 
## Why Turkey?

## Abdülhamit Bilici

Published by Zaman Kitap at Smashwords

Zaman Kitap, http://www.zamankitap.com/

Fevzi Cakmak Mah. Ahmet Taner Kışlalı Cad. No: 6 34194 Yenibosna / İstanbul

Tel:+90 (212) 454 1 454

Copyright © 2001, Zaman Kitap

ISBN: 978-605-5799-22-9

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the author, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review.

# Preface

We were having a hot debate about the enigmatic negotiation process with a European ambassador who was paying a visit to Zaman's headquarters in Istanbul. Though the ambassador drew attention to positive developments in recent years, he portrayed a rather gloomy picture on the whole. He said it was implausible to sue journalists or writers for their opinions in a country that has just started the long-waited and long-envied accession talks with the EU. His remarks were striking: "There is an atmosphere as if Turkey's eventual target is not full membership. The fact that it has started negotiations on October 3, 2005 is regarded as the realization of the target, whereas the most tedious stage has just begun."

Probably, we have just started to forget that before October 3, life in Turkey was locked on to the date of December 17, the very date Europe would decide whether to start accession talks with Turkey or not.

Starting two years earlier, we, as a nation, were obsessed with this magical date. From cafes to diplomatic circles, the topic of the 'day' was the same thing: We would either be the luckiest or the loser. And the "day" almost lasted for two years. The long-awaited day came at last and a conditional date was set for Turkey. European leaders would examine the Progress Report that was to be prepared by the Commission and the negotiations would start "without delay" if they were convinced Turkey had fulfilled the Copenhagen Criteria. Finally, as expected, EU leaders decided to start talks on October 3.

However, Turkey has faced a different treatment during the whole process. While the approval of candidate status has put an end to all relevant debates for the others, that was not the case for Turkey. The debate whether Turkey can be a full member did not end with the approval of its candidacy in 1999 in Helsinki, with the decision to start negotiations in 2002 in Copenhagen and even after setting the date to start negotiations in 2004 in Brussels. As a matter of fact, even at the meeting on October 3 that assumed to be a mere formality to kick-start the talks, certain members raised the so- called "privileged membership" option, namely Austria. The heated marathon discussions which lasted more that 36 hours would almost turn into a calamity with Turkey leaving the table and putting an end, at least temporarily, its long march towards EU membership. Luckily, that did not happen!

Can we now conclude that the 'existential' debate about Turkey's possible membership is over? Won't we hear similar objections again? It is not easy to answer "yes". It seems that same debate will continue even until the completion of talks. It is going to be a wise man reaction to foresee similar discussions during the approval of Turkey's accession treaty at the members' national parliaments if ever Turkey can reach that stage. Turkey will certainly be one of the hottest topics in 2007 French presidential elections just as Turkey's possible EU membership was one of the wildly contested topics during the EU Constitution referendum back in May 2005.

For this very reason, the EU special report "Why Turkey?" which we prepared before December 17, with exclusive articles and interviews of prominent political leaders and intellectuals is still up to date. It was not intended to be "a Turkish propaganda for Turks." We did our best to present an objective debate on Turkey's prospects as a EU member.

The views of opponents and proponents of Turkish membership both in Turkey and in Europe were dealt in the same objective manner. Zaman's Brussels correspondent Selçuk Gültaşlı brought the idea of a special report and worked hard for its realization. Ali H. Aslan in the US, Ali İhsan Aydın in Paris and Salih Boztaş in Ankara were the regional coordinators of the project. Osman Turhan and Cem Kızıltuğ added color to the project with their original illustrations.

Exclusive articles were requested from all political group leaders in the European Parliament and from top EU figures such as the former enlargement commissioner and the current vice-president of the European Commission Günter Verheugen and High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union Javier Solana. We organized a debate with two European academics having opposing views on Turkey at the prestigious Catholic Leuven University in Belgium. Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstad gave an exclusive interview.

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, German former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer expressed their views in exclusive articles. The leader of the Christian Democrats Angela Merkel, who is German chancellor today, wrote an article defending her views on "privileged partnership." Interviews were held with Mehmet Altan who strongly supports the EU process and Durmuş Hocaoğlu who ardently opposes the membership. Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Hassan al-Banna (founder of Muslim Brothers movement in Egypt) reflected European Muslims' perspective and Morton Abramowitz, the former US ambassador to Turkey, expressed the US view. Cumali Önal, Zaman's reporter in Cairo got an article from former Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Mahir to represent Arab world's view on the topic. Malaysian intellectual Chandra Muzaffar reflected his views from his part of the world.

A prominent opinion leader Fethullah Gülen agreed that his views regarding the EU appear in the project with his own signature. Retired Vice Admiral Işık Biren handled the security dimension of the issue, while Elif Şafak contributed with her lucid literary style as a renowned novelist.

The end product was titled "Why Turkey?" and put on the desks of eminent figures in Turkey and around the globe before December 17. It was also communicated on-line to the whole world via Zaman's English Internet edition. The study was also translated into Turkish and published in Zaman.

This book in your hands was the idea of Zaman Kitap Publishing. "As there is no immediate end in sight to the EU debate, wouldn't it be appropriate to turn this special report into a book?" they asked. The book would be published bilingually, both in English and in Turkish. Thus the product would become more permanent and reach various circles, libraries in particular.

The most important development in the post- December 17 period was, of course, the start of the screening process as a preparation for the actual negotiations and the appointment of Turkish State Minister Ali Babacan as the chief negotiator. Mr. Babacan, kindly, accepted our request to participate in this project with an article both to evaluate the new process and to update the project. His article demonstrates how the current Turkish government sees the negotiation process.

I would like to thank everyone who has taken part in this project and hope it will be a modest contribution to understanding Turkey's EU process that constitutes the latest chapter in the long history of Turkish-European relations.

# Turkey, a Great Chance for Europe

Ali Babacan

The EU membership is a historical target and an opportunity for Turkey. But

Europe's benefit will be much bigger.

As of October 3, 2005, Turkey began its accession process with the European Union (EU) and thus a historic landmark was achieved to improve the standards in our country in every field.

The screening process that first began on October 20, 2005 with the chapter on Science and Research is continuing under the framework of the schedule and targets determined. In 35 chapters, the introductory and detailed screening process will be completed in October 2006. As these activities are in progress, negotiations will begin on chapters that have already been screened. The screening process will give a clear picture of both parties in terms of determining Turkey's position in relation to the Acquis Communitaire and in terms of learning about the EU acquis. After that, Turkey will adopt the whole EU acquis in this long and difficult process ahead of us.

This reform period that will be sustained in almost every field from agriculture to science, from education to transportation, from health to energy, will be one that will make Turkey change rapidly and considerably, catch up with the EU standards and embrace a different and higher standard of living than that of today.

With this goal, the accession process stands before Turkey as a historic opportunity and we, as the government, are exerting efforts to benefit the best from it. We are working diligently, sincerely, and decisively not to cause any interruption in this opportunity that our country has obtained after long years of hardship and not to cause any disappointment in Turkey. For each chapter, we have built a flexible structure in which all the related parties will be able to display their efforts, accumulations, ideas and know-hows. We have provided an environment to include not only public institutions and organizations, but also non-governmental civil organizations, academics; in short, every social group and every single person who has something to say about the subject matter. From this perspective, in the chapters we have been working on so far, we have witnessed an achievement of coordination and adaptation that Turkey has never seen before. All the related parties delve right into the subject, bring forward joint projects and reflect Turkey's excitement in the most beautiful way, both in Ankara and in Brussels. The accession process has shown us the degree of synergy Turkey is able to produce when a certain target is set, and when it is motivated.

Undoubtedly, EU membership is a historical target and opportunity for Turkey. In the process, there are very important benefits Turkey will gain. However, when Turkey's EU accession is viewed from Europe, it can be seen that Europe's benefit from the membership will be much bigger.

Turkey which strongly advocates the thesis of the alliance of civilizations against the "clash of civilizations" has pivotal qualities for the West to understand the East better and vice versa. With its dynamic and young population, geostrategical location; historical, cultural and religious opulence, Turkey adds richness to Europe. Turkey has historical, cultural and religious ties with the Balkans, Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East and with vast parts of Asia and Africa. At the same time, for centuries Turkey geographically located in Europe and has been in a perennial dialogue with Europe. With these qualities, Turkey knows both the East and the West very well and possesses a peerless position to help both parties to meet at a common point and to understand each other in a healthy way.

In an environment, where the clash of civilization is fomented at every given opportunity, in which pretexts are generated for conflicts and wars, and in which terror is transformed into a global threat, the West needs Turkey and her experience to fill this enormous gap. Turkey's EU membership will be a monumental contribution in forming a conciliation ground. An EU that includes Turkey will be a historic step to generate peace and calm, establish dialogue, understand the East, both inside and outside of Europe, better. Hence, the EU realized this opportunity and initiated the accession process on October 3, 2005 after Turkey's fulfilment of the political criteria.

Naturally, Turkey will make strong contributions to the economy, labor force, security and politics of Europe. However, the Turkey's main role will be to acquire the commonsense to govern in the alliance/clash of civilizations dilemma that has morphed into the most important problem of the world today.

Turkey's EU accession process is progressing successfully. In line with the historic reforms Turkey has recently accomplished in her economy, domestic and foreign policies, she is also going through a period full of determination, sincerity, dynamism and excitement in the EU process. Our country is advancing to a multidimensional reform process that has never seen before.

Turkey reveals her potential to turn into a global power with her economy, national and international policies and exerts tremendeous efforts to meet years of longings of her people. Engaged in this goal, the EU accession process has taken Turkey into a new track. We are yearning for a Turkey that will be more powerful, more democratic, more developed and more peaceful for our children, and we are struggling to achieve this goal. Despite being a long and formidable road, we are certain that it will end in success.

# 'Made in Turkey, Born in Belgium'

Selçuk Gültaşlı

Emir Kır's mother was pregnant when they hit the road for Belgium. He is now a minister in the Belgium Federal Government.

This sentence is the motto of the first minister of Turkish origin in the Western Hemisphere. His life is so exemplary of Turkey's long journey towards the EU that by shedding light on the details of his life, he gives a good insight into Turkey's march towards EU membership. In his words, he was "made in Turkey, born in Belgium." Following the same logic, it might be better to depict the situation as, "patented in Turkey, assembled in Belgium." Yes, I am talking about Emir Kır, the Belgian environment minister. At the age of 36, the son of a miner, he is already a model, not only for the Euroturks but also for immigrant societies throughout Europe. He has made his personal journey a huge success that is envied all over Europe, and now is eager to see his native country repeat him by full membership.

I am a bit puzzled when he says he was "made in Turkey, born in Belgium." With his charming smile, he goes on: His mother was pregnant when they hit the road for Belgium and he was later born in Belgium. Excellently assembled in Belgium, he is now a minister in Brussels, fatefully so because the EU will eventually decide to start accession talks with Turkey on December 17, and will convene at Schuman Square, one of the most important squares in the world, which Kır is now responsible for its well-being and cleanliness. He is an epitome of success to be envied not only for his political career but also for his private life. Married to an Italian he describes as "the best thing that ever happened to him" in his entire life, he has already shown in a nutshell that bridging the cultural gap is perfectly possible.

Having returned from a meeting with Roland Koch, the premier of Germany's Hessen state, where they exchanged views on Turkey's possible membership, Kır in his modest office, starts to talk about his father and his ardous journey into the western tip of Europe. "My father had sold some land to be able to start his trip. One of the first things he did was to buy a suit for himself, in order not to embarrass his country in Europe. There is a story he keeps telling us, that is of particular importance to him. He and his two friends, when they embarked on their journey, carried some food along with them. They finished all they had by the time they arrived in Italy. Because they could not speak any other language except Turkish, they could neither buy food nor ask for help. An Italian lady, apparently appalled by their plight brought them fried chicken. He still claims that the "chicken was the best food he had ever eaten," talking between the lines that this was almost a sign of his own destiny, because he married an Italian lady years later.

Even though he is a socialist, he has always endeavored to be a good Muslim. He still very vividly recalls his teacher, Ibrahim Hoca from Skopje, as a very devout Muslim who taught them the real meaning of Islam. "Most people do not know, but I have read the Koran three times from the beginning to the end, and in Arabic," says Kır, in a bid to underline the fact that being a socialist does not necessarily mean rejecting religion. As every Turk studying and even as a kid of every immigrant family in Belgium, his big dream was to return to Turkey with a university degree to salvage his native country and to make it as prosperous as Belgium. " We were all the same. I had a very good Greek friend, Aristidis Palavidis, who I still communicate with. We often talked about returning to our native countries as engineers and present remedies," recalls Kır. Then all of a sudden, he changes his mind and anchors himself to Belgium. His answer to the question, "What happened?" was simple, straightforward and meaningful: "I met my future wife." So, he is not unfamiliar with the famous Copenhagen Criteria. He put forward a set of conditions for the marriage, slightly different from the Copenhagen rules. "I did not ask my wife to change her religion. I respect her religion very much. She occasionally goes to church and we celebrate her religious days.together. One thing I insisted on was that the kids should be raised in a Turkish-Muslim culture. She accepted that with great maturity," Kır says. Thus, his marriage is a monumental success for integration. He hopes the same for Turkey's future integration into the Club.

He is careful in underlining that he is a Belgian minister and not a Turkish official, nevertheless he is very well-informed about Turkey's long journey towards the EU. Echoing the velvet revolutions in Eastern Europe, Kır characterizes the impressive Turkish reforms in the last several years as a "silent revolution which is of paramount importance not only for Turks but also for all Muslims." Extremely angry about the privileged partnership proposal, Kır aptly argues that Turkey already enjoys a special relationship with the EU, precisely putting forward every single step taken between Ankara and Brussels since July 31, 1959, the date the late Prime Minister Adnan Menderes applied to the then-European Economic Community. Accusing some European leaders of having selective memories, Kır asks, "Will the EU be a Christian chapel by excluding Turkey or a Union of different cultures?" He does not even want to think about the possibility of another alternative short of full membership and steadfastly says: "EU will commit a mistake of historic proportions if decides to say "no" to Turkey. Then the EU will be doing exactly the same thing U. S. President George W. Bush is now doing, that is, spearheading the cause of the clash of civilizations. The EU will not follow the footsteps of Bush!"

# Islam and 'the West' are not two separate entities

Jack Straw

Strategic position gives Turkey a crucial role in spreading stability in the region. But there is a wider reason why EU should say 'yes'

The European Union's leaders have a hugely important decision to take this week: opening membership talks with Turkey. Britain's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, will argue that we should start those negotiations now, in line with the recommendation of the European Commission. Turkey has a European vocation and has made impressive progress with an ambitious programme of reforms. And the whole of the European Union would benefit greatly from including such a vibrant and important new partner. Turkey has been part of the Western Alliance for decades, and has long-established secular and democratic traditions. As in other countries, the prospect of EU membership has acted in Turkey to entrench those values. And Prime Minister Erdogan's ambitious and impressive programme of reforms has further accelerated that process. Turkey is now ready to start negotiations for EU membership. It is time for the EU to say yes to Turkey.

We all have a great deal to gain from Turkish membership of the European Union. Turkey will join the world's largest common market and an organization with powerful influence in the world. Turkey's strategic position, between the Middle East, Central Asia and the Balkans, give it a crucial role in spreading stability in the region. Half of Turkey's trade is with the EU, and membership would increase that further. And Turkey's dynamic economic growth is a valuable asset to the whole of Europe. But there is a wider reason too why the EU should say yes to Turkey this week. We are told by some that the so-called secular "West" is doomed to clash with countries of majority Islamic faith. In its most extreme form, that view is promoted by the fanatics and terrorists who thrive on hatred, and strike at every symbol of tolerance and understanding. Turkey and Britain both know what it is to be the target of terrorists. We share a resolve to defeat them - made only stronger by the despicable attacks on nationals of both our countries in Istanbul last November.

And we reject completely the view that Islam is doomed to clash with the so-called "West".

For a start, the two are not separate entities. The Turkish city of Istanbul was for centuries a centre of Christendom, and retains a rich Christian (and Jewish) heritage today. St Paul's letter to the church at Ephesus is part of the Christian Bible. And the Islamic faith continues to shape Europe as it has for hundreds of years. Islamic civilisation kept alive the knowledge of the Ancients through Europe's Dark Ages. Across southern Europe, the heritage of those European Muslims is alive in architecture, music and language; and European Muslims have long lived in the Balkans. Today several European countries, including Britain, count over a million Muslim citizens each - and I am proud to represent 25,000 Muslims from my own parliamentary constituency of Blackburn in the north-west of England, alongside people of other faiths, or of none at all.

I reject too the idea that Islam is in some way incompatible with the values and principles espoused by the European Union and its member nations. The values of liberal, pluralist democracy and of human rights are not Western but universal. People everywhere, of all faith s, aspire to them; and they have taken root in Turkey as they have over almost all of the European continent. These values clash not with rival values in other regions or in other religions, but only with the hatred and violence espoused by extremists and terrorists. The EU, in the words of the new Constitution, is "united in diversity". Embracing Turkey would send a powerful signal of the EU's commitment to a diverse Europe founded on universal values. And nothing would deal a heavier blow to those who preach mistrust and division. An economically successful, democratic Turkey, anchored in Europe, could be an inspiration to many others in the Islamic world. Once membership negotiations are opened with Turkey, they will take time - as they have for other countries in the past. But the benefits will start well before Turkey joins the EU, as reforms are further consolidated and investors' attitudes change.

# The EU and Turkey need each other

Gunter Verheugen

Europe needs Turkey as a reliable partner to tackle international challenges; Turkey needs Europe to support its modernisation.

There have been several turning points already in the long and sometimes turbulent history of relations between the European Union and Turkey. But this time is not just a turning point. This time comes the moment of truth. On December 17, Heads of States and Governments will decide on whether to start accession negotiations with Turkey.

Right from the outset and the signature of the Ankara Agreement in 1963, our bilateral relations were based on a solid belief: both sides need each other. Europe needs Turkey as a reliable, stable and democratic partner to tackle the major international challenges; Turkey needs Europe to support its long lasting process of modernisation which started under the guidance of Kemal Atatürk 80 years ago. This strategic paradigm is reflected in the ever closer co-operation between Turkey and the EU. It has also been manifested in commitments made by the European Council. In Luxemburg in 1997 Turkey's eligibility to join the EU was confirmed, in Helsinki in 1999, the Heads of State and governments of the EU recognized Turkey as a candidate country, and in Copenhagen in 2002, they committed themselves to start negotiations if, by the end of 2004, Turkey fulfilled the political criteria - that is human rights, democracy, rule of law, protection of minorities. The Commission was invited to present the necessary assessment in this respect in a report and a recommendation - which it did on 6 October. In this years Regular Report the Commission examined the developments in Turkey over the past years. The report praised the impressive reforms undertaken. Death penalty has been abolished, the civil-military relations have approached EU standards and practices, broadcasting and teaching in Kurdish and minority languages is now allowed, a new Penal Code has been adopted - to quote some of the more relevant examples. Undoubtedly, there is a wind of change in Turkey !

However, there is still key legislation that must neter into force. This goes in particular for the Penal Code, but also for the Law on Intermediate Courts of Appeal, the new law on Associations or the Code on Criminal Procedure.

Besides, the report shows that the implementation of the reforms remains uneven and needs to be consolidated and broadened. This applies in particular to the zero tolerance policy in the fight against torture and ill-treatment, and the strengthening of freedom of expression, freedom of religion, women's rights, trade union's rights and minority rights. Nevertheless, one should not forget that reforms started only in the second half of 2001. It would be unfair to expect that such a wide-ranging process of change could reach all parts of the Turkish society within such a limited period of time. But it should be recognized that there is now in Turkey a comprehensive legislative framework in place for the protection of human rights and minorities, and it is being implemented. Therefore, taking into account this clear upward trend and the overall progress made so far, and provided that Turkey brings into force the outstanding legislation, the Commission on 6 October considered that Turkey sufficiently fulfils the political criteria and recommended that accession negotiations be opened.

Once negotiations have begun it will be crucial to ensure that the momentum of reforms in Turkey is pursued. This is first and foremost in the interest of Turkish citizens but would also be important for the achievement of Turkey's European prospects. The political criteria will be monitored all through the accession negotiation process - as was the case for the previous enlargements. Every year, progress will be evaluated in a report, which will be submitted to the European Council. The European Union always negotiated accession only with countries respecting the political criteria. Besides, the same requirement applies to the EU's own Member States: a member country that breaks the very principles on which the EU is founded, i.e. liberty, democracy, respect for human rights, and fundamental freedoms as well as the rule of law, can have its rights suspended upon decision by the other Member States. It is natural that a comparable instrument should apply to Turkey. Therefore, the Commission proposed that, if there is a serious and persistent breach by Turkey of the fundamental principles on which the EU is based, negotiations could be suspended.

Ensuring the sustainability of reforms is also the main concern behind the negotiation method proposed by the Commission. Progress in negotiations will depend on how Turkey will implement and enforce its obligations as future member of the Union. These obligations are enshrined in the so-called acquis communautaire, i.e. the whole set of EU policies and legislation. Again, as with previous enlargements, the principle remains that the pace of the process depends on the efforts and the merits of each candidate country. But let's be honest: each candidate also has its specificities. Turkey is not Slovenia or Malta. It is a vast country with many assets but also still many handicaps, especially economic. It is going through a major reform process that will obviously need time before it is fully reflected at all levels in the attitudes of the administration and the judiciary. In addition, an accession Treaty with Turkey will need the approval of the European Parliament, the national parliaments of all our Member States and the Turkish Grand National Assembly. To make long stories short: we will need patience and time to solve all the important issues that are part of the negotiations. But if indeed the Heads of State and governments of the European Union decide to start negotiations - and I'm quite confident they will - the EU will act in good faith, with one single objective in mind : integrating Turkey into the EU as a full member with equal rights and equal duties, thus making another great step forward towards accomplishing its ideal of ensuring peace, stability, democracy and prosperity on the European continent.

# The European rendezvous of Turkey

Javier Solana

There are some very clear-cut benefits for the European Union's security stemming from a possible Turkish accession.

The forthcoming European Council (December, 16-17 ) will constitute a defining moment in the long EU-Turkey relationship. A historic decision will be taken with regard to the issue of starting accession talks with your country. EU heads of state and government will take their decision based on the recent report of the European Commission, who was responsible for assessing the Turkish preparedness for the big challenge of joining the European family. The report is balanced and mainly positive, underlining all the considerable progress made by Turkey in the most recent past. It responds to some of those in Europe who still have doubts about the possibility of starting with early negotiations.

We are all aware that a possible accession of Turkey is still a long way to go \- even if the launch of negotiations is agreed in December. How long these talks will last is hard to tell. Turkey must make important efforts and should meet all the criteria, in order to be ready to join the EU. If Turkey wants to assume its full place in Europe, then, like all other candidates before it, Turkey itself must chart the course that will get it there. This will be a great challenge in every domain, be it political, economic or social. But the EU stands fully willing to support Turkey in all its efforts. We should never underestimate the extraordinary transformational power of Europe on the newcomers to the European family.

I would like to take the opportunity to focus here on the security aspect of our relationship. The world has changed a lot over the last years. There are many new challenges and we cannot afford to keep our eyes shut. There are some very clear-cut benefits for the European Union's security stemming from a possible Turkish accession. Firstly, the geopolitical dimension. Secondly, the military potential. Thirdly, addressing the new threats. Turkey is a crucial player in a region of great strategic importance to Europe. Turkey is at the junction of a critical zone for the security of the European Union, including the Balkans, the Caucasus, and the Middle East. Turkey has, in view of its history, its own interests and a set of specific relationships in the Middle East and in Central Asia. A Turkish EU membership would offer a stabilizing effect to the entire region. It would also strengthen the projection and reach of the EU in this part of the world. The future of Europe is indeed intrinsically linked to that of its defence. And obviously, Turkey has the clear potential to make a substantial contribution to the European Security and Defence Policy. Turkey is already doing this today in the Balkans through its participation in EU crisis management operations. This proven track record of cooperation will only be reinforced through membership.

Addressing the new threats of the 21st century, such as terrorism, drugs trafficking, illegal migration is very high on the EU's security agenda. Policies in all of these fields can be effective only if they are based on a coordinated response. Turkey, as a possible future member, will be able to deepen its cooperation and offer its steadfast support to the EU in meeting these challenges. In the run-up to the European Council, convincing those who are slightly sceptical today about Turkey's prospects should rely on a hard-nosed approach. Perhaps the best way to address their concerns would be to ask the simple question: Would the EU be better off with Turkey left outside? What would happen if the European integration process of Turkey is derailed due to a negative answer ? I am confident about our rendezvous in December. I firmly believe that our relationship with Turkey is on the right track. And I see a very clear need for keeping the momentum for reform across the board.

# Muslim identity of Turks did not prevent them interacting with the West

Abdullah Gül

Turkish membership will be a proof of EU's capacity to generate harmony by extending European space on the basis of shared values.

Now that the European Commission has declared its favorable recommendation, there is every reason to expect the European Council, in line with its earlier commitment, to decide to open accession negotiations with Turkey "without delay" when it meets in Brussels on December 17.

Turkey has reached this point through a nation-wide effort which reflects the underlying philosophy of the Republic and the democratic aspirations of the Turkish people and their determination to reach the highest contemporary political, economic and social standards. The overwhelming public support that Turkey's reform process enjoys within Turkey is telling in this respect. The growth of civil society has been especially instrumental in expediting Turkey's reform process. This strong consensus is also important for the adoption and implementation of volumes of EU legislation - acquis communitaire - required for Turkey's eventual membership. Having invested so much in this process of integration with the EU, the Turkish people merely expect to be treated fairly and equally as was foreseen for all candidates.

As Turkey has advanced in its accession process to the EU in the past two years, the issue of Turkey's membership has received much international attention. The reasons are obvious: First, Turkey's geopolitical position has a direct bearing on the European Union's strategic vision and the international role it foresees for itself. Secondly, the comprehensive reform process taking place in Turkey which has been followed closely by foreign audiences and experts has a significance of its own. Turkey's performance regarding reforms has been impressive. The logical next step in Turkey-EU relations - opening of the accessions negotiations - will have positive reverberations in a wider geography.

As the December deadline approaches, hesitations, second thoughts, but also misrepresentations and even prejudices on the part of some have resurfaced. We have taken these seriously and tried to make our case as clear as possible.

It has to be said that Turkish membership presents a challenge to the EU due to Turkey's size. Turkey's relative economic weakness and large population are cited by some as disadvantages. Yet, the opposite argument has more clout. Economics and demography do not lend themselves to misrepresentation if properly analyzed. The potential of Turkey's vibrant economy, its entrepreneurial strength and the expected levels of growth are promising. The present positive trend in the economy and the economic reforms that complement the political reforms are positive signs. As for demographic trends, the Turkish population is expected to stabilize around 85 million by 2025, far from exceeding the 100 million as some would like the European public to believe. With the expected increase in foreign investments in Turkey following the start of accession negotiations, domestic demand for labor is likely to diminish the willingness of Turks migrating to Europe en masse in search of jobs. More importantly, given the worrying demographic trends in Europe (falling birth rates and even decreases in population in some cases) over the next few decades, the young population of Turkey can be viewed as an asset rather than a hypothetical liability for the EU, as mentioned by several independent reports and the impact assessment study conducted by the Commission.

The European Union has a strategic objective to extend its security and stability through building "consensus", as opposed to relying on coercion. Turkish membership will be a proof of EU's capacity to generate harmony by extending the European space of peace on the basis of common goals and shared values. In this respect, Turkey's membership will give substance to the European idea that diversity is richness and that unity in diversity is desirable.

I believe that, at a time when prophecies about a clash of civilizations can still make headlines, the European Union stands to gain much from Turkey's eventual membership. The Muslim identity of the Turkish population has not prevented it from interacting intensely with the West in general and Europe in particular, or from becoming an effective member of European institutions and organizations. Indeed, the successful conclusion of Turkey's accession process to the EU will represent the harmonization of a predominantly Muslim society with the people of Europe on the basis of common universal and democratic values. This will on the one hand facilitate the better integration of the millions of Muslims living in Europe within their host societies, and on the other hand, demonstrate to the Muslim world that Europe, by gathering around shared values, is serious about overcoming the prejudices that form time to time surface concerning Muslim societies. Turkey is working to establish a culture of reconciliation as the basic working ethic among countries in its region. This is evidenced by the positive trend that Turkey's relations with its neighbors reflect for the last decade and more so recently. As Turkey advances towards EU membership, the credibility and effectiveness of its voice calling for modernization and democratic reform in its region will increase. Turkey-EU relations have a contractual background going back 41 years. We have every reason to expect that, EU leaders will observe this contractual framework and act with foresight and political courage on 17 December. In fact, almost all EU leaders have expressed favourable views regarding the opening of negotiations. The visionary approach that European leaders are expected to deliver will have political, strategic, economic and cultural reverberations on Europe's perception of itself and on its relations with adjacent areas and beyond.

# Incompatibility of European and Islamic values is a delusion

Tariq Ramadan

Millions of European Muslim citizens prove that they know how to remain true to themselves while respecting democracy.

The debates that focus on Turkey's European Union (EU) membership reveal that there are multiple, profound and essential stakes. The distinctive feature of Turkey lies as well in the specific characteristics of this predominantly Muslim country as in the image and the questionings that this country sends back to the European continent as regards its cultural and religious identity.

Facing Turkey, Europeans are asking themselves: Who are we? What do we want to be? One can also notice that the discussions aroused by this membership take place on many levels, and that, unfortunately, one very often witnesses confusion between these levels and, in the long run, it becomes difficult to define the precise nature of the discussed question: the only impression left is that Turkey's EU membership is indeed problematic and this proves finally that "nobody" is really ready for it. The slogan that wins broad consensus is thus: "Let's wait!"

That one should wait and study the questions very closely, it is obvious; nevertheless, what is absolutely urgent today is to clearly distinguish different stakes, different questions roused by this membership and the different levels of analysis. To assert that it is necessary to wait without having clarified the problem's data - for instance, in the debates by switching imperceptibly and in a confused way from the question of the Islamic nature of Turkey to that of the respect of human rights - is a way to avoid the fundamental questions that Turkey as well as Europe are concerned about. Because of the limits imposed by such an article, one can only bring to the fore and define the main themes of the fundamental questions aroused by Turkey's EU membership. At the global level, three main themes emerge:

1. Is Turkey really part of the European continent?

2. Does the predominantly Islamic Turkish society really participate in the European identity?

3. Are fundamental human rights and the principles of democracy suitably respected?

Let's try to tackle them one by one.

Some intellectuals and European specialists endeavored to show that, "even geographically speaking," Turkey did not belong to Europe and that the "small intrusion" on this side of the Bosphorus was not enough to justify Turkey's EU membership, because Turkey was above all an Asian nation, and Europe, on the other hand, is bound to determine "boundaries." This view is unfounded and dangerous on many levels: Firstly, because it flouts historical and geographical facts which show and prove that Turkey, for so many centuries, has been linked with European reality, with its construction and its shape; secondly, this view is dangerous because by pretending to geographically delimit Europe, it attempts to conceal that the real issue is religious and cultural. Indeed one does not hear the same "geographic reserve" when talking about other countries like Russia for instance. It is thus a weak first argument which, actually, hides the central question of the Islamic nature of Turkey. This last question is crucial and one must tackle it head-on. More than a geographic reality, Europe thought, imagined and dreamed itself as a project whose cement of unity should first of all be cultural. By cultural, one should understand here, a certain idea of the common history and of the same philosophical and religious legacy ("Judeo-Christian"), resting on the same basis of inherited values from the Age of the Enlightenment and crystallized in the Declaration of Human Rights. It is a matter of Europe perceiving itself as a "European civilization" with its homogeneity, its inheritance and its values which all seem to show that Turkey is not part of it. One should be reminded here of three elements in a determined way. Firstly, it is absolutely erroneous to present the European legacy as being solely Judeo-Christian. Selective memory that took place in Europe is still implementing a self-perception based on serious falsehoods as regards the history of ideas and of philosophy. Muslim thinkers, jurists and philosophers have taken significant part in the construction of European conscience since the Middle Ages. To disqualify the Islamic contribution of this legacy is - unfortunately- very often nor just a simple omission nor gratuitous: in school books and in universities, students are invited to think themselves as Europeans referring to intellectual and philosophic bases that are selected and selective. This kind of approach ought to be revised and corrected.

It is all the more so since over the last decades, millions of men and women, who were Muslims from North Africa, from Turkey or Asia, came to Europe. They have settled and their children - the second, third, fourth even fifth generations - are henceforth Europeans. These populations, added to the millions of Muslims living in Eastern Europe, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Albania or elsewhere, confirm that Islam is clearly a European religion. It is scandalous today to hear intellectuals and members of the European Parliament claim that Europe is a "reality," a "club" of Christian nations. It was historically false and is all the more false in this day and age.

Millions of European citizens of Muslim denomination prove each day that they know how to remain true to themselves and, at the same time, they respect common values, democratic rules and human rights. The Islamic nature of Turkey is thus a doubly unfounded argument, but it is unfortunately the one which carries a lot of weight among politicians and European populations, who have not realized yet that Islam is already participating in Europe and that the issue of the compatibility of European and Islamic habits and values is a delusion. The European continent must become aware that it has changed and that new populations, with other memories, shape it: beyond the fears of the other, it should be perceived as an asset. As for the Turks, like all the Muslim Europeans, they should take these fears into account and show not only through discourse but also through an active partnership, that the idea of incompatibility of values and of ways of life is more fantasy than reality. The process will indeed be long, but this mutual educational work is essential.

What should remain, on our mind, is that the one and only criterion for Turkey's EU membership is certainly the respect of democratic and human rights inside the political and judicial system.On the one hand, geography and culture are non-problems that keep Europeans in a state of doubt as regards their own identity and the fear of the other, apparently never enough European, always too Muslim. On the other hand, it is a matter of firmly and clearly asking the question of the respect of democratic rights, the role of the army in the future Turkey, the separations of powers, the protection of the citizens' rights, the cessation of ill-treatment in prisons, of torture or political arrests: this is what is an objective parameter on which the opportunity of membership must be evaluated. There remains serious work to be done and fundamental reforms to be undertaken in Turkish society: not only Europe ought to demand them as such, but Turkish citizens should grasp the opportunity so that their country becomes more and more respectful of democratic pluralism, of public opinion, of the liberty of speech of political opponents, and of human rights.

This last question should not be perceived as being imposed on Turkey by Europe or as a blackmailed membership. It seems that things should be reversed: it is up to Turkish citizens to make this fight on their own by committing themselves to ask for more political transparency and perfection of the constitutional state, which would also be the proof of a predominantly Islamic society knowing how to implement an egalitarian and transparent law, to respect women's and men's rights, and to submit to the choices of public opinion, which freely expresses itself. That is what should give meaning to the fight of the Turks within their own society. With all the Europeans - and among whom the Europeans of Muslim denomination rank first - conscious of the importance of the stakes, the Turks have in the end this triple shared responsibility to remind and to prove that Europe is not a stifled and shrivelled geographical reality, that it cannot be a drained ideal of a falsely imagined "religious and cultural homogeneity," and that it cannot base the self-confidence of its identity on the opposition and the dangerous rejection of the "identity of the other." It is also a heaven-sent opportunity for Europe to reconcile itself to its ideals of pluralism, equality and constant renewal: Turkey is paradoxically its greatest chance.

# With Accession, Europe would know us beter

Fethullah Gülen

Some argued that the EU is a 'Christian Club'. I said that 'Let those who have suspicions about their religion and religiosity be concerned.'

Turkey has been in the European Union accession process since 1960's. At that time the name of the Union was "The Common Market"; later, its name and content changed. All Turkish governments have exerted efforts in the direction of EU membership within this process. Former Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit worked hard for this process, so did former president Turgut Ozal. Other leaders also made important contributions in this regard. These efforts should be praised regardless of the name. This is one side of the issue.

The other side is, I have an optimistic view that all the things that have been taking place in Turkey today are poitive for the future of the country. It seems that the Turkish nation is reclaiming its credibility in the region, and subconsciously, is one more time proclaiming what a great nation it is. This is crucially important. Turkey's ascending credibility is also considerably useful in her relations with Europe, the U.S. and China.

I have been in favor of EU membership for a long time. That is, even if some people said that it is a 'Christian Club', I replied "Let those who have suspicions about their religion and religiosity be concerned. I could be on familiar terms with Europe. Through membership I could better explain myself and my culture to them. Perhaps, they would be touched and would know us better."

However, if some have doubts about their own religiosity, they may have the fear that, "If we get involved in this, we will become Christians." I have never had that fear and from the very beginning said "yes" to the EU.

Since the Republican era, being in line with Europe and European standarts has been dream of generations. This dream, to a certain degree, seems to have come true and in my mind Turkey is on the right track. Many government leaders -- regardless of the parties they belonged to -- have supported this bid and have brought it to a certain point. Who knows, perhaps putting the final dot will rest with this civil initiative. They will wind it up and this job will be completed.

However, there are people in and outside of Turkey who are uneasy with the EU process. There are some who do not want Turkey's progress. There are those who do not want Turkey to have a rising credibility. Most of those who do not want Turkey to join the EU, are people that perturbed by democracy. There are those who are uncomfortable with other people's freedom of conscience and religion. While saying "freedom of conscience and religion," there are people who perceive it only as their own freedom. There are such fanatics and bigots. In my opinion, the EU is something that the Turkish people long for. I hope it comes true negotiations start soon. At a certain period, they will accept us as a member, hence, this issue will come to an end along with all the gossips surrounding it.

# What do Europe's future leaders think about

# Turkey's EU membership?

Ali İhsan Aydın

In the College of Europe, not surprisingly, the hottest topic was the relations between Turkey and the European Union.

If European leaders give green light to Turkey's membership talks, as recommended by the European Commission Report, at the December 17 summit, a new and challenging period will begin for Turkey, which has been waiting at Europe's door for half a century. Negotiations may last 10 to 15 years, a reality even admitted by Turkish authorities. Fifteen years! A period long enough for one to be unable to predict how the ever changing EU - and of course Turkey - will look like. As French President Jacques Chirac told Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan at the Berlin Summit on October 26, who knows who will be here and what will happen in 15 years' time. Most of today's familiar political actors of EU institutions and of the member states will probably be replaced by fresh faces. In order to discover what the next European generation thinks of Turkey's EU accession, ZAMAN went to the College of Europe, where one can meet the future actors of Europe. Students from European countries discussed the EU and Turkey's future in the EU. The College of Europe in Bruges, a typical medieval Belgian city, is one of the best places to study, to understand, and to literally live Europe. "Selected" graduate students from over 40 countries study Europe for 10 months with the best European academics. The average age is 25. Everyone speaks at least three or four languages. The courses are taught both in English and in French. Students who usually live in the same residence spend their whole time together. They eat, study, and have fun together, with the "esprit du Collège." The students, going beyond their national identities, melt in the "European pot." They have already started preparing for important missions. Twenty-five students from the College are "appointed" as commissioners in a-real-life situation at the European Council in Brussels. Everywhere it is Europe they talk about - in class, at dinner and even while partying! Not surprisingly, Turkey's entry to the EU is the hot topic. The discussions that we started at the lunch table of the College, easily continued in the cafes until late at night. Recently they organized a debate on Turkey's EU membership: the pros and the cons. The College, financed by the EU and the Belgium government, has a second campus in Warsaw. Estelle Baconnier, a French assistant in the European Politics department, said: "There is no reason to oppose Turkey's EU membership" and, the political and geographical arguments against Turkey's membership are "inconsistent" according to her. Dissecting the controversy over Turkey, she drew attention to the limit of the EU's capacity to integrate Turkey, when it has not even managed to digest the last enlargement yet. She underlined that "Turkey should not be rejected because it is a great country." And to those who claim that Turkey is an Islamic country, she noted the ignorance that exists about the Turkish society in Europe: "Turkey is one of Europe's most secular countries, even more laic than some old EU members." As for the attitudes of French politicians towards Turkey, Estelle Baconnier is deeply shocked: "Politicians take the public for fools. Politics in France is poor in quality." For Estelle, the real anxiety of the French is the idea that the influence of France on EU institutions may wane with Turkey's full membership. Estelle, a former student of the College, pointed out that she had been in international environments for many years now, and that she did not consider herself as "a typical French" anymore.

Antoine Kopp, whose father is German and mother French, on the other side, notes that saying Turkey "yes" or "no" depends on how a future EU is desired and adds: "If we want an economic union, 'yes,' but if it is going to be a political union, I have doubts about it." Many students in the College express the same opinion. Pointing out the difficulties of forming "the political Europe" even at the time when the EU had only 15 members, students argue that a political unity including Turkey as a member would be impossible. The British student, Quentine, in the same line with her country's leaders, believes that Turkey's membership would be a big achievement for the EU. Noting that plurality in the EU is an asset, Quentine finds an EU without Turkey an "incomplete Union." "We should not fear or have doubts to begin negotiations with Turkey after 40 years, " says Joost Van from the Netherlands, but he asserts that negotiations will not be "technical" as they are for the other candidate countries. The reason for it is that Turkey is not from the same group, he uses "us," to express those sharing the same values and history. "I cannot be clear about Turkey because I am not sure how European Turkey is," says Joost Van, shaking his head uncertainly, a gesture revealing how confused he is about this issue. Defending the idea that the Copenhagen Criteria are insufficient to persuade European public opinion, Joost Van, as one of the student-commissioners of the College, declares himself in favor of consulting the Europeans before a full membership.

It is interesting that a great number of the students who are not enthusiastic about Turkey's EU membership, root their arguments in cultural terms. So, the "European-ness of Turkey" is not measured on a political or economic scale, but first and foremost on a cultural one. Religious difference often lies beneath these arguments. Defining European identity with reference to values like "ancient Greece, Rome, Christianity and the Enlightenment culture," Peter from Hungary claims that Turkey is not European. "You may be right in your request for EU membership, but we do not have to be rational. We are emotional," explains Peter, pointing out the difficulty of Turkey's membership. An Italian girl, demanding to stay anonymous, argues that Turkey is "an Islamic Arab country" and rather "belongs to the East than the West." She enumerates the problems before Turkey's EU membership as "having a young democracy, the ongoing military interference in political life and the potential capacity of Turkey's entry changing the balance of power in the EU," but she stresses "cultural difference" as the most critical issue. On the other side, if there are some opposing Turkey's membership on "emotional" or religious grounds, there are also others supporting it "emotionally." Pierre, a 23-year-old French student, is one of them. He says, "I support Turkey's membership because I am a Christian," explaining that his belief teaches him to go beyond prejudice and to think about the "other." Pierre considers Turkey to be the victim of undying prejudice. Arguing that "defining the Turks as the 'other' of Europe and rejecting them because of that would be 'unfair and sad,'" Pierre invites European leaders to have the guts to go beyond temporary political interest, and even beyond public opinion if necessary, in order to do what's best for Europe. Among the 300 students of the College, there are only four students from Turkey. After graduating from the Bosphorous University, in Istanbul, and winning a Jean Monnet scholarship, Meri Izrail describes their situation in the College as, "we are in a strange trap: we walk around in the school as Mister and Miss Turkey." Indicating that they receive hundreds of questions about Turkey, Turkish students have decided to organize a conference with experts. Saying that their friends' questions focus on cultural matters, Serbulent Turan underlines the fact that "ignorance" prevails with regards to Turkey. Meri and Serbulent indicate that their friends ask them "interesting" questions like, "Is hand-cutting a punishment in your country?" "How is the climate in Kurdistan?" or "Are you Arab?" They expressed their surprise at the ignorance of such highly - educated "selected" students. Serbulent recounts how one day he was exasperated by the questions of a Greek friend's friends and finally burst out "Go and explain Turkey to these ignoramuses!"

Students at the College of Europe who are expected to be among the future actors of Europe seem to be very confused about Turkey. In fact, they are confused about the EU too. Their ignorance on Turkey - that is fed by prejudice - is negatively reflected in their points of view. Turks have been looking towards Europe for more than two centuries now. And although Turkey has been politically beside Europe for more than 50 years, Turks still represent "the other" in the West. It seems that one of the most important challenges for Turkey on its path towards the EU is its ability to change public opinion favorably. And also to prove its Europeanness culturally. In fact, the future of Turkey in the EU will depend on how the EU evolves and defines itself.

# Excluding Turkey on the Basis of Religion is a Contradiction

Mihail Vasiliadis

Excluding Turkey on religious grounds would be a downright contradiction and will serve only conservative tendencies.

The members of the Greek Orthodox community, as citizens of Turkey and active individuals in the social and economic life of the country, have always been closely concerned with the general developments in the country. The community has from the very beginning fervently and sincerely supported Turkey's Westernization efforts, including its application for membership in the "Common Market" - as it was then called - and today's policy of accession to the European Union. As a matter of fact, this support is evident in all the international contacts of Partriarch Bartholomeos as the spiritual leader of the entire Orthodox world. The belief that the European context will greatly enhance the relationship of the community with the Turkish society plays a great role in this support. Had the acquis communaitaire been valid and in application all along, the Greek community would definitely not have subsided; however, would have preserved its old dynamism and vitality. Unfortunately, this view only started to be upheld in the last years, especially under the present government. The efforts of the current Turkish government to abide by the Copenhagen Criteria, during the last two years, are indeed too intense to be overlooked. Those who view Turkey with circumspection and claim that its culture is very different, should consider that a most significant trait of the European culture is its openness, its ability to internalize and to exist side by side with various cultures. To exclude Turkey on such grounds would be a downright contradiction of that trait. Besides, not giving Turkey a date for the beginning of accession talks at this stage would mean hindering the reforms this country is trying to install and serving the conservative forces. Should things develop in this course, it would create problems not only for Turkey but also for the Middle East and the Caucasus, as well as Europe itself. Within this context, it is difficult for me however as a member of the Greek community to say that all our problems have been solved. Decisions made by the government and even laws passed by Parliament cannot easily be implemented, the bureaucratic hindrances seem insurmountable. Despite many promises, the Theological Seminary in Heybeliada is not yet reopened, teachers cannot be appointed to our schools, confiscated real estate belonging to our foundations are not being returned. Although it is known that there is a bill on this last issue awaiting a vote in Parliament, (a bill that would allow the return of the real estate confiscated by the state on the reasons that they did not appear in the notorious 1936 edict), the Treasury seems - alas - to be in an inconceivable hurry to dispose of the most valuable of these real estate. Most importantly, no one in the community believes that they will be allowed to proceed with its communal elections for the administration of its foundations, a requisite for it to reorganize in order to continue its existence. To wind up, the Greek community has an expectation, as it supports the accession of Turkey to the EU: It anticipates to be regarded in the same affirmative way Turkey wishes Europe to regard her.

# I Want the EU because it has been transforming us

Interview by Zafer Özcan

The EU is important due to its transforming role. If we had life standards like Norway, we would not have been running after EU.

Why do you support Turkey's EU membership?

My mentality is very distinct on this issue. Turkey has been ruled as an internal colony for 80 years; statesmen were significant, whereas individuals and citizens within the society are not considered important. There is a structure in which the rulers have always been regarded as very significant, and the ruled, like old vassals, have not been taken seriously. Therefore, we gained little prosperity and freedom, far below world standards. I, as a person, who is ruled cannot get my money's worth from the rulers, the state. As a citizen of the Turkish Republic, I want prosperity and freedom at world standards. I think I deserve this. Thus, I hope for the success of the EU's individual-based transformation project, and I will do anything possible.

Why does a majority of the Turkish society want to join the EU?

Our citizens believe that membership will help overcome problems and the unemployed will find jobs. It is believed that membership will improve quality of life. People are not pleased with their current situation even though they do not analyze the situation of the centruy very well. People see that EU citizens enjoy better standards.

What will Turkey gain with membership?

If we reach the level that is equal to current members, we will not need to be a member. Member ship will enable me, as someone who is ruled, to achieve prosperity, happiness and freedom. I will have a good quality of life, prosperity and freedom by European standards, equal to the Europeans. Turkey will attain a form of government that provides prosperity and freedom for its citizens. The EU is important because of its transforming role. It is important for Turkey to reach that level. If we had been living in Norway, we would already acquired those qualities and we would not have been running after EU membership. However, we consider that process important because we have poor quality and low standards. The main target is not immediate full membership, what is important is to undergo a transformation process by getting the EU's power behind us. The EU will be a catalyst for that. I, personally, am not a European fan. Because there is a global world around us. There is another era apart from Europe. There is a globalization dynamic. I think that the EU will contribute to Turkey's modern lifestyle. This change of power influences me a great deal. The EU is a mid-way stop in this process. I am a world citizen; I have no concerns about being European or Asian.

Will Turkey's membership only transform Turkey or will it also change the EU?

Globalization is a product exhibition of those who have goods. In the past, we neither ate kiwi nor sushi. Also the world neither ate white cheese nor kebab. We let them try our tastes and vice versa. I talk about the ability of putting many tastes on the same table. This is also valid for the EU process. Both parties will enrich one other. Turkey will present its own true tastes because Turkey has something to present. Turkey will bring rejuvenation, a different culture, values, and dynamism to the EU, which has many things to gain from us.

How do you evaluate the transfer of sovereignty within the EU process?

National sovereignty is a concept that should be re-examined. In Turkey, does sovereignty really belong to the nation? If it really belongs to the nation, why do we have many unlawful implementations and why is corruption rife? Why are we the champions in infant mortality rate and why has Greece overtaken us? Why is there injustice in income distribution? Why are there double standards in the judiciary? There is an order that the rulers cannot be controlled or judged; however, they live in much better conditions. Sovereignty is not worth a dime if there is no democracy. South Africa was sovereign during the apartheid era, but it would not even allow black citizens into white restaurants. Sovereignty becomes a tool used by the rulers unless it protects and supports the people, unless it works for their prosperity and freedom. In Turkey, sovereignty is a concept that belongs to the rulers. We live in a period where we should interpret sovereignty as transferring some power to the local authorities and some power to universal institutions. If there is no democracy, sovereignty may become a shield for the tyranny of a single party over an exploited society. In this sense, sovereignty is an empty word in Turkey. As a consequence, people should be the essence of the concepts such as dependence, independence, and national sovereignty. If the people are miserable, sovereignty loses its meaning. These are discourses of the past era. The Paris Convention authorizes intervention in countries that do not implement the universal principles of human rights. Now, nation-states cannot do whatever they like in their domestic affairs.

In your opinion, is there an alternative to the EU?

The EU has the most cumulative geography regarding relations with Turkey. I cannot see an alternative institution that will carry us to a new era. If our relations with EU do not continue properly, there will be major problems for both the EU and Turkey. The EU will temporarily lose its rejuvenation opportunity and that of a chance for a new pluralist structure. A handshake between the Muslim world and the West withdraws from the agenda. Serious tensions will erupt among the parties. Europe cannot transform its aging. Those who support isolationism and reject their people, wish to maintain the colonial mentality by clinging to slogans, and statist become stronger in Turkey. Turkey's function of being a bridge between East and West will diminish. A break might increase the suspicions of the Muslim world against the West and we will experience a provocative process, because the Muslim world is following Turkey's full membership process very closely and giving it much prominence. Turkey's full EU membership may bring about an East-West convergence. Islamic societies want to eliminate the colonial mentality and tyrannical administrations. Turkey's full membership is very significant for the Middle Eastern societies. They perceive that as an opportunity for their freedoms.

There are many in Turkey who believe that "whatever we do, the EU will not admit us."

I do not agree with this mentality. If they wouldn't accept us, why have they maintained relations in this manner? Turkey profited from the customs union agreement. Hence, Turkey had a law on competition. Whatever we do is for our benefit, not for the EU. We want the EU because we are badly ruled. It is to no avail that we are afraid of being democratized. Perhaps we may not access to the EU, nevertheless, we will be a country with world standards.

# EU membership means end of the Turkish State

Interview by Zafer Özcan

I would like to remind everyone that national sovereignty and independence of member states will gradually be abolished.

Why do you oppose EU membership?

Bearing in mind that starting a speech with classifications such as "supporter," "opponent" or "neutral" could be both repulsive and misleading, I, first of all, deem it necessary to clarify two points that make up the backbone of the issue. The first is to briefly analyze the true nature of the EU, and the other is, in the light of this analysis, to search for an answer to the question "end" or "continue" 1,000-year-old independent and sovereign existence, which began in this geography with the Seljuk and Ottoman Empires and continuing with the Republic. In this case, the question should be reduced to "where is it that we want to join?"

The EU's ideological foundations and archaic incubation period, could be dated back to final years of Rome, to Augustinus' "ideal of Christian Unity." This ideal that envisaged the entire Christian world being one and undivided, difficult to break apart, and aiming to turn European nations and states, that constitute Europe and share the same culture, civilization and religion into one unique European state, and hence, in the final phase, into one unique people/nation, homogenized as much as possible within the framework of the same "European" identity, is the most extensively political engineering project known in history so far. Kept alive by important thinkers for centuries, this ideal was fed by countless "European civil wars," in which European states attempted to conquer each other in the era of ferocious nationalism and nation-states. They emerged from the most bloody European civil war, the Second World War, as the only way of salvation, and finally turned into a concrete political project with the speech [Sir Winston] Churchill made at the opening of Zurich University in September 1946: Europe will either - whatever its official title is \- move towards a new and radical political and social organization in the shape of the American model, federal, "a kind of United States of Europe," or experience a mass collapse in cultural, economic and military terms. Here is the summary of the EU:

Building of a confederated or federal European state. The EU will either achieve this goal, or perhaps will dissolve and fade away with a very severe crisis. A middling solution is impossible. Within this framework, by attracting the attention of those states and societies, that want to become members, to the fact that the EU is not only an "economic union" or "alliance," but, in fact, a "union" that tends to absorb all member nation-states and turn them into one state, I would like to remind everyone of these naked facts: -National sovereignty and independence of member states will gradually be abolished.- To build a Big European State, which can be read as a "Second Rome, member states will be forcibly subjected to "fragmentation."

When these are bethought, I find it unnecessary to explain that the vote of a patriot, who loves his nation and state, believing that independence and sovereignty are "indispensable, cannot be handed over and cannot be shared," carrying the consciousness and liability of his history in his conscience, and hence, considering it even morally forbidden (haram) to envisage sacrificing an "independent, unique and sovereign" state under any circumstance and condition, on Turkey's EU membership should be: Turkey, go on forever!

How do you see that most Turks support the process?

However, surveys should be viewed cautiously, even if we accept these figures as true, a close examination of the surveys leads to a different result: Turkish people's knowledge of the EU, those with higher education, even if most in the academic circles are included, is at a tragic level of misery! Even an article on the subject, entitled, "L'imaginaire Européen de La Turquie," by Nicolas Monceau in Le Monde on October 5, 2004 indicates that while Turks want their country's membership in the EU, according to European barometer results, they do not know the EU and do not even have the minimum information about it. The article also presents some interesting figures:

Out of the approximately 71 percent of Turkish people who support EU membership, 76 percent have no information about the EU in general, and yet another example, 34 percent know nothing about EU institutions and symbols! Take note of the title of the article: "Turkey's Imaginary Europe." Besides, I think there are several reasons for this intensive interest: The media's extraordinary contribution, carrying out intense propaganda instead of providing sound information about the EU; "The cosmopolitation" created by the February 28 process among pious Muslims; The indignation felt towards the hard-to-break anti- sovereignty elites, detached from society and unable to reach agreement with their respective societies; A strong conviction of the people that the EU will shower them with cash and jobs, and a kind of desire to plunder the blessings they themselves did not produce, and of a civilization they themselves did not build.

From the opposite perspective, wouldn't Turkey affect the EU with its own values?

This is a question that deserves a broad critical answer, however, let me say briefly: Which values? Is it to make Europe Muslim by exporting Islam to the continent, as some of our naive Muslim brothers, who have become radical EU partisans all of a sudden, and are now dreaming with eyes wide open, even though, until recently, the reason of their existence was to be anti-West? There is no need for our brothers to be optimistic. Here, I will dwell on those two points as well: Europe has not been transformed by any foreign culture and civilization that has internalized within it and will never be. On the contrary, Europe has transformed them and will continue to do so. Secondly, Turkey and Turks will join the EU not as "one and undivided" Turkey and Turkish people," but in a fragmented and deflated state.

What do you think is the alternative to the EU? What kind of relations with the EU you propose?

That the EU is the only alternative and only way to prosperity is a highly shallow EU lobby propaganda. Turkey has all the capabilities to achieve prosperity: I would like to ask about my country's resources which have not been tapped so far (just one example: where in Europe does such a geography exist?) and besides, Japan and China have developed enormously in spite of not being within such an order like the EU. Yes, the EU is a reality; however, the most rational model of relationship is good neighborhood as an independent and sovereign state.

# Why Germany supports Turkey's EU perspective?

Joschka Fischer

The historic project of creating a new European order has to my mind three dimensions: Historical, pragmatic and strategic.

The German government welcomes the Recommendations and the Progress report prepared by the European Commission and released on October 6. We have made it very clear: On the basis of these recommendations, the German government will support a decision to open membership negotiations with Turkey at the crucial European Council meeting in December.

Germany and Turkey are linked by a unique relationship. We are close and traditional partners in politics, economics and cultural exchange. On top of this we have a large Turkish community in Germany - with integration being a key issue. This is why the debate about Turkey's EU perspective is more intense and complex in our country than in any other EU member state. This debate notwithstanding, there are in my view three fundamental reasons why it is in the political interest of EU member states, above all in Germany's interest, to support Turkey's accession process:

\- The membership perspective has acted as a catalyst for Turkey's far-reaching constitutional and legislative reform process.

\- Turkey is of strategic importance to Europe's security given the paradigm shift in world politics.

\- Turkey is an important economic partner for Germany with a lot of future potential once negotiations are started.

The EU perspective supports Turkey's reform policy

By resolutely pursuing its reform course, Turkey has moved towards the EU as a political community of shared values at a surprisingly rapid pace and to an extent that myself and many academics regarded as almost inconceivable not all that long ago.

Germany believes that these reform measures implemented in the hope of EU accession have strengthened Turkish democracy and the rule of law. Above all, there is more respect for human and minority rights. Given the close ties between German and Turkish society, this has a direct impact on Germany. Democracy, the rule of law and internal stability are valuable assets in a close partner and neighbour. We, the European Union and Turkey, have much to gain from the continuation of Turkey's transformation process. Turkey still has a long way to go, including a transformation of mentality. Therefore, the political momentum of the reform process should be supported and strengthened by advancing to the stage of negotiations.

Turkey and the EU's strategic dimension

Turkey has been a reliable security partner for more than 50 years. Given the end of the Cold War and the new global threats, its importance is even greater now than it was in past decades. Turkey is located at the crossroads between three crisis-prone regions: the Balkans, the southern Caucasus and the Middle East and at the crossroads of important energy, transportation and communication networks.

The historic project of creating a new European order has to my mind three dimensions: a historical dimension, a pragmatic dimension and finally a strategic dimension. This is the context in which we see the question of Turkey's possible accession to the EU. The reasons for Germany's strong backing for Turkey's pre-accession process are not least of a global strategic nature.

If the modernization process in Turkey is successful, Turkey's much-cited function as a bridge towards the Central Asian states and to the Middle East could become a reality. As a functioning democracy in a predominantly Muslim society, it could inspire neighbouring countries and thus increase the prospect of democratic reforms being implemented and fundamental values being followed there. This would be the best response to the new challenges we are facing. Europe is a power in the making. We as Europeans have to act as a unified continent with all its diversity of cultural backgrounds and common history. This should include Turkey.

A boom in German-Turkish economic relations

Germany is Turkey's most important trading partner by far and has been for many years now. Exports and mports are growing at remarkable speed, more than 25% in the first half of 2004. And there is a lot of potential for continued growth in both directions. The reasons behind the high level of activity of German companies in Turkey include, in addition to the large domestic market, Turkey's function as a gateway to countries in the Caucasus, Central Asia and the entire Middle East region. German industry and trade unions are therefore in favour of Turkey's accession to the EU. Over the last two years Turkey has experienced an economic recovery. Once accession negotiations are launched, its economy will thrive even more. Foreign direct investment will improve because of the necessary implementation of EU standards and the further consolidation of Turkey's political and economic stability.

Conclusion

Turkish reforms plus added security and prosperity are three compelling reasons for advancing on Turkey's path towards EU membership. The German government will do its share to ensure that the EU meets its obligations towards Turkey. As a friend we will also honestly tell our Turkish partners that they still have a long way to go before accession can materialize. But the goal is well-defined: we will start negotiations about Turkey's membership in the European Union and about nothing else.

# EU must say 'Yes' to Turkey

Graham Watson

By treating Turkey objectively EU can hit basic premise of fundamentalism: Islam is at a perpetual war with western democracy.

Islamic terrorism declared war on Europe not in Madrid's Atocha station but in the streets of Istanbul. When the bombs ripped through Istanbul's Beyoglu district last November, the 450 wounded and 30 killed were predominantly Turkish and predominantly Muslim. At least for the people who killed them, they were all Europeans. Beyoglu exemplified the dilemma of modern Turkey. While many in Europe continue to resist the idea of Turkey as a European state or a future member of the European Union, Islamic fundamentalism saw no distinction. In Beyoglu, it seems you can only be too European, or not European enough. Now Europe has a chance to resolve that dilemma. On October 6 the European Commission announced that Turkey has fulfilled the Copenhagen criteria for membership of the European Union. Turkey faces at least a decade of further reform, but its European vocation has been strongly affirmed. For four decades the European has told Turkey that if it could meet the criteria it would be offered membership talks. Now, it has. Now many in Europe have cold feet. Some of those cold feet may well be under the table when the European Council makes a decision on membership talks at its summit in December. There is an influential and ill-tempered argument building in Europe that says that as a predominantly Muslim country Turkey has no place in the European Union. In this characterization of Europe, Christian Europeans have been turning back the Turk from the gates of Vienna ever since 1683. Yet this is a desperately impoverished vision of modern European identity. Where in this conception are the millions of Europeans of Turkish descent? Where are the fifteen million Muslims who are already Europeans? Where are the countless millions who see modern European culture as resolutely indifferent to color and religious creed? Within the limits of geographical coherence, Europe is not a civilization so much as a community of values, and those values are laid down in the Copenhagen criteria. They are a measure of state secularism, political and civil freedoms; of respect for the rule of law and open economies, not a cultural catechism. There is nothing in them to preclude their being met by a predominantly Muslim state. When a predominantly Muslim state fully meets them, as Turkey shortly will, Europe can either defend its long standing claim to the universality of those values or retreat into less respectable arguments about the colour or creed of Europe's culture.

Ironically, if the rise of fundamentalist Islam is the reason why so many Europeans are now so suspicious of Turkish membership, it is also the single most important reason why Europe must say yes to Turkey. By treating Turkey's candidacy objectively Europe could challenge the central premise of militant Islamic fundamentalism: that Islam is at perpetual war with western democracy. With a single act of political foresight, Europe would make an enduring show of support for secular and democratic Islam. Turning Turkey away when it has done what Europe has asked it to do would serve as a clear signal throughout the Middle East - and to Europe's own Muslim populations \- that Europe sees Muslim democracy as second class democracy. For all of the European Union's fine words about avoiding a clash of civilizations, the European Union would act as if it sees the world in precisely those terms. Europe should welcome the prospect of a healthy Turkish democracy in the European Union. A viable and strong European democracy in the Eastern Mediterranean would extend Europe's influence in the region and strengthen Europe's crucial border with the Middle East and Central Asia by bringing it into the Union rather than leaving it outside. The prospect of European Membership has acted as a catalyst for Turkey's dramatic transition from authoritarianism to pluralism and democracy. European Union membership will help secure that decisive transition away from authoritarian rule, just as it did for the Portuguese the Spaniards and the Greeks in the 1980s. Turkey has a robust and resolutely secular democracy and an open market economy with the natural and human resources for sustained growth given stable conditions. The opening of membership talks would only strengthen the position of reformist Turkish governments like that of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The prospect of Turkish membership would also force the European Union to reform and strengthen its own lumbering institutions.

Europe's political commitment to Turkey cannot be revoked simply because this generation of European politicians would prefer to indulge the fear and suspicion of Islam rather than argue against it. Three quarters of Turks support Turkish membership of the EU, but two thirds of them believe that the European Union will never let it happen. For the Turkish, that is the hard lesson of Beyoglu: of being too European and not European enough. Turkey can and should expect better of the European Union.

# Why Priviliged Partnership with Turkey?

Hans-Gert Poettering

Considering incoherent EU position during the Iraq crisis, EU still need a very long time to assume such a global responsibility.

Few political questions have been debated both on European and national level as intensively and as passionately as the question of the accession of Turkey to the European Union. In fact it confronts the European Union with the question of its own identity and the discussion in the European Union therefore is as much about whether the European Union is ready for this challenge as whether Turkey is ready to join the Union. In the EPP-ED-Group, as well as in the other Groups of the European Parliament, there are different points of view as to whether the European Union can face this challenge or not and whether Turkey should join the European Union or not. During the coming weeks, we will discuss our position intensively in the context of a European Parliament report by Camiel Eurlings (EPP-ED) which will be voted in time before the European Summit on December 17.

The accession of Turkey to the European Union would be an enormous challenge for Turkey as much as for the European Union itself. In fact, when defining the "Copenhagen criteria" in 1993, the European Council also underlined the importance of the Union's capacity to absorb new members. This question therefore has also to be taken seriously into account when deciding on future membership of Turkey. There is no doubt that Turkey has made today progress with political and economic reforms, although problems still persist in particular with regard to the implementation of the political reforms, including human rights. Civil and human rights NGOs in Turkey continue to express their concern on this question. However, my main concern today is the impact Turkey's accession would have on the European Union and its cohesion. If Turkey joins the EU in 2015, it will have the same size in terms of population as Germany. By 2025 Turkey will be the biggest country in the Union. But since it is at the same time a comparatively poor country, full integration in all areas of EU policies would lead to huge budget transfers at least if there is no fundamental reform of the agricultural and structural policies of the European Union. With Turkey's accession and its borders being extended to Syria, Iran and Iraq in the Middle East, Armenia and Georgia in the Caucasus, the European Union will have to make the step from a mainly regional player to a potentially global player given the political sensitivity and importance of these areas. Considering the incoherent European position during the Iraq crisis, the European Union will still need a very long time before being able to assume such a global responsibility. The foreign policy mechanisms under the new constitution will need to be tested and proven before the EU can envisage such ambitious objectives. The European Union will now have to put the current enlargement into practice and test the functioning of the new Constitution which will hopefully be ratified without delay in the 25 Member states. We have to be very careful before thinking about a further enlargement that could "over-stretch" the European Union's capacities in many ways and could eventually put at risk the EU's achievements over the past 50 years.

At the same time, one has also to admit without any prejudice that Turkey and the countries of the European Union have undergone a different historical development with regard to political culture and philosophical thinking. I am not speaking in this context of religion, but about a more general cultural approach. This is enriching for both sides in the framework of close cooperation, but it could be difficult in the framework of integration and there is reason to fear that this could cause problems for the internal cohesion of the people of the EU. That is why in some member states public opinion is very critical with regard to Turkish accession. This is a psychological problem, but European politicians are also bound to respect the opinion of the citizens they represent.

For these reasons I believe that Turkey and the EU will have a more fruitful and satisfying relationship if they develop a privileged partnership, where they work together as closely as possible, but still remain autonomous in their decision-making. Turkey is a strong regional power and as such an important partner and ally for the European Union and the Atlantic Alliance. As a privileged partner of the European Union, Turkey will maintain much more independence of decision and in fact more influence in the region than if it is bound to European decision-making on the basis of a common denominator of more than 25 member states. On the other hand, I believe that the European Union will loose its capacity to act and part of its cohesion with a big regional power that necessarily will confront the Union with many challenges and requests which the European Union might not be able to solve within its own structures, but which it could solve together with Turkey as a strong partner. Due to its size and geostrategic position, its historical links and its willingness to be part of the European family, Turkey will be one of the most important partners and neighbours of the Union. With mutual respect and understanding, both partners should intensify their relations taking into account the complex political situation on both sides. If the European Council should decide in December by unanimity to open negotiations, these should, in my view, not exclude possible alternative options to accession, such as a "privileged partnership" with Turkey. If such a partnership can be achieved in a reasonable time this seems to be more interesting for both sides than very long negotiations and insecurity about mainly the European Union's capacities to assume this enlargement.

# Turkish Army A Benefit for EU

Gareth Jenkins

Turkish Army is the best-trained and disciplined Muslim military in the world. Except some areas where Ottoman history mitigate against their deployment, it offers something which no other EU member can match.

Although European politicians have occasionally expressed reservations about the security implications of extending the EU's eastern rim to border Syria, Iraq, Iran and the Caucasus, few doubt that Turkish membership would make a significant contribution to the EU's goal of developing an effective military capability for use in peacekeeping and 'preventive engagement' operations under the umbrella of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).

Many Turks have tended to this contribution in terms of the country's large army and its long tradition of producing formidable fighters. But the rapid reaction forces foreseen by the ESDP are likely to be comprised of relatively small numbers of troops using Network Enabled Capabilities (NEC) and be dependent on substantial strategic airlift support. Although Turkey has a limited strategic airlift capability, it -- like that of most European countries -is still insufficient for ESDP's needs. Nor has Turkey yet developed forces with full NEC.

This apparent mismatch between the profile of the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) and the needs of the ESDP is hardly surprising. No other European country is located in such an unstable geo-strategic environment or faced with such a variety of security challenges. The TAF have already announced plans to restructure and modernize their capabilities to meet future requirements. However, it is currently unclear to what extent the pace of this process will be affected by budgetary cutbacks and the diversion of already limited resources to counter the recent upsurge in violence in southeast Turkey.

Even if there are delays in Turkey's expanding its strategic airlift capacity or introducing NEC, there are other areas in which it is already able to make an important, even unique, contribution to the ESDP.

Turkey has repeatedly demonstrated the political will to contribute to peacekeeping operations, whether in the Balkans and east Africa during the 1990s or in Afghanistan in 2002 when for six months it commanded the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Although there were often tense negotiations between Turkey and its NATO allies over the terms of Turkish deployment, particularly in relation to the ISAF, Turkey never had any hesitation about putting troops in harm's way. While 20 years of conflict in southeastern Turkey has given the TAF considerable institutional experience of combat, not only just in its officer corps but also amongst its professional NCOs.

Successful modern peacekeeping is as much about the ability of the soldiers on the ground to establish good relations with the civilian population as it is about their capacity to counter violent insurgency. The failure to understand and respect local cultural sensibilities can \- as the US has discovered to its cost in Iraq (e.g. US male soldiers searching female civilians) - fuel hostility, inflame violence and trigger increased instability.

The TAF are the best-trained and best-disciplined Muslim military in the world. There are some areas -- such as parts of the Balkans and northern Iraq -- where differing perceptions of Ottoman history currently mitigate against the deployment of Turkish troops. But in most other areas, there are no such complications. Indeed, among predominantly Muslim populations, a Turkish peacekeeping force's ability to combine efficiency with cultural sensitivity offers something which no other European nation can match.

# Turkey and Europe Old Partners in Security

Işık Biren

Some new members may cause problems due to their old Soviet standards. No need to worry for Turkey due to NATO partnership.

If we take a look at a map of Eurasia, we can easily see that European security is seriously at risk from many threats. We can recognize these threats as follows:

\- Global terrorism

\- Illegal migration

\- Drug trafficking

\- Arms smuggling

\- Black money laundering

\- Energy problems

All of the above-mentioned risks and threats that the European Union (EU) faces today, can only be prevented and controlled through Turkey's contributions. Because Turkey is geographically situated between the sources of these potential threats and EU countries. Therefore, Turkey's accession to the EU could provide an excellent asset to the security of Europe. In addition to her geostrategic location, the well-trained and strong Turkish security forces, will definitely strenghten the EU's defense posture. For the past 50 years, Turkey has played her role as a defense partner of most European countries under the NATO umbrella, and definitely helped the alliance win the Cold War against the Soviet bloc. As far as the integrated defense organizations and already established command structures are concerned, one can easily say that Turkey had been an important partner of the Western European countries, long before the former communist states, which have now become EU members. As a NATO member, Turkey already posseses all the expensive infrastructural facilities needed for efficient military operations necessary for the EU's defense. Therefore, Turkey's accession to the European Union will not require any radical measures or costly changes in the security aspects. Assuming that the Turkish government would not accept any formula other than full membership, EU security would be seriously jeopardized, with many complexities and risks. Thus, Turkey's accession to the EU will definitely reduce the risks and dangers of threats and will boost the security of Europe. The adaptation of many new members from former communist bloc into the EU's defense systems would cause problems, because of their old Soviet weapon systems, doctrines and training standards. In case of Turkish membership, we would not have any adaptation problem since the existing NATO alliance, doctrine of standardization and weapon systems are already integrated into the rest of the European armed forces. In conclusion, Turkey would contribute crucially to European defense and security:

-With her geostrategic position between the most probable risk and threat sources and Europe's soft underbelly.

-By occupying an important location where the flow of energy from the Caspian and Middle East to EU countries can be safeguarded. -With her strong and well-trained defense security forces, especially the enormous experience in anti-terror areas, can boost the EU's defense posture against global terrorism. -With the long experience of working together and sharing the same defense doctrines, weapon systems, training procedures and the already established standardization, she could add a multiplying positive effect to European security and defense systems.

# Privileged membership beneficial both for Turkey and for the EU

Angela Merkel

Privileged partnership is more valuable than an underprivileged membership of Turkey in the EU - for Turkey as well as for the EU.

Europe faces important settings of point, some even speak of fateful decisions. On the 17th of December the European Union heads of state and government will decide, whether membership talks with Turkey will start or not. Before that the European Commission has already released a recommendation: According to that there shall be resumed membership talks with a nation, the frontiers of which exceed the present external frontiers of the EU by far - up to the Turkish frontiers with Iran, Iraq and Syria. Therefore, it is no surprise, that the commissions recommendation account is written in a spirit that voices the historical significance of the forthcoming decisions.

Doubts, questions, objections, restrictions and a suspension clause - all that is put into words in the commissions account. Until now in the EU expansion process there has never been published a restricted recommendation like this. As a matter of fact the formulated doubts and questions lead to a decisive basic issue: Is the European Union with its 27 member states able to cope with the joining of Turkey? To put it another way: Which is the best political concept for avoiding the risks of excessive institutional, financial and political demands to the integrational power of the EU on the one hand and to strengthen the European orientation of Turkey respectively to take into account the increasing geopolitical significance oft Turkey on the other hand?

As an answer to this question, CDU and CSU [The Christian Social Union] have developed the concept of a privileged partnership. The privileged partnership shapes a relationship between the European Union and Turkey, which is closer than all other relationships to the neighbors of the EU. It doesn't provide neither the EU nor Turkey with the only disastrous alternative of a make-or-break, full membership or failure. Rather it is the only way, that facilitates the both: to emphatically promote the European orientation of Turkey as well as not to overtax at the same time the integrational power of the EU. So it serves the German, Turkish and European interests - particularly if we consider the modified state of security after the end of the Cold War.

There is no doubt that Turkey has made considerable progresses in its efforts for reforms during the last years. We should support the government of Mr. Erdogan as far as possible in its endeavors to overcome still existing and partly even substantial differences between the texts oft the reform legislation and the reality in the daily routine. Even though, the economic power of Turkey is far below one third of EU-average the efforts of the Turkish government also in this sphere should be acknowledged and appreciated. They are helpful in overcoming the economic weakness of the country.

It also can't be denied that since many years, Turkey can refer to the promise of a membership in compliance with certain criteria. That is definitely true, but when it was promised to Turkey in 1963, to become a member of the just established European Economic Community, the process of European unification was far from reaching the present level of Integration. Today it's not a matter of joining the former EEG, but of joining the political European Union. The European Union is more than an economic administration union. It is a political and economic union of the states and people of Europe, that is based on an historical order of values.

If we judge all this honestly, we must conclude that only really inconclusive negotiations will prevent the inner cohesion of the European Union and its integrational power from being overtaxed. To negotiate inconclusively demands that we don't throw dust in the peoples eyes. But one, who claims the failure of the negotiations of the EU with Turkey to be a real option, does exactly this. In fact the failure is no option that we can take the responsibility for. A failure would cause hardly controllable problems for the relationship between the EU and Turkey. Since everybody has to know that a failure can't be a reasonable option, it gets clear that a strategy of make-or-break is like a nine men's morris game. In the end we are all caught in a double row, in a dead-end street. That is not to European interest. Real inconclusive negotiations between the EU and Turkey focus on a third way. Therefore CDU and CSU promote the concept of a privileged partnership instead of a full EU-membership; that means a close cooperation between Turkey and the EU. This extents from an increased cooperation in foreign and defense policy to a closer cooperation in economics, research and education and it should become institutionalized within the scope of a special agreement between the EU and Turkey. A privileged partnership between the EU and Turkey is more valuable than an underprivileged membership of Turkey in the EU - for Turkey as well as for the EU.

# Those Who Have Doubts Should Visit Turkey First

İsa Sezen

German artist Lutz believes that it is an injustice to history and plurality of Europe for some to grasp monopoly of being European.

Helmut Lutz, who brought "Star Ways" exhibition that has traveled across the world, to Istanbul on October 29, considers himself a cultural envoy. As German artist who has been fighting for intercultural dialogue for 30 years, Lutz believes that Turkey will bring a new spirit to the Europe and will become a bridge between the East and the West.

Besides being an artist and a painter, he writes musical dramas too. The German artist believes that Christian Democratic Union (CDU) leader Angela Merkel, is afraid of Turkish membership. Because East Germany, where she lived for years is still psychologically isolated, and Lutz suggests Mrs. Merkel to visit Turkey in order to overcome her prejudices. Lutz lives in Breisach, and has settled by the Rhine River on the border between Germany and France. He is well known for his art school called "Breisacher Schule," that educates many artists and painters. Lutz has organized three separate festivals, as well as many others with famous artists like Maurice Andre, K. Heinz Stocakhausen. He won the "European Culture Enterprise" award in 1996 in Basel for his works, "Star Ways" and "I 'm Augenblick."

Recently he exhibited his 30-ton "Star Ways" in Istanbul, which was the last and most significant stop. The exhibit began at the "place where the world ends," in Santiago de Compestella, Spain. "Star Ways" was shown in over 20 centers including Pampola, Madrid, Barcelona, Lyon, Berne and Sarajevo, and was accompanied by musical and dance groups. Lutz, who puts tolerance and a dialogue between cultures at the center of his work, said that his piece, "I 'm Augenblick," deals with the calamity in Bosnia. Rumi Whirling Dervishes and foreign dancers performed on the "Star Ways" platform that was erected at Blue Mosque Square. Both post-modern costumes inspired by mythology and prepared by Lutz, as well as a collection of Turkish fashion designers highlighting Turkish-Ottoman figures, were introduced in a mixed fashion show at Yerebatan cistern. In addition, Lutz plans to set up a bull crucifixion that adorns European squares and symbolizes Europe, in Istanbul. Turkey and especially Istanbul are important to Lutz, because he believes it is injustice against history and future plurality in Europe for some states to grasp the monopoly of Europe and exclude others. Because Turkey is not only a significant part of European history and cultural heritage but it is also the center of tolerance and civilization.

These words also belong to Lutz: "I have tried to make a connection between the East and the West for years. As an artist, I want to contribute to a Europe that is built on a solid foundation. Istanbul has been on my map for 30 years. Intolerance prompted the brutality in Sarajevo not too long ago, and continues to pose a serious threat. The attention of Europe and the whole world should be drawn to this. Turkey is in a more European geography than France, Germany and Spain. Europe also needs a new spirit. Europe that took its name from Anatolia, should bring a new orientation."

Complaining about European artists who know little about Turkey, Lutz also has some advices for Turks: "Turkey should continue on its way without concessions on its values. Turkey should present its values to the Europe. Only such a natural process will open the gates of the EU."

# EU Membership will Enhance Turkey's role in the Middle East

Ahmad Mahir

With historic bonds to the region Turkey will play more effective role by teaming up with an economic and political giant like the EU.

The Arab and Islamic world is closely following the efforts exerted by Turkey on the European Union membership and the distance it has covered so far. In particular, how Europe will approach these efforts is being awaited with great curiosity. As an important actor in the region and in the world, Turkey's membership will yield very important results. Some of them are related to Turkey, some of them to Europe and some of them will be related to the world at large. For Turkey, it will undoubtedly have an enormous economic impact. Turkey will gain many benefits economically. It will embrace a stable economy. It will perhaps pull up the growth rate and will advance with firm steps towards an economic point of attraction. Politically, it will display a more stable view.

Europe will also gain important benefits through Turkey's membership. As it is known, Europe is the only continent with a diminishing population and this will be more felt in the years ahead. Therefore, Turkey with its young and dynamic population will bring fresh blood to the old continent. As it connects two continents, Turkey at the point where different cultures, religions, nations, and geographies meet will be a springboard for Europe. The old continent will be able to open up new horizons with Turkey, and even more so, it will be able to easily penetrate important strategic regions in the world, such as the Middle East and the Caucasus. Another important outcome of the membership is of interest to all humanity. Especially in these days where a clash of civilizations is most frequently mentioned, an EU member Turkey will shake the basis of this thesis. The meeting of two strong representatives of two different religions will speed up the dialogue process, whose foundation is gradually being laid. That will provide true understanding of Islam, which very misunderstood or not known sufficiently today.

An EU member Turkey, without the slightest doubt, will also be more influential in the Middle East. A Turkey with historic bonds to the region will be able to play more effective roles in the Middle East by teaming up with an economic and political giant like Europe. It is very difficult for Europe to say "no" to Turkey. Such a scenario would strengthen extremist religious movements and would also change the point of view on Europe. Particularly, nowadays that concepts are all mixed with each other, the exclusion of Turkey would create an invaluable opportunity for those who do not want a peaceful world and perhaps it would pave the way for new scenarios to be put in practice.

Of course, there may be some who do not want Turkey in this organization just because of its religion. However, among states, bringing the issue of religion to the fore could be more harmful rather than beneficial. International relations are not based on religious grounds. Even if this is Europe, it could ultimately cause harm. I think however that at the December 17 Summit, where Turkey's membership will be discussed, strategic interests will come to the fore rather than religion. It will be in Europe's interests not to exclude Turkey.

The European Union could be said to be the world's most developed organization in its field. Among Islamic countries, it seems not possible to form an alternative to this organization for the time being due to undesired developments in the region. Besides, it is necessary to draw attention to the great difficulties the European Union has gone through, up until the present day. As it is known, some countries such as Tunisia and Morocco had expressed their wish to be members to this organization before. However, their requests are not similar to the process that Turkey has maintained for 40 years. Therefore, it would be illogical for the circles saying "no" to Turkey to refer to possible applications that would be made by such countries as examples.

Regional countries, most especially Egypt, have numerous agreements with the EU. These are agreements that predominantly envisage cooperation rather than membership. As a result, with Turkey's accession to the EU, a very crucial step will be taken towards realizing world peace. Hence, different religions, cultures and traditions will have the opportunity to know each other better and prejudices will be eradicated.

# What we need today is a real cultural dialogue

Martin Schulz

What unites us today is values like human rights, democracy. If Turkey is ever to join the EU, it must be on the basis of these values.

The Socialist Group in the European Parliament was honoured last month to act as host to Leyla Zana during her visit to Brussels. Her plea for peace, freedom and Turkey's accession to the European Union was powerful and humbling. The very fact that Leyla Zana was able to come to speak to us and finally to collect her Sakharov Prize demonstrates the progress that Turkey has made. I welcome that.

The European Union's heads of state must now decide whether or not the time is right to open formal accession negotiations with Turkey. I hope that they do - but I am under no illusions that such a decision would have to be just the beginning of a very long and sometimes very difficult process.

Unlike many MEPs on the right of the Parliament, the Socialist Group does not dismiss out of hand the possibility of Turkish accession before this process has even begun. Many of us are unsure, we have many questions and many concerns but we are not so closed-minded as to say 'no' at such an early stage. We do not share their view of the EU as a 'Christian club' to which a country with a majority Muslim population should be denied entry. Such a blinkered stance ignores the reality that the largest group of third country nationals resident in the EU today is Turkish. Such a blinkered stance ignores the reality of the present world situation. We owe it to ourselves and to Turkey to approach negotiations with exactly the same thoroughness and rigour we have applied to all other rounds of enlargement and with exactly the same concern for the demands of the internal market, the adoption of the 'acquis' and most importantly the Copenhagen criteria. As socialists and social democrats, our starting point is neither religion nor geography. Our starting point is political, economic and social. European integration is for us not about customs tariffs, milk quotas or the shape of cucumbers. European integration is about peace, solidarity, stability, prosperity and democracy. And European integration has been a success. Sixty years ago Europe was at war, for the second time. Not so long ago, fascist dictatorships ran countries that are now EU member states. A little over ten years ago, the Iron Curtain divided democratic Europe from our new member states in the east. What unites us is a community of values: human rights, democracy, social solidarity, secularism, equal opportunities, respect for the environment, the individual and the rule of law. If Turkey is ever to join the European Union, it must be on the basis of these values. Of course no one region or religion has a monopoly on these values. Recent developments in the United States and in other parts of the world highlight Europe's role, however, in promoting and safeguarding these values. Globalisation highlights the need for proper democratic control over the international economy and for a united response in favour of jobs and the environment. This is the background against which we should measure Turkey's application.

When Turkey first applied to join the then European Economic Community, John F Kennedy was President of the United States. On the eve of the Council's deliberations this time round, George W. Bush holds that honor - a shining example of why we should not tolerate the politics of fear and scapegoating those we perceive to be different from us. I have heard the view that the EU cannot possibly enlarge to the point where it shares borders with Iraq and Syria. Since September 11 we have all shared those borders wherever we may be. I do believe that security is strengthened by talking to Turkey and not by simply closing the door. Europe must urgently develop a truly common and effective foreign and security policy - and Turkey should be part of the strategy.

I can't say that there isn't a long way to go. There is. Turkey's continued efforts to build a stable economy and to promote sustainable growth are to be encouraged. There is much still to be done. We want Turkey to play a constructive role in the eastern Mediterranean. We expect a firm commitment to furthering domestic policy reforms - the penal code, an independent judiciary, freedom for Kurds and other non-Muslim communities - and we expect new initiatives in the fight for women's rights, zero tolerance of torture, the division between state, the military and the church. Progress has been made since 1999 and it will take time for the spirit of the reforms to filter through into everyday life. But this must happen. We lend our support for reform and for change and for our part are committed to making the necessary changes to better equip the EU to handle further enlargement - the adoption of the new Constitution for Europe for example. The possible accession of Turkey is for us about strengthening Europe, not a chance to weaken it. Only a fool would make prophecies at this stage but socialists and social democrats in the European Parliament are positive about continuing a dialogue with Turkey. We are all going to need courage, stamina, patience and perhaps a little bit of imagination but the only way to dispel our uncertainties is to talk. We need a real cultural dialogue - not just between our political elites but between people in all walks of life and in all parts of civil society. In the words of Muslim's holy book Qoran, "O Mankind, we have created you from male and female and made you into nations and tribes that you may get to know one another.".

# If we like to prevent 'clash of civilizations' Turkey is the remedy

Interview by Selçuk Gültaşlı

It can be a good example to a number of counries not to fall into extremism and to underline that you gain more by cooperating.

Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt says his government supports to start the accession talks with Turkey 'as fast as possible'. One of the six founding members of EU and the seat of the powerful Club, Belgium is now a net supporter of Turkey's bid for EU. Verhofstadt says, jokingly, 'I am on our side'. Here are excerpts from the interview with the Belgian PM:

\- You said in an interview to Zaman last june that if the commission report is positive, talks should start as soon as possible. Now that the report is positive, what is your government's position?

\- First of all, we have to take that decision together at the Council. My position is a positive one to start talks between EU and Turkey. I know that there is a concrete proposal from the Commission, how to start talks in 2005, under what conditions and circumstances. We can come to a good conclusion. I am positive and I think we shall have a positive outcome in the next Council in December on the issue. And now the question is when to start talks. If we can agree with the Commission recommendations, first of all to check a number of conditions to start the talks, to me the date is not the most important thing. The most important thing is to take the decision to start talks in 2005 under the circumstances that we shall define in the Council.

\- In the Copenhag Summit two years ago, you were among the EU leaders who took the decision that if the progress is positive then talks should start 'without delay'. What does that phrase mean to you?

\- We shall discuss it in the Council. Shall we exactly follow what the Commission said or shall we change it a little bit? It is in the Council's responsibility that we shall discuss but my position is to go as fast as possible. However, I do not think we have to make a war on the date or to wage a naive discussion, it is whether September 1st or April 1st, it is not that important. I think what is important for Turkey is to have a date to start. A commitment and a date are important. There are several conditions to fulfill, in the meantime Turkish government shall do its utmost to fulfill these conditions. In my opinion, the best ally for the European Union in Turkey is the government who has demonstrated in the last years enormous courage in changing and modernizing the country, in changing legislation and in changing a number of attitudes. Much more and much faster than in the past. So, that is the key and the guarantee for the EU.

\- From your point of view, let me make it clear. The Belgian government thinks talks should start as soon as possible.

\- Yes, but taking into consideration what the commission has said and there are still a number of issues to be solved but we have time and there is also will on the Turkish side to do so.

\- Some members argue that talks should start in 2006. Do you think Turkey can confront with such a surprise in December?

\- I can not see the hearts and minds of other EU leaders. What I can tell is it is not our position. Our position is not to wait for another year, you can always say 'let's wait for the constitutional referandum', with that we can start talks in 2006 either. We have to seperate the two things. Starting talks with Turkey is one thing and referenda on EU constitution is another. Realistically, one can influence the other but if you say 'let's wait for the referandums to finish to start talks with Turkey' then it could be a long time to wait. It is not a good way to approach the question.

\- You do not have the intention to confuse both?

\- No.

\- Some members have already decided to put Turkey's membership to referandum? Does not it smell as a different treatment?

\- My idea is that this is the question about the autonomy of a country. In every country there are different ways to ratify accession treaties or constitutonal treaties. In our country it is the Parliament, there is no difference between Maastrich treaty, Amsterdam treaty or an accession treaty. Extension of EU to 10 was approved by the Parliament in Belgium. This is strictly the autonomy of each member country.

\- Turkish PM Erdoğan was not happy with the French decision to go to referandum for Turkey's eventual accession.

\- They can decide to do so. I do not know in detail how the French can organize a referandum on the issue but they can do it. It has nothing to do with Turkey, it has to do with to have a good result on the referandum on the constitution. Not a negative attitude to Turkey, on the contrary, I should say. You can not conclude this attitude of the French President as negative to Turkey. This is my impression, of course, every country has it own way of ratifying the accession treaties according to their institutional framework.

\- Most serious concern of Turkey is the Commission's recommendation that talks should be open-ended.

-In fact you can state that all talks are always open ended. The question is whether was it necessary to repeat it, underline it. Normally every accession talk, by nature, is open-ended. If it is not open-ended and there is already decision, then it is not necessary to have negotiations. I can understand the feeling in Turkey on whether it was necessary to repeat it. So it is again the case that the EU leaders are giving message to their public rather than to Turkey. But the goal of accession talks is full accession, you do not start accession talks for something else. They can fail or they can have success. I hope they will have success like every other candidate country. The only exception was with Norway as they refused membership after successful talks by referandum. There is no indication that it will be different for Turkey.

\- Can open-ended talks lead to priviliged membership?

\- I already said something about that in a speech two years ago at College of Europe in Brugges. I said that what we envisage for Turkey should be membership as we need to apply the same criteria to Turkey with the others. Why we would say to Turkey we need to make a special relationship. Why? Because it has a different religion? The membership criteria is Copenhagen criteria and it is political, not a religious criteria.

\- At the December Council, do you think, you, the leaders of EU could clearly state that the aim of accession talks are full membership, just to clarify the ambiguity embedded in the recommendations?

\- We shall see the wording, may be yes, it could be possible.

\- Did the French contact you for a priviliged partnership?

\- I know, I know. It is not only French but there are a number of EU members where political leaders play with the idea. I am not talking about the leaders of European Council here. They are talking about this idea. I already stated and said that I am talking about membership to EU, not something else.

\- Another concern is the clause of permanent restrictions on the free movement of labour force once Turkey enters the Union.

\- That is always possible in negotiations. That was already the case with other countries, but with the condition that it was limited in time.

\- But it is just the problem, the Commission is recommending permanent restrictions which led to comments that EU is offering Turkey a second-class membership from the very begining.

\- That we shall see in the negotiations but it can not be the case with the accession. There could be longterm or short term limitations. We had the same limitation with Spain and it was a long period but after a while we said there is no problem, why not shorten this period? The EU should aim for full membership for everybody and should be worried if some members are not full members.

\- Isn't free circulation one of the basic four freedoms of Europe?

\- Of course and I am not in favor of permanent safeguard clauses on that.

\- Do you think Turkey's accession will make the Europe's 1683 victory in Vienna in vain as Commissioner Bolkestein put it.

\- He said that?

\- Yes, at Leiden University in September.

\- If we talk in this concept, we can talk the same way about Germany and France, historical clashes, about Napoleon and the war of Waterloo. To talk in this way is against the philosophy of EU and philisophy of our cooperation. We started a new history for Europe in 1958 and this new history has nothing to do, has no link with what happened before. It is the first time Europe integrated in a peaceful way. Others tried as well, Hitler, Napoleon, even Ottoman Empire but with what? It was the era of Old Europe, a Europe full of violence, conflict. It was always through wars to try to create a unified continent and this failed. We decided to forget the past and promised to look into the future to create a democratic Europe with EU and it is a success story.

\- You were the first European leader to declare that religion can not be an obstacle for Turkey's membership. Where do you think religion is situated in the context of Turkey-EU relations?

\- It is an important argument for Turkey. It is a country with a Muslim majority, that can modernize itself with a clear seperation between church and state. The entrance of Turkey could be an example for other Muslim countries for North Africans and others to go in the same direction. Since Atatürk, modernization has started so it is not new. Mr. Erdoğan is pushing this modernization in a good direction. So, for me, to combat terrorism, Turkey's entry will be a good example for others to modernize themselves. I think there is a risk of clash of civilizations. And Turkey can be an example to demonstrate there is a way to have an Islamic country and a modern state, democracy in public life and seperation of church and state respecting human rights. The most important thing is that we do everything that there is no clash of civilizations and in that way Turkey in EU can be a big remedy. It can well be an example to a number of counries not to fall into extremism and to underline that you gain more, certainly more freedom and wealth by cooperating.

# Worrying Dimensions of the Debate in France

Didier Billion

The groups which are against Turkey, would try to make you believe that what is at stake is the protection of a Christian West.

It is often said that the debates over Turkey's application for membership into the European Union (EU) reveal the fact that the European project has come to a standstill and that they reflect a lack of vision from its leaders. This remark is quite relevant but does not explain why this issue has become so impassioned and exacerbated in France. It is therefore necessary to assess the reasons for such agitation, because many European observers are having difficulties understanding why a country which has in recent history shown Turkey real and frequent political support should have these concerns.

Many analysts suggest that one reason for France's reluctance could be a result of religious matters. Although this case is acceptable, it only partially reflects the complexity of this issue. It is otherwise difficult to understand why other members of the European Union, with strong religious beliefs, such as Spain, Italy and Poland, are as far as they are concerned rather favourable to the prospect of Turkish membership. When one considers the worrying progression of Islamophobia in France, it is obvious that the religious dimension explains, in part, some of the tensions. In reality, the religious issue meets with such a negative response due to the French political structure. In France the Front National, a right wing extremist party, has grown over the years and now obtains 15 to 18% of the ballots. This party is followed closely by an affiliated faction of sovereignists which obtains 4-10% of the votes. These two political trends have made the refusal of Turkey's membership one of the main lines of their political stance. They would try to make you believe that what is at stake is the protection of a Christian West. The fact that such totally idiotic remarks should be uttered in the homeland of the Enlightenment, of the French Revolution and of human rights, shows just how distressing the decline in standard of the political and intellectual debate has become...

But worse can perhaps be found elsewhere ! Opposition to Turkey's accession took a turn for the worst and spread among the ranks of the right wing's majority when Nicolas Sarkozy used it as a lever in his fight with Jacques Chirac. One could then witness the UMP (i.e Union for Popular Movement, the largest French conservative party) members changing sides and swinging over to the cons. The right wing parties have therefore used Turkey's issue as a strategic tool in the political fight for purely mean electoral motives. The right wing leaders chose an issue which was supposed to curb the growing weight and progress of the Front National while, they wrongly believed, at the same time soothing the fears of part of the political opinion. Such a populist drift clearly does not do justice to the historical stakes involved in Turkey's entry into the E.U. One can then legitimately wonder about the second-rate quality of political officials who prefer to feed what they believe to be fears generated by the construction of the European Union, rather than drawing constructive and stimulating prospects for the future in order to strengthen the E.U. One also ought to consider the fact that some leaders of the Socialist party are not doing any better to set themselves apart. Although one must acknowledge the fact they do not use the religious issue as a political tool, they are nonetheless embarking on a kind of demagogic spiral, intensified by the Armenian lobby's pressures, known for its influence on some socialist representatives.

Fortunately, contrary to this politicking abuse of the debate, the State, and in particular the presidency of the Republic and the ministry of Foreign Affairs, brings credit on itself by firmly maintaining its stance, by giving its policy long term perspective, and by underlining the advantages for the E.U to integrate Turkey at the end of the negotiating period.

Such a drift was in fact possible in France because of the existence, in the background, of a favourable environment as regards to the idea itself of the European construction. This vision comes from a fundamental contradiction regarding the issue of the E.U's future and the role France intends to have. Paris considers that it must play a central role in the European process and that the E.U. ought to reflect its own values, models and ways of life. Yet, with the ongoing enlargement of the European Union, this stance becomes less and less relevant. This explains how the French identity crisis, in the face of the other European countries, is taking such a considerable role in Turkey's chances of accession. If France was convinced to keep its central position in the E.U. it would be less inclined to see Turkey's application as an Anglo-Saxon plot aimed at weakening its own vision of Europe. It is worrying to note that today Turkey fills this particular need felt by some countries to form their identity against the Other and it is unbearable that she should bear the brunt. Inopportunely it really seems that in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, islam has become the epitome of "Otherness" in the French collective unconscious. The debate about Turkey's membership must be dignified and dispassionate because it deals with the future of Europe and its role in the future world.

# Europe is not a Christian Union

Ingmar Karlsson

Excluding Turkey on religious, cultural grounds would be disastrous since it will lead emergence of ghetto Islam in Europe.

One of the most widespread European myths is that Charles Martel, the ruler of the Franks, saved the West from destruction by his victory over the "Saracens" at Poitiers in 732. The Saracens were driven back over the Pyrenées and returned to southern Spain where a Muslim state then continued to flourish for almost 800 years. This Islamic presence on the European continent did not lead to a collapse of the Western civilization but to a unique and fruitful symbiosis between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, which resulted in an unparalleled boom in science, philosophy, culture and art. At the close of the Middle Ages, both Islam and Judaism were constitutive elements in the formation of Europe. As a result, Islam is at the same time an alien, an original and - due to growing migration - a new element in the Europe of today. There are today at least 15 million Muslims in the EU, which is more than the number of Scandinavian Protestants, and the number will increase as immigration continues. Today, the birthrate among Muslim immigrants in Europe is three times higher than in the non-Muslim population. If this trend continues the Muslim population will, given current immigration patterns, have doubled by 2015, while Europe's non-Muslim population will decrease by 3.5%.

Islam is thus already today an integral part of Europe and a European religion and as we have been talking about Eastern Christianity we will soon be talking about Western Islam. Islam must therefore be recognized and regarded as a European religion. Young Muslims in Europe now mobilize for recognition, identity and survival. They often look upon themselves as a new force distancing themselves from traditional and international bonds, wanting to be a European face of Islam. They speak the languages and are born citizens of European states and their common language is English, German, Dutch, French or Swedish. They are using Islam as a way of establishing the universal values they have in common with those around them. Defining their own identity as Muslim thus is a way of interacting with the rest of society.

We are already today witnessing the emergence and creation of a several European Muslim identities, German, French, British, Swedish, Dutch etc. Interviews with Swedish Muslims show that they are more and more focusing on their presence, role and future in Sweden: What kind of multicultural Sweden do we as Muslims want to have in the future? What kind of multicultural state do we think is necessary to safeguard the long-term survival of the Muslims as a cultural, ethnic and religious minority group in Sweden and what can we as Muslims do to bring this about?

They thus want to draft a new brand of Islam, one that aims to reconcile the basic tenets of the faith - such as the five pillars, social justice and submission to the will of God - with the realities of contemporary European life.

For this new generation, "Euro-Islam" is not a zero sum game. They see no contradiction in being Muslim and European at the same time. In a report from the Swedish Muslim Youth Association you can read: "The goal for young Muslims should be to accept, understand and respect differences but also to understand common values and goals and try to implement them. Young Muslims should form a bridge between the European and the Muslim countries".

There have never been any religious criteria for membership of the EU. A no to Turkey on religious and cultural grounds would be disastrous for Europe since it would send an immediate and strong message to the fastest growing segments of the European population that they will always be consideredunwelcome and second-class citizens also if they chose a secular way of life. Sending such a message could, before we know it, lead to the emergence of a ghetto Islam in Europe instead of a modern tolerant European Islam. If this happens, we might soon witness a 'clash of civilizations' in Western Europe, not in the form of a military showdown between the West and the Islamic world, or as envisaged by Samuel Huntington, the proponent of the clash of civilizations theory, but in the form of a continuous guerrilla warfare in ghettoized suburbs of our cities.

Against this background the decision taken in December this year by the EU heads of states and governments will be fraught with consequences for the destiny of Europe.

# The European Union or the Heresy of the 'Miraculous Conception'

Daniel Cohn-Bendit

After miracles of the Rhine and the Oder, it is co-responsibility for us to realise "the miracle of the Bosphorus". There is no Plan B.

If reconciliation between France and Germany had waited for the "people", I believe that this novel way of managing our relations that the EU consist of, would simply not have happened. Nothing predisposed Europe to find the political will required to abandon war in favour of the pact that currently makes possible the peaceful co-existence of generations that all share in the same project : an anti-totalitarian Europe. The political map that has been redrawn across Europe with democratic states has enabled us to determine our existence according to co-responsibility and led to, after the "miracle of the Rhine", to the "miracle of the "Oder". Today, I contend that within the world as it has become, co-responsibility means to realise the "miracle of the Bosphorus". This ambitious goal requires, on the one hand, an aptitude to undertake the necessary changes to be in step with the current world, whilst at the same time, preparing for tomorrow's world. On the other hand, and simultaneously, this presupposes a Turkey that takes full responsibility for the attainment within its territory of the necessary democratic reforms, and, obviously, the consequential changes in mentality. Thereafter, a necessary softening will be required to a nationalistic, authoritarian Kemalism, which will especially imply innovation in the models of coexistence for Kurds, religious minorities and others. The assumption of the Armenian genocide, in part perpetrated by Kurds, will also be the symptom of a metamorphosis enabling Turkey to further acclimatise to the European practices of sharing sovereignty, a process not easy for any nation to accept. I have never thought for a single moment that this path would be simple. I even support the critics of the politics of the "fait accompli" that enlargement has been, and, I and many others, have pleaded in favour of deepening before enlargement. Furthermore, not even the "cultural difference" argument, so often couched in politically correct language but often dissimulating a more xenophobic undertone, would constitute a sufficient reason to exclude Turkey. In a decade or so, neither the EU nor Turkey will be or can be what they are today. Turkey will have to integrate a Union governed by the Constitutional Treaty, that, I hope, will have also help us progress down the path of further communtarisation. This also means that tomorrow's Union will have increased the exigency it set on itself and on candidate states. On the other hand, the Union will also have foreseen the conditions of possibility of "absorption" of such a large and populated country as Turkey, therefore not simply comparable to previous enlargements

At this stage, I would like to make an important remark, especially to my French friends: Turkey made its membership application and it has been accepted unanimously. And as the Commission keeps repeating, there is no "Plan B". To pretend this is not the case and continue to seek engagement whilst giving the impression that a "privileged partnership" is of value to Turkey, a state that has a full customs union, is really taking people for a ride. Therefore, I am convinced that the European Council in Brussels must give a precise date for the start of negotiations. Any other decision would be entirely irresponsible. When one considers the world we live in, in all its complexity, where radical Islamic terrorism coincides with the Union's attempts to exist on the international scene and where Muslims minorities make up an important section of our populations, the perspective of Turkish membership is not only politically sound but a "win -win" scenario. This is the path that Turkey followed over the years and that it will continue, thereby continuing its cultural evolution, affecting not only itself, but also Islam as well. This does not allow us to downplay the negative effects that the hostility felt against the perceived threat to national identity that Turkey's accession is having in certain member states. We cannot simply do as if the "crusaders of national and cultural identity" had sung their last psalm. In my mind, any attempt to glue back together the symbolic orders within our societies should prevent the further compartmentalisation of our societies and deal head on with the identity crisis within them. This would prevent the use of such concepts as "the people"; What does this mean? Do the Turks born in Germany belong to the German 'Volk'? What is the German People? How far can we discriminate when we know that over 3 million Turks live in the EU? One thing is clear, however: the viability of Turkey's integration into the EU depends on our ability to establish an open debate and a pedagogy susceptible of unleashing the collective imagination that is current bounds by backward reactions that I would qualify as a pseudo-identity. This is not some replacement for cultural relativism. This would, in effect, only lead to a dead end for the recognition of both the specificities and the autonomy of individuals and the universals principals given to us by Modernity which have since then become an integral part of our political culture. In contrast, European culture has since many a year turned its back on "revelatory" dogmas and has sufficiently integrated the concepts of diversity in order to affirm itself through a dynamic identity, capable of evolution. It is therefore up to us, in these historic times, to exploit these resources at our disposal in order to both live and believe ourselves an "open society".

### Janissary and Mirror

Elif Şafak

Unlike what many think, it is not a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West, or between the Janissary and Storm Trooper X-G.

"You be the Turk and I'll be Storm Trooper X-G," shrieked my friend's 13-year old son, just as I was bringing in another tray full of food to the room where the two boys had been camping since early morning. "You take the cannonball, I'll get the galaxy gun."

"I want the galaxy gun too," objected Reinaldo –a skinny Italian-American boy who refuses to have his long, reddish hair cut for fear of becoming sick and dying immediately thereupon. "The Turk wants technology too!" Utterly mesmerized by the dialogue I'd just heard, I stayed there frozen with a puzzled look on my face and a plate of stuffed green peppers in my hands. It was Sinan, my friend's always hungry son, who offered me an explanation, either for my sake or for that of the food on the tray. "You can't have it both ways. You cannot be a Janissary and have a galaxy gun at the same time. It's either this or that. It's against the rules."

"What are you playing?" I asked.

"Rise of the Nations," the boys chorused and then took turns to explain the rules and characters of the game to me, each having little success. "But why can't you be a Turk and have a galaxy gun too?" I heard myself mumble, utterly insecure in this battleground. "Because the Janissaries were elite corps who served the Ottoman Sultan," sighed Sinan and rolled his eyes, obviously losing patience with me. "You are given a certain profile for each nation. Turks can excavate, pitch grenades, dig tunnels and shoot cannonballs but they cannot possibly have laser beams. We are fighting a war of two different civilizations here!"

Where was that "here" and who were "we", I did not dare to ask to none of these boys, one of them born in Istanbul and then brought to Michigan at the age five, the child of an intercultural couple, half Turkish half Irish-American; the other an Italian-American secretly in love not only with his hair but also with a Lebanese girl in his class. I sat next to them, unable to divert my gaze from the plastic toys scattered on the delicate motifs of the unashamedly crimson Turkish carpet. The Janissaries had cerulean uniforms, tall pointed hats and moustaches as big as their heads. Storm Troopers were metallic shiny robots, each with a carved number on their chest as if catapulted from some gloomy Zamyatinean dystopia. As I watched the boys fight a preordained battle of words and swords it seemed to me they were playing less a war of two different civilizations than a war of "frozenness in time" against "standardization in place".

As December nears, Turkey's EU membership continues to be a hot topic on the international agenda, triggering the unconcealed doubts of some Europeans as to how "Western" the country really is. Turkey has a lot to gain from its membership, politically, economically and strategically. Joining the EU will bolster Turkey's civil society and democracy bringing a definite end to the era of military interventions; accord her a more privileged place in the Islamic world; diminish the state's role in the economy and the state's centralizing command over the society; render Turkish Armed Forces a significant part and parcel of European Army; and provide many young Turks access to new opportunities for better education.

Turkey might have a lot to gain from her full membership but so has the EU much to gain from her inclusion. Once the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline is completed, the EU will worry less about energy. It is apparent that in the years to follow the world's mapping will shift again, as it has many times in history, and the Middle East will attain enormous importance in shaping both international and domestic politics. In this framework, Turkey will strengthen EU both regionally and globally. After Turkey's inclusion Islamic world will have a better view of the EU and hopefully, the EU will have a better view of Islam.

It is a truism that there is an ongoing clash today. But unlike what many like to think, this is not a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West, or between the Janissary with the cannonball and the homogenized Storm Trooper X-G. It is not a clash between an imaginary Turkishness frozen in time and an imaginary Europeanness thriving upon homogeneity. Rather than that, it is an internet-game-like clash between "the Mirror-Oriented" and "the Cosmopolitans". On the one hand are those who want to live a life primarily, if not entirely, surrounded by people who are like them, who think and act and dress and talk and pray just like them, who are each other's mirror images. On the other hand are those others who are more cosmopolitan, more ready to welcome ethnic, religious, national diversity, those who are not so obsessed with their mirror image. The clash between these two mentalities is an ongoing tension that recognizes no map, cutting across national, geographical and religious boundaries. Today in some Turkish villages on the Aegean coast there is an enduring custom regarding the mirrors on the walls. They either cover the surface of a mirror with dark velvet or hang it with its silver ornamented back facing the wall. Aegean peasants believe that mirrors are the gateways to the uncanny netherworld of the djinni. Perhaps the belief is the outcome of centuries of wisdom in an old land where numerous ethnic and religious groups have both succeeded and failed to co-exist. In lands like this, in times like this, one should know better. Europeans, too, should well know that they have nothing to gain from the clash of the frozen-in-time Janissary and the homogenized-in-place Storm Trooper X-G, not only because of mutual economic, political and strategic gains but also precisely because there is something elusively, existentially dangerous in living in front of mirrors, surrounded only by one's own image day and night, east and west.

### Brussels Will Get More

### Attention than Washington

Morton Abramowitz

Believe it or not, the basis of US support has been strategic. In the process, Turkey will harmonize her foreign policy more with EU.

Turkey's integration into Europe is a great historical event that will radically change Turkey and the EU. Indeed Turkey's transformation has been underway for the past three years, a response mostly to its need to meet the EU's political criteria to begin membership discussions. Turkey has a long way to go to do what is necessary to be admitted-no amount of Turkish complaining will change that.

Europe's transformation in accepting Turkey is just beginning and is running into the problems of democracy. Many publics in Europe are opposed or skeptical about Turkish membership, while most of their governments are more or less supportive. Hopefully EU governments will accept short-term domestic political costs in exchange for long-term benefits and on December 17 invite Turkey to begin accession talks next year.

The United States has been watching these events intently. Its relations with Turkey and Europe will also be transformed by Turkey's integration into Europe.

Since 1991, the U.S. government has publicly supported Turkey's EU accession and subsequently strongly advocated Turkish membership. It lobbied hard for the Customs Union in 1995 and for Turkey getting candidate status at Helsinki in 1999, much to European annoyance. This year it has been supportive but has taken a low public posture, aware of its declining popularity in many European quarters. Foreign officials and analysts, including Turks, have attributed various pecuniary and other unworthy motives for U.S. support. Believe it or not, the basis of American support has always been strategic. The U.S. has long believed this large, strategically important ally must be anchored in Western democratic tradition; the EU was the obvious vehicle. Turkey's domestic problems accentuated this view: military coups, political and economic instability, and fear of Islamic fundamentalism punctuated by Mr. Erbakan's REFAH-led coalition government.

The U.S. is aware that Turkey's accession will entail changes in the nature of its long-standing, close relationship with Turkey; changes are already occurring, not all due to Turkey's focus on the EU and the intensive lobbying of EU countries required. The strains over the Iraq War and declining American popularity among Turks have not precluded good governmental working relationships, but they have changed, perhaps temporarily, the climate of the relationship. The Iraq problem is far from resolved and is far more important in U.S.-Turkey relations than any issue arising out of EU Accession. Surprisingly, Turkey's stake in American success in Iraq does not seem to be widely recognized in the country. But Turkey's growing EU connection has already led to change. Brussels now gets more attention than Washington. Such change is not necessarily bad: all three entities share a deep interest in a successful Turkish integration and good relations. However, change will be accompanied by challenges that require statesmanship. While the US may lose some big ticket trade items to the EU like commercial aircraft, Turkey's economic growth should result in greater opportunities for American business. Here we focus on two potentially neuralgic areas.

Turkey will gradually harmonize its foreign policy positions more with the EU than the U.S. Differences in U.S. and EU policy approaches can lead to frictions in U.S.-Turkey relations. Obvious ones are the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Turkey's support of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and Iran. Turkey's relations with Israel seem already to have cooled, which has been noticed in Washington. Ankara may be compelled to adopt the EU's more critical posture towards Israel's management of this issue, although Arafat's departure may reduce EU-U.S. differences. On the ICC, the EU will expect Ankara to ratify the Rome statute. Prime Minister Erdogan already voiced Turkey's intentions to do so. The U.S. will likely request that Turkey negotiate an Article 98 agreement to exempt U.S. citizens from being brought before the court, a concession departing from EU guidelines. The EU and U.S. are also cooperating to address reform in the broader Middle East and curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. There have been serious differences; however, on dealing with Iran's nuclear programs. Turkey might find itself in the middle of a U.S.-EU squabble.

Like Britain, Turkey has a unique defense relationship with the U.S. Its military is heavily dependent on American equipment and the U.S. provides Turkey with its biggest external support in the difficult region Turkey inhabits-none of that will easily change. With Turkey, the EU's borders touch Syria, Iraq and Iran; and the EU may assume a more active role in the Middle East with perhaps different perspectives than the U.S. In NATO, while Turkey proceeds with accession negotiations, it may adopt more pro-EU perspectives on evolving security issues. It brings large military forces to the EU which can transform the EU's nascent military establishment and possibly compete with NATO. On the other hand, Turkey has always been a strong defender of NATO and might give U.S. positions a stronger play in EU affairs. While uncertainties may grow and new problems develop, there is no reason for despair. There will always be great substance to the U.S.-Turkey relationship. There is also plenty to be achieved from EU integration to everyone's benefit. But it will requires close, continuing consultations and all parties to manage change with prudence and candor. That should not be beyond us-hopefully.

### Long-term Strategy

### vs. Quick Bargaining

Alexander Medjedovic

Atatürk's ideas and principles are more crucial than ever in the process of Turkey's integration into the EU.

December 17th, 2004, and the preceeding months constitute a very important part of Turkey's recent history, if not the most important one since the foundation of the Turkish Republic headed by Atatürk. Atatürk's ideas and principles are more crucial than ever in the process of Turkey's integration into the EU and into many other international organizations. These ideas are based on the principle that unity, peace and brotherhood have to come from within Turkey and need to be carried out to the world as a principle of the Turkish Republic as a whole.

"Peace at Home, Peace in the World" has indeed the potential to become a "Turkish Principle" in Europe. Various members of today's EU have strongly supported Turkey's way into this community by understanding the willingness of Turkey to participate in an international union and to develop the union of states by bringing in its own ideas and principles. How can these principles be presented, accepted and integrated ? To answer this question, we need to realize that the question of Turkey's membership in the EU is not a recent one. As a German citizen, my mind is filled with joy when our Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, shows his support for Turkey's membership against strong resistance at home and in the European family. However, the idea of supporting Turkey as being "a family member" arose about 35 years ago, when many Turkish people came to work and live in Germany. Very old humanistic principles need to be applied here. How can we accept somebody to live and work among us in Germany, if we are not ready to offer "our home as his home"? As everywhere, there are many different points of view among the population in Germany, but we must not forget that German policy and practise vis-à-vis Turkey has always been a long-term oriented one aiming lasting friendship. One could say threfore that Turkey's accession into the EU began with the arrival of the first guest worker in Germany.

It would therefore be mistake to see the process of Turkey's acceptance to the EU as a short one -on both sides. The European governments have been clever enough to recognize this and to leave many doors open in both ways. Now Turkey needs to apply the same issues. The 'once we're in, we're in"-Principle has no place here. Everybody must realize, that the way into Europe is a long one. Equally, the EU members must be cautious in not giving unrealistic views and promises toTurkey. My experience shows that it takes some time for a "Foreigner" to enter Turkey with his mind, to learn about her and also to be accepted by her. The positive view on Turkey's accession to the EU by the Turkish public is stronger and more united than ever. The awareness of the advantages of an EU membership is very high, and so are the expectations of the economical and social impact. But how aware is everybody about the implications and obligations of an EU member state ? Being an "European" myself, I must admit that I really do not know much about this. Also, most of my friends from European countries to not carry a copy of the "handbook for EU citizens" in their suit pockets. The only time I came in conflict with European Law was when I lived in France 10 years ago and when the French authorities refused to accept parts of my unversity diploma from Germany. Following a short fight, I won the case, but I never fully understood the reasons. How can we then expect the average Turkish, Romanian or Bulgarian citizen to know about these implications?

One more time, the key to integration and acceptance will be education. Greater efforts needed by many governments to educate their citizens about what it means to be European. My very respected friend and wonderful writer Zeynep Göğüş wrote her book "European Letters to my Son" most likely in awareness that her son will never be able to learn enough about Europe in his life. Her views are rather critical, but she never forgets the long-term importance of Europe for Turkey. My views and my values are based on principles of equality, integrity and human proximity. Also on the awareness that wealth comes from diversity. Therefore I would like to close with a few more personal remarks, as after all, the views that I have expressed are nothing else but the opinion of myself and my observations during my time in Turkey and in Europe: All of us have to drive from home to work, and from work to home. My drive home takes me from Inönü Caddesi in Gümuşsuyu, past the majestic Consulates of Germany and Japan, down the road to Inönü Stadium with its occasional frantic and wild running BJK fans, past lines of begging street children, seeing the brave and helpful policemen of Dolmabahçe serving their country, up past the luxurious hotels of Maçka and downhill to my beloved Beşiktaş with its lively streets full of traders, shops and delicious foodstalls. This road home leads through the microcosmos of Turkey, as it leads all my colleagues in Germany, Spain, Greece and Sweden through their microcosmoses on their way home each day.

Europe will become a successful Union the day when each single one of us accepts all these different roads home and the governments that we vote for manage to create favourable conditions to travel these roads. This is what we must set as our goal and this is what we must teach our children -in Istanbul and in Lisbon, in Amsterdam and in Prague, and elsewhere...

### Muslim Turkey and

### Christian European Club?

Mohammad İmara

Islamic identity of Turks is not a danger to European civilization. In history, Turks did not opress others, but provided freedoms.

Turkey has always had constant relations with Western Europe and Eastern Islamic countries, both historically and geographically and has been a bridge between the two civilizations. When we look at Ottoman history, Muslim Turkey had always been on the agenda of European politics.-While administrators of Christian groups in the Balkans under the rule of the Ottomans and the Church criticized the Ottoman administration, fair Western historians have not concealed the fact that the people were pleased with the good administration and justice of the Ottomans against the pressure applied by the Church in cooperation with the despotic administrator.

But since despotic administrations - churches and governments - wrote the history of Europe and not nations, Western culture, textbooks and folklore are filled with hatred against Turks and Islam. Even more so, this grunge and blind bigotry once reached such extremes that the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther King, had banned Turkish coffee, which he described as Mohammed's coffee, from the armies of the Church, with the anxiety of numbing. And today, modern Turkey wants to join the European Union to be a bridge again between the Christian West and Muslim East to preserve mutual benefits, dialogue and peace but not to constitute a conflict, power balance. Membership will bring many strategic benefits to both Turkey and Europe: Seen with the Kemalist experience it is as impossible for Turkey to fully integrate into the Western civilization it takes as an example as it is impossible for it to abandon its Islamic and Eastern identity. However, Turkey could perform the duty of a bridge where these two civilizations meet with common humanitarian values -- that are immense in number - both today and tomorrow. With its experience in inter-civilization dialogue and its characteristic of sheltering different cultures, Turkey will make great contributions to prevent the clash of civilizations that Eastern and Western nations have been suffering for centuries. With its inclination towards Islam and its desire for integration into the West, modern Turkey under the leadership of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) has taken great care in reinforcing economic, political and cultural bonds with the East and Islamic countries. On the other side, Turkey's effort and insistence on accession to the EU is proof of its will to be a bridge between the two civilizations. Concerns about Turkey having the ability to merge two different worlds, turning its back on the Islamic world or completely perishing within Western civilization are out of the question. The Islamic identity of Turks does not constitute a danger to European civilization because the Ottoman state never pressured people to convert to Islam in the lands under their rule, on the contrary, it provided great freedoms. After the collapse of Andalusia in 1492, since the assimilation directed at Muslims was not experienced in the Balkans under the Ottoman rule. I wonder whether Europeans will welcome Turks? I wonder whether they will open a new page in today's history for interaction between the East and West, Europe and Islam by opening the doors of the EU to Turks? Despite my passionate wish on this, I have serious reservations. The experiences of both today and history show that to distinguish people who are ruled from the power and institutions that rule, are necessary in the interaction of cultures and civilizations.

The opening or closing of the EU doors does not rest with the people of Europe - even though, it benefits a de facto democracy - but with the economic, political, religious and media institutions that form the structure of its cultural and mental structure. We see that these powers embark upon a harsh anti-Turkey campaign. They shelter negative memories about Turks and Muslims in the subconscious of the European and Western people and constantly keep them alive. In the 7th century BC, the first Islamic conquests ended a 10-century Greek, Roman and Byzantine domination of the East. 8 centuries of Islamic existence (711-1492) in Indulisa. If the rout in Balat ul Shuheda in 732 had not occurred, the entire Central and Southern Europe would have been under the control of Muslims. Heavy European defeats for Europeans in the hands of Muslims during the Crusades and their efforts to take back the East from Muslims ending in vain. The Ottoman resistance against the European challenge and the Conquest of Istanbul. The Turks pounding on the Gates of Vienna.

-Behind the scenes, Europe's effective institutions frighten Europeans about the danger of Islam by keeping these memories constantly fresh and undertaking a historic mission to prevent Turkey's membership. These influential institutions that constitute the collective mind of European people frighten their nations about modern Turkish Islam by taking up relations between East and West only from the extreme side of the conflict. These institutions in the past had frightened their people about Ottoman Islam without dwelling upon the occupation and religious, political, economic and cultural exploitations of the East by the Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Crusaders, Europeans, Americans -- and Zionism.

-Whereas beginning with Alexander the Great in the 4th century B.C. (324 B.C.), and still continuing today, the historical process of Western civilization has been full of exploitation, occupation and tyrannies.

-Looking at today, the religious entity is the biggest obstruction before Turkey's EU membership. The institution crafting this is the Catholic Church, which exerts great influence on Europe today.

-After the collapse of the communist bloc, the Western world chose Islam as its rival and put forward Christian values to define itself. After that, it started to become over-sensitive to everything related to Islam. This sensitivity also has a great impact before Muslim Turkey's possible EU membership. As a result, I wish that the negativities mentioned do not hinder Turkey's accession to the EU; on the contrary, they should be tools to establish the bridges of dialogue between the Islamic and Christian worlds. However, if Turkey cannot be an EU member, with the reforms realized it will both raise the prosperity level of its people and play an outstanding role in the Islamic world, a mission it had undertaken in the past.

### Full Membership

### Depends on Turkish

### People's Attitude

Karl-Heinz Feldkamp

Although Turkey's membership not much popular in Europe, ralations at sports, business, culture and tourism are getting stronger.

I am one of those who fully support Turkey's European Union membership. During the 2.5 years as coach, first at Galatasaray and then at Besiktas, I had the opportunity to discover many beautiful characteristics of the Turkish people, which are not known by Europeans. Turkey is a country with a huge potential. The insistence of the new government on Turkey's EU membership is an important opportunity for such a beautiful country.

However, Turkish politicians should explain the EU well to Turkish people. Those who enact legislation in Ankara should familiarize all the citizens living in every nook and corner of Turkey with the issue.

I find Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's remarks, "We will not be hasty. We would like to join the Union gradually," realistic. It is necessary to appreciate Turkey's efforts on the path towards EU membership. The recent enactment of many harmonization laws also proves that politicians in this country, with such a huge potential, really want EU membership. However, Turkey's full membership depends on the attitude of the Turkish people. If the people are determined on this issue, and put pressure on the deputies in Ankara, membership will materialize. I'd like to let Europeans know, as someone well acquainted with the Turks, that Turkey is not a country to exclude. I believe that geographically, Turkey is part of Europe, with a big city like Istanbul that is in Europe. If this beautiful country joins the EU, it is not only Turkey that would be the winner. Economists will also realize this fact when they look at their figures.

Feldkamp knows Turkey for years

He was born in 1934. He became very successful with the German Bundesliga (League) team Kaiserslautern. He led Kaiserslautern to the German Bundesliga championship. Alongside such successful German Bundesliga teams like Bayern Munich, Schakle 04, Werder Bremen, he succeeded in making football more popular in Kaiserslautern, a city with limited resources. When he came to Turkey as a coach, he contributed a great deal to the improvement of modern football in this country. He led Galatasaray to both the League and Turkish Cup triumphs. He obtained successful results in the UEFA Cup. While he was working hard for Besiktas, he had to leave his job because of health reasons. Feldkamp also worked for a while as a national team critic with the German TV channel, ZDF. He is known as one of the most successful coaches in German football history. Feldkamp has been a sports writer for Zaman since April 2004.

### Turkey's Membership

### Would be the Biggest

### Herald of my Life

Jupp Derwall

Turkish people already deserve to be in the European Union for many reasons, but above all for their hospitality and tolerance.

"I am not a politician, but I know the Turks very well." Turkey's EU membership would be an asset not only for Turkey itself, but also for Europe. Turkey is a huge country, with its culture, beliefs and potential. The integration of such a country into the EU would merge the cultures of the East and the West. They would recognize the beauty in each other.I enjoyed very many pleasant days as a coach in Germany. I had many great memories, which I could not express in words on the victorious days after the stressful, busy days. But, if I had not come to Turkey, especially Istanbul, I am sure I would have missed something in my life. Turkish people already deserve to be in the EU for many reasons, but above all for their hospitality and tolerance. When I say that I am a half Turk, I'm not doing it to ingratiate myself with anyone. It is the intimacy of the people I used to experience when I was in Turkey that makes these words come out of my mouth. Despite many years, I have still friends who call me from Turkey. Because my doctors do not allow me travel by plane. But, there is no place like Istanbul and I miss it.

I follow the debates on Turkey's EU membership through the media as a normal citizen. I am aware of the fact that Turkey has a stronger economy now than during the second half of the 1980s, when I was in Istanbul. I have been able to follow the new government's efforts to integrate into the EU only partly, as being reflected in the German media. Turkey had applied for entrance years ago. I evaluate Turkey as a suitable country that deserves membership. Turkey's EU membership would be the biggest herald of my life."

### Opposing Turkey

### Encouraging the Clash?

Ali Murat Yel

Turkey has been enemy of Europe for centuries. Yet, fighting in history doesn't necessarily mean those countries should remain enemies.

The question of Turkish membership of the European Union should be a technical one, that is, Turkey should begin to negotiate soon after Turkey fulfils the membership criteria since Turkey has been member of many other European organizations like NATO and the Council of Europe. There seem to be several objections against the accession of Turkey into the European Union such as its geographical situation, that is, only a tiny part of Turkey is situated in Europe including Istanbul, which was the cradle of Christian European civilization and the base of the Greek Orthodox ecumenical patriarch. Perhaps more than geography culture and history play more important role to obscure Turkey's joining the most popular club around. Historically, Turkey has been the enemy of Europe for centuries as the Turks were just in front of the gates of European civilization. Yet, fighting in history does not necessarily mean those countries should remain enemies. Even a glimpse of European history reveals that there is almost no European country that had not waged war on each other in their respective histories. Moreover, what the main idea behind the European Community of Coal and Steel was to prevent further wars among the European countries by checking their military industry. So, as a peace project, the European Union has undoubtedly been very successful regarding the peaceful period after the Second World War. If fierce enemies could come together and resolve their previous hostilities, then why Turkey should be denied such an opportunity as a nation that gave the world the example of a pluralistic society in her history for centuries is neither understandable nor acceptable. Turkey's reconciliation with the European nations is a lot easier than the hostility between two culturally close enemies. As history tells us that the enmity between two nations that culturally similar to each other is intensely fiercer than the hostility among other nations such as between Spain and Portugal, Britain and France, and Britain and Ireland. Another claim against Turkish membership comes from the analysts of the international relations and politics, which asserts the fact that Turkey was the "other" of Europe not only during the historical ages but also during the Cold War. Since the Middle East, the Soviet Union and even the United States are the "other" of Europe, se were the Eastern and Central Europe. Yet, one sometimes wonders what kind of heritage and value system could these different parts of Europe share with one another. Religion is another issue that many Europeans very often implicitly affirm as a reason for objecting Turkey's full membership.

Religion possibly remains as the key issue about the Turkish membership. The EU authorities claim in every opportunity that theirs is not a Christian club. Yet, concerning Turkish membership the question whether Islam is compatible with liberal and secular democracy comes very handy for their arguments as an excuse to reject Turkish application. They, however, seem to forget that more than 12 million Muslim citizens already live in the Union. More importantly, these authorities encourage religious freedom on all occasions as included in the founding documents of the Union. Therefore, the Union's last resort is the 9/11 events which give them a new opportunity to hesitate (rather than to re-consider) admitting a Muslim country in their organization.The world is witnessing in recent years, wars waged on the so-called Islamic terrorism like in the cases of the Taliban and the al-Qaeda. These wars could be interpreted as, from certain political perspectives, wars against militant and anti-Western in general and anti-American in particular version of Islam. In this vein, supporting moderate Muslims, who are rather friendly with not only the West and its civilization but also other cultures, would help to build a bridge between the East and West; as Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz stated in those days: "... to win that war against terrorism, we have to reach out to the hundreds of millions of Muslims who believe in tolerance and moderation".

The campaigns after 9/11, thus, are not only military combats but also fights to win the hearts of the Muslims. Nowadays, the West is committing another mistake by violating international war rules as the US troops have launched a ferocious fight into Fallujah in Iraq. These aggressive behaviours in the name of repelling terrorism have caused mistrust against the Western values among many Muslim nations. If the West wants to set up a firewall against terrorism and a model for the rest of the Muslim world should immediately stop offending Muslims and supporting non-democratic regimes in the Islamic world. Otherwise, the hopes of provoking an alternative to radicalism and religious tolerance will undoubtedly fail and the clash between the two major civilizations would be a part of daily life in both parts of the world. This is an urgent matter for the future of the international community and requires immediate action before the lines are clearly marked. The EU should not miss the opportunity to admit Turkey who has determined to play the role of bridging between the East and West for a harmonious future instead of conflict. The EU should show its commitment to impartiality in taking the decision solely based on the Copenhagen criteria with its economic, political, and judicial reforms that have passed the Turkish parliament. In such a situation, it would be very difficult to say "no" but there are fears on the Turkish part that some unwritten criteria would be applied to Turkish application. In this way, the EU would lose its credibility among the Turks and many Muslims.In conclusion, the religion of Turkey should not pose a threat to existing member states since a Muslim member country would be an enormous help to those who were not been able to integrate their own Muslim communities into their societies. Then, only then, the Union would be a real union, which gives way to a harmonious co-existence as some five hundred years ago it occurred in al-Andalusia, as it ceases to be a Christian club.

### Europe debating Turkey

### A risk or an opportunity?

Interview by Selçuk Gültaşlı

For years Turkey keeps her place at the top of the EU agenda. To demonstrate opposing views in an objective manner, Zaman organised a debate where Prof. Rik Torfs and Prof. Marc De Vos presented their views on Turkish membership at the Leuven University in Belgium. The debate was moderated by Zaman's Brussels representative, Selçuk Gültaşlı

Gültaşlı: I want to start with a very basic question. Is Turkey part of Europe?

De Vos: That of course depends on how you define Europe. For me, the issue of Turkey is not whether it has fulfilled the Copenhagen Criteria or whether it is admissible or not. I think the Copenhagen Criteria is irrelevant in this argument. The fundamental issue is the kind of Europe we want. Turkey has come a long way starting in 1959 and has now reached a point of no return. Turkey received a conditional "yes" from the Commission on October 6. When you look at the yardstick for EU membership, it is the Copenhagen Criteria, i.e. democracy, supremacy of the law, respect for minorities and free market economy. These are the only criteria we will be deciding upon whether Turkey should be admitted or not. My point is that these criteria cannot suffice as the yardstick to determine the future of the EU. If you use human rights, democracy and free market economy as the only yardstick, we will sooner or later become a second United Nations mixed with some sort of World Trade Organization at the European level. That is not the kind of institution the founding fathers of Europe foresaw. Their vision was more of a federalist one which is still under debate. So the question is not about Turkey but about us. Where do we want the EU borders to stop? I argue that current criteria are not sufficient to determine our borders. And it should not be the only yardstick when we are discussing Turkey's candidacy.

Torfs: I can say "yes" or "no," but it will be too short. I agree the question is, of course, more complicated than the Copenhagen Criteria can measure. It is obvious that if Europe is not more than that, then it is a building without a soul. With regard to Turkey, one can ask, first of all, geographically is it part of Europe? A question that we very oftenly confront these days. So, then the question is what is geography? On the one hand you can say most of Turkey is in Asia Minor but on the other hand you can say Istanbul, one of the most important cities in European history is in Europe, and is Turkish. Besides there are so many historical ties between Europe and Turkey. Why Turkey and Greece are so against each other is because they know each other very well. You cannot be enemies if you do not know each other. I also like the argument that Alaska was part of Russia but then it was sold to the United States. I can imagine some will say that Alaska is even disconnected with the rest of U. S. and even much more connected to Siberia. Rightly so, because Alaska is much closer to Siberia, but I think few people will challenge the fact that Alaska is part of United States today.

I fully agree that democracy, human rights and free market are not enough to become European, then we have to find more common basics. The fact that Turkey could be introduced as a part of the EU can be a good opportunity to reflect on what Europe really is. In the past it was very easy, the common values between six countries, the founders of the EU, were obvious, differences between France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands are very small. But it is now more important what Europe is, when others which are obviously less similar, join. It is even becoming more difficult especially when the construction of Europe is at stake. Some argue that we could have problems with Turkey because it is an Islamic country, but we had more serious problems with Orthodox countries in the past than with the others. It is not a mere coincidence that we have only Greece and Cyprus (a part of Cyprus), two more or less Orthodox countries in the Club, but not Romania and Bulgaria, the true Orthodox countries, which are still waiting. Apparently, we had an implicit Catholic-Protestant point view of Europe and now maybe it is time to think that European values also exist out of that circle. To put it short, Turkey's membership will help us go beyond the Copenhagen Criteria when we define what Europe is.

Gültaşlı: But I could not quite understand what you said on Turkey? Is it part of Europe or should it be?

Torfs: Firstly, if all the criteria, particularly those on human rights and democracy are met, I should say "yes." But I would 'yes' to Ukraine as well. I would even go a bit too far, as one of our former prime ministers Leo Tindemans said, why not Canada?

Gültaşlı: Prof. De Vos, you said the Copenhagen Criteria is not sufficient but then Turks could well argue that these criteria that have been on the table since 1993, applied to Eastern Europeans. Why would it be less sufficient for Turkey now? Isn't this a different treatment? Isn't there pacta sunt servanda??? (every treaty in force is binding upon the parties concerned and must be performed by them in good faith) in international relations?

De Vos: I think you are right. If we could take a look from the very beginning we could be much freer about our decision. I can read you the Association Agreement, you can see the mention of membership.nowhere. I can read it to you, it is about strenghtening trade and the final stage is the customs union which we already reached.

Gültaşlı: There is the 28th article of that Association Agreement which is about membership. Can we have a look at that?

De Vos:Yes, sure. But that is conditional. There is no commitment. Also in 1963, we did not have a European Union. It was an economic community then. We did also have association agreements with Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Israel etc. Coming to your question why Turkey is being treated differently. First of all, honestly speaking, we put ourselves in an impossible situation. It was a Cold War strategy, that was the background, so now we are in a situation where the risk of saying "no" is higher than saying "yes." That is not the situation I have chosen. So I dare go for honesty once. So why should we adopt a different criteria for Turkey? I think the bottomline is that the historical reintegration of Eastern Europeans, the victims who fell on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain, was seen as an opportunity. After 50 years, we had the opportunity to right the wrongs. It was the sense of a historic opportunity and duty that these countries should be part of Europe. In that sense, I think Turkey is different. You can claim that we have common history, we have historical ties. But we have historical ties with most parts of the globe. But it does not mean that the Ottoman Empire was European because it occupied a certain part of Europe. It occupied even a larger part of Arab countries in Asia and Africa. So shouldn't Turkey be in the Arab League rather than in the European Union? Let's be honest for once, let's admit that it is a different case so it is not entirely astonishing that we are looking much closer to the issue of Turkey than we looked at Eastern Europe. But if I were Turkish, I would have exactly the same attitude, why I am gonna be excluded after 40 years. After all, much too late and why agree to change directions. Yes, you are not fairly treated. We should have been honest from the very start and we were not. But we could not be honest at that time because of the geopolitical context of the time. I think it will be in the interest of both parties if we can take a fresh look at things. We should find a middle road.

Gültaşlı: What are your concerns about a possible membership of Turkey? What harm can Turkey do to the European project?

De Vos: A number of things: History has been mentioned. Political culture, a general culture excluding religion, as if we are not a Christian club. We already have a sizable percentage of Muslims in our countries. Because of demography, Muslims will constitute 27 percent in the next few decades, in a Europe that excludes Turkey. We already have some problems integrating Muslims into our societies. Of course, I know that Turkey is a special Muslim state. Since the Kemalist revolution, you have tried to create a secular system. Wonderful, a great achievement. But when you look at your history, that secularization has always been under pressure. Under the pressure of Kemal Atatürk, under the pressure of the army and now under the pressure of the EU. What happens if that pressure goes away? You often see in the Islamic countries that when the pressure goes away, political Islam comes to the fore. In my opinion, that is a question mark, I respect the secular nature of the country but what will happen if the pressure fades away. If you look at the studies of Turkish universities, I found it troublesome in case the pressure goes away. For me, secularism is still a problem. Let's not forget that the Commission report still asks for improvements in human rights, women's rights etc. Demography is also an issue when we still have problems integrating our small Muslim population, and because of demographic trends, Turkey could be 85 million by the time it joins. I don't know yet and I am not a scared, Islamphobic person but I think we have to consider it.

Then I have geography. Geography matters. Cyprus, Alaska, Malta, you can always have oddities. In case of Turkey, you will be bordering Syria, Iraq and Iran and these are not the most stable countries in the world. It is likely that they are not gonna become so overnight. Who will be our neighbors and where will our borders pass through when Turkey joins?

Finally, economy. I think Turkey could be an asset as it is today. However, we just admitted 10 new countries and will do a lot to digest them, we not only have to make them develop but also should be careful not to squander too much wealth there. Finally, we are already in a vulnerable situation where we have to integrate the newcomers and face a population decrease. We are not ready institutionally and politically. The EU cannot function as it did when it had 15 members. It now has 25 and could be 27 soon.

Torfs: Well I would not immediately say a different treatment, but in any case Turkey brings a different reflection process. Turkey's case is an issue that takes us deeper into what Europe is than Hungary or the Czech Republic. So it forces us to think about the European identity, which is good. We did not do it quite often. Europe has always been defined for its pragmatic and defense purposes, world wars, Cold War or economic depression. There I agree with De Vos that several elements are not good for Turkey. Pacta sunct servanda is not very appealing to Turkey. If we tell people that we have to admit Turkey because we committed ourselves, people won't be convinced. I also agree that the agreement of 1963 could be interpreted in different ways. Pacta sunt servanda is a nice principle, however, it was in the Cold War years and the EU was then an economic community with six members. We also have the principle of rebus sic stantibus (extraordinary circumstances can lead to the termination of a treaty). So what I am saying is that this is a defensive argument, it is not appealing and not helping Turkey's cause. I think the same is true for the geostrategic argument. The worst advocate for Turkey's entrance is very often George W. Bush. When he says Turkey should be a part of the EU, this is counter-productive, for most Europeans are simply saying that an EU that admits Turkey would rather be serving U. S. interests. It is not a solid base to create an EU which has a content and a soul. Both legal and strategic approaches are not good enough to convince people that Turkey's entrance is something valuable and that is what we have to show. We have to demonstrate that EU membership is not only good for Turkey but also a form of enrichment for Europe. Not just a stragetic move or a contract but a move that will enrich us. For me, the big question is, can we really in Europe cope with a democracy that accepts the supremