|
By Prof. Andre Gerolymatos 2003-2004: The Critical Year for Turkey and the EU If 2002 will be remembered for anything by North Americans, it will be as the year that preceded the next war in the Persian Gulf, or possibly the next major terrorist attack or conversely as the year of trepidation that failed to deliver any of the above. On the other hand, few will remember or consider the dramatic events that unfolded in Copenhagen. In December 2002 in the Danish capital the European Union decided to add another ten countries, including Cyprus to its roster of member states. Will this event go down as one of those great turning points of history? One would almost have to be deaf, dumb and blind to miss it. Effectively, by 2004 the EU?s boundaries will encompass most of Western and Eastern Europe along with Scandinavia, part of the Balkans (essentially Greece) and, of course, it will also have an outpost on the edge of the Southeastern Mediterranean Cyprus. No wonder the Turks had a Maalox moment over the outcome of the Copenhagen accession talks. The Turkish regime, media as well as Turkey?s allies (the United States and Britain) pleaded begged, cajoled, threatened, feigned outrage as well as displayed other forms of temper tantrums unless Turkey would also be included along with the ten prospective EU members. It seemed to some Turkish analysts that Copenhagen was a sort of now or never situation for Turkey?s entry into the EU. The ten new member countries essentially outline a European boundary for the EU thus, in turn, posse the question of whether the EU should expand beyond its European borders and such a query naturally raises the specter of Turkey?s European credentials. If a case can be made for Turkey then why not Russia or the Ukraine or both certainly the last two have a greater if not equal claim to European identity. However, if Turkey, one of the largest Muslim countries, is not defined as European and is still admitted into the EU will this not open Pandora?s box and start an avalanche of prospective EU members including the more prosperous Middle East countries and emirates, some of the South American states and, perhaps, even Canada. Canadians believe, although the opposite is true, they have a great deal more in common with Europe than with America. Ultimately, where or at which geographical region should the EU aspire as its natural boundary? The other side of the debate is whether Turkey qualifies as being European. Certainly, the case cannot be made on the basis of geography the sliver of Turkish territory and small population on the European side of the Aegean is not enough to give Turkey a European claim. The Turks have to rely on history and the intangible stuff that defines one region from another. However, both are difficult. In historical terms, the Turks can claim that the Ottomans were the successors and inheritors of Byzantium. This would have been a magnificent historical and cultural mechanism to link Turkey with Europe. Unfortunately, successive regimes in Ankara have made a determined effort to distance themselves from any such lineage and linkage and at the very least they had made little effort to cultivate them. Turkish cultural and social policies have focused on the elimination of any trace of Byzantium, in other words Hellenism, in Turkey. Churches, monasteries, neo-classical houses and public buildings that represented the Greeks and hence Turkeys European heritage has been destroyed or simply allowed to decay. Even Saint Sophia, one of the greatest Churches and architectural monuments of the Greco-Roman period has languished as a museum relic rather than be permitted to function as a church. Why? The inescapable conclusion is that any reference to Hellenic civilization or Christianity is offensive to the Turkish state. Otherwise the Ecumenical Patriarchate would not need to secure an official permit in order to paint a wall or fix a church bell. These are trivial matters painting walls or repairing bells but it seems that the Turks take great joy in imposing small and large humiliations on what should have been part of their cultural heritage. How much stronger Turkey?s case would be for EU membership if they allowed Saint Sophia to function as a church once again, not to mention the boost in tourism as millions of Orthodox Christians would flock to Constantinople? The same impact would be felt if Turkey removed its occupation force from Cyprus and negotiated a rational compromise over the fate of the Turkish minority on the island. Instead, the Turkish approach to diplomacy is the act of a bully. Rather than release the great church from its captivity each new regime finds new and more demeaning regulations for the Orthodox Church. During the Copenhagen discussions the Turks were not at their ?European? best and they even resorted to threats such as abandoning Europe for an economic union with North America. One can only imagine the collective consternation in Washington, Ottawa and Mexico City at the prospect of Turkey sharing her poverty with North America. Perhaps, the Turk?s should follow the example of the Cypriot Republic, who membership prospects surpassed Turkish bullying and American nagging to such an extent that the Europeans were prepared to ignore Ankara?s childish approach to diplomacy and US lobbying and accept divided Cyprus into the EU. If the Turks aspire to European identity they should consider not occupying their neighbors, abolish torture as a police technique, permit the use of other languages, cultures, music, poetry in Turkey, downgrade the role of the military in political affairs and practice religious toleration. Turkey will have ample opportunity to display for Europe and the world at large to what extent it is willing to change and embrace not only the prosperity of the West but its legal, constitutional as well as its human rights values. The test will be on how Turkey will deal with Cyprus. Any attempts to bully, threaten, or create a military incident will automatically negate any hope of Turkey?s accession talks in 2004.
Andre Gerolymatos holds the Hellenic Studies Chair at Simon Fraser University and is the author of The Balkan Wars: Conquest, Revolution from the Ottoman Era to the Twentieth Century, published by Basic Press. |
