Batman!

http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/newcronos/reference/display.do?screen=detailref&language=en&product=EU_economy_finance&root=EU_economy_finance/economy/main/overview/yearlies/da/daa/daa10000

http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/newcronos/reference/display.do?screen=detailref&language=en&product=EU_economy_finance&root=EU_economy_finance/economy/main/overview/yearlies/dc/dca/dca10000

Hoef

Dec 20, 2004, 06:06 PM

With all these countries being added, isn't time that Brussels becomes less bureaucratic? I am sure they will be adding another couple of languages to the 10 already spoken at their meetings. DC must be a well oiled machine compared to EU parlement.... Maybe the French and the Germans can be convinced for an all English EU :cool:

Ugg

Dec 20, 2004, 06:13 PM

The problem that economists probably see but current EU members are reluctant to is that the EU needs Turkish immigrants (among others). The population of most EU countries is shrinking, so to support their older populations in the future they'll need immigrants, or, need to change the whole system. It may as well be Turks. They've been a significant community within Germany for half a century.

I agree North Africa is very unlikely, no matter what Morocco wants. I do think there may be an effort to make a free trade zone around the Med though, of some kind.

I agree that Turkey would be a great source for much needed warm, tax paying bodies. However, Germany amongst others, hasn't done a very good job at elevating the Turks beyond mere peon status. Admittedly, it isn't just the Germans who've created the problem but the Turks as well. I think there has been a shift during the last decade, Germany's overhaul of the immigration system is a sign of that but there is a lot of social reluctance to accept the sons of Mohammed as true Germans. The French, Dutch, and Italians aren't too welcoming either. I think many Europeans are reasonably afraid that their own cultures will be subsumed by those of the immigrants. It's an age old question without an easy answer.

It seems that Morocco is beginning to replace Spain as the fresh veg capitol of Europe and it seems it would only make sense for there to be a Mediterranean Free Trade Zone since it's happening anyway. I've read that Kenya has also become an important source of fruit and veg for the UK. If you don't try to elevate people's living standards at home they'll only go looking for a better life elsewhere.

Sounds like a familiar problem, doesn't it?

'Rat

yeah, it does! I'm sure you've had more first hand experience than I have but if you look at the progress of the EU over the last two decades, you'll notice that Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Greece have made phenomenal strides due to the infusion of EU money, ok, maybe Greece is lagging behind the others. Turkey already has fairly high standards of education and with substantial infusions of cash over a period of ten years or so, it is very likely that the immigrants from Turkey could provide valuable labor to the rest of the EU.

The US however, isn't interested in helping our neighbors to the south outside of IMF loans for mega projects and ensuring a steady supply of oil. I think if the US and Canada took similar approach to all points south that the EU has towards its less wealthy members, we would see a huge decrease in immigration northward. But, maybe that's the whole point, cheap labor. I'm not so sure that the US is interested in stopping immigration as much as it is in slowing it down to a manageable level. It would be interesting to see just how much of our GDP is directly attributable to these illegal but necessary immigrants.

Ugg

Dec 20, 2004, 06:16 PM

takao

Dec 21, 2004, 07:54 AM

"32% of all the people work in the agrarical sector compared to the 5% of the EU-25"

Whether this is good or bad depends on the degree of providing non-farm work. That is, if Turkey's economy gorws, farming will likely become more mechanized. That pushes people toward the cities, looking for work. If no work is available from Turkish manufacturing, they'll emigrate.

For comparison, the US went from 50% on-farm in 1900 to around 25% by the Great Depression. Now, it's under 3%.

'Rat

exactly that was my point ... none of the countries who joined recently had over 10% in the agrar-sector (poland had 9.something...austria is below 2%)

i hope that turkey will sort everything out first...

and for the countries who have taken money for decades (yes italy i'm looking at you) now it's time for you to start paying like the others ....

miloblithe

Dec 21, 2004, 08:02 AM

and for the countries who have taken money for decades (yes italy i'm looking at you) now it's time for you to start paying like the others ....

I thought that Italy and other wealthy nations may still qualify for structural funds for their poorest regions, like in Sicily and whatnot. But I wouldn't be too surprised if they didn't.

Germans must feel like Blue states people in the US, subsidizing those poorer regions...

takao

Dec 21, 2004, 08:47 AM

I thought that Italy and other wealthy nations may still qualify for structural funds for their poorest regions, like in Sicily and whatnot. But I wouldn't be too surprised if they didn't.

yeah since decades...but we all know who filled his pockets in italy with the money ...his name starts with "B" ;)

i find it rather ironically that slovenia will be a 'payer' in the next 5 years (and perhaps even the chez republic) and are already in better economical position as greece,portugal or southern italy....

Desertrat

Dec 21, 2004, 08:47 AM

Totally off thread:

"Germans must feel like Blue states people in the US, subsidizing those poorer regions..."

I thought that folks in blue states were supposed to be too stoopid to vote for Kerry over Bush. That's what was written after the election, right? If we're that stoopid, how is it we're the ones getting the money? Generally, money flows from dumbos to smart folks.

I'd like to buy me some arrogant city folks for what they know, and sell'em for what they think they know. I'd make a killing!

:D:D:D

'Rat

takao

Dec 21, 2004, 08:51 AM

Man. I didn't realize this. With the exchange rate where it is, the EU25 has a larger economy than the US when measured in one or the other currencies.

and with it's ~155 million more people at the moment with most of them being in emerging markets it will stay this for a long time ;)

miloblithe

Dec 21, 2004, 09:40 AM

I thought that folks in blue states were supposed to be too stoopid to vote for Kerry over Bush. That's what was written after the election, right? If we're that stoopid, how is it we're the ones getting the money? Generally, money flows from dumbos to smart folks.

I'd like to buy me some arrogant city folks for what they know, and sell'em for what they think they know. I'd make a killing!

'Rat

My brow has never been more furrowed in confusion. Um. Blue states did vote for Kerry over Bush. Red states are the ones getting the money because they are poor. Texas is an exception, and is a net contributor to the federal budget.

As for buying people, I thought the South accepted that we don't do that any more.

Back on topic. The US does seem to have higher growth rates than the EU at present. So the larger population is as much a sign of inefficiency as it is of potential.

mactastic

Dec 21, 2004, 10:53 AM

You know, after the election all of us liberals were warned not to continue to call red staters 'stoopid'. We were told that it 'was not the way to win votes'.

Yet now we hear the rhetoric that 'I thought that folks in blue states were supposed to be too stoopid to vote for Kerry over Bush'. Not a good way to try and be the gracious winners. And not a good way to engender gracious behaviour from the losing side.

And I'd like to buy me some smug country folk for what they thing their folksy wisdom is worth and sell them for what it is worth. Better ROI than California real estate over the last 5 years.

:D :D :D

Desertrat

Dec 21, 2004, 09:39 PM

Last time I saw numbers, the U.S. GDP was roughly $10 trillion. Japan, roughly $5 trillion. World total, about $32 trillion.

The US is the world's largest market, and its very size means that money troubles here have a harmful impact everywhere. Germany's exports are falling, for instance, and their government's hope is that their consumer spending will increase. Consumer spending hurts savings, of course, which puts them on the same downhill path the US has been following.

As the dollar falls, the EU exports less to the US because of Asian competition. However, other than China, some--not all--Asian countries export less to the US. If you get on the email subscriber list for http://www.Everbank.com and its "Daily Pfennig", you can keep track of the major players in world currencies.

mac, my apologies. I didn't realize you couldn't handle teasing...Or there's a double standard that it's okay to bash those states which Bush won, but wrong to say anything at all about the states Kerry won. Dangfino; you finger it out...

:), 'Rat

mactastic

Dec 22, 2004, 11:25 AM

Have I been bashing red states? I don't think so. No double standard on my part. Other people? Dunno, not in my control. I don't want to see anyone called stupid. It's not productive. You should probably expect a little reaction when you call someone stupid and arrogant in the same post though. Even with the little :D :D :D attached.

There is and was a legitimate question about the net contributions of red vs. blue states. I don't understand where stupid comes into play there, but apparently you do.

Besides, why be sensitive about it yourself? Liberals were just teasing when they called you guys stupid after the election. Couldn't you tell?
;)

takao

Dec 22, 2004, 05:07 PM

Germany's exports are falling, for instance, and their government's hope is that their consumer spending will increase. Consumer spending hurts savings, of course, which puts them on the same downhill path the US has been following.

hm there are no official 2004 numbers yet (at least i haven't found them)

what i've found
-0.3% exports
+3,5% imports
still exporting 10,4 billions more than importing

USA:
+0,8 % exports
+3,4% imports
but still importing 55 billions more than exporting

(Austria
+8,9% exports
+3,7% imports
exporting 340 millions more than importing ;) )

Sayhey

Dec 24, 2004, 03:49 AM

So much to which to respond!

I'm encourage by the decision to open discussions with Turkey for a number of reasons. First, I think it is a blow to the racists who view Turks as somewhat less than other Europeans. These folks will, of course, be loud and clear in their opposition to Turkish entry into the EU as some islamic takeover of Europe. Le Pen, Haidar, and the Northern League will lead the way, but others will be more subtle in their attacks on the idea of Turks as Europeans. The only way to take these folks on is to meet them head on. The decision to start the talks is a step in the right direction.

That is not to say there are not legitimate concerns about Turkey. For instance, I don't know how one accepts Turkey into the EU without first settling the issue of Turkish troops in Cyprus and their support for a puppet government in the northern part of that island nation. My take on this is that the pressure of impending membership maybe the only thing to get Turkey to move its troops out. Also, the record of human rights abuses is far too long and continuing for any EU member to accept. Again the pressure of meeting the membership requirements maybe the best incentive for change. Respect for the minority rights for Kurds in Turkey and and a rise in labor standards are also issues that will have to be dealt with before Turkey's entry. All of these are good arguments for the membership process to go forward.

As others have said, Turkey's move toward Europe is a great thing not only for Turkey or the EU, it is also a very important example of what can be possible in the Middle East. What can be possible when people are treated with respectful and peaceful policies.

As to EU prospects for enlargement, it largely depends on what happens with the new constitution. The adoption of the proposed constitution will go a long way to move Europe toward a much more tightly integrated society. Still a European society of nation states, but also one that becomes ever more unified in the norms of civil life. Right now the prospects for adoption of the constitution have improved somewhat with the endorsement of two parties, the French Socialist Party and the Danish Socialist People's Party, of the effort to ratify. Both nations will have referenda and the largest political parties are now lined up behind adoption. The biggest stumbling block looks to be the UK, with the Tories being one of the few political parties with a history of governance to come out against the constitution. Blair has called for a referendum in what looks to be one of the last and most closely watched votes to be scheduled in 2006. A lot can change in that time.

If we see a new constitution, then there will be quite a few new nations that may well be up for membership. Bulgaria and Romania are already scheduled for joining in 2007. Norway has just recently announce they plan to take up the subject again in the same year. Croatia is on its way, but must deal with the International Court around war criminals if they hope to join. Macedonia has pushed for membership and if they can deal with the question of their Albanian minorities they may well open discussion shortly. The Ukraine (under new leadership) and Georgia also look to be ripe for membership in the next decade. A surprise maybe the country of Montenegro, assuming it votes to secede from its federation with Serbia. Of course, Switzerland and Iceland, as well developed democratic nations with functioning market economies, could join almost as soon as they wish.

The European nations that look to be outside the possibility of membership, at least without huge changes, are Russia, Belarus, Serbia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Moldova, and Albania. The last three because they are basket cases in both their economic sphere and in their democratic norms. Armenia and Azerbaijan will not be even considered while their ongoing disputes take place. Belarus is ruled by a flat out dictatorial regime - without a revolution like we have seen in the Ukraine and Georgia there is no chance. There are so many reasons that Russian membership will not happen that it could take many posts to cover them. Suffice it to say, Russian membership would change the entire character of the EU and pose the greatest threat to the Franco-German leadership engine, which means they will not allow it to happen in the foreseeable future.

For me, I look to the EU as the most likely and best prospect to change the balance of power in the world away from a unipolar world. A world dominated by one superpower, even if I happen to live in that nation, is not a stable and democratic one. As an emerging player, the EU has some unique approaches it brings into international relations. The fact it is a voluntary organization that stresses democratic norms and high levels of respect for basic human rights is something that should make everyone look on it with sympathy. In some ways it is a very unique experiment in how nations can work together. My hope is it is an experiment that works.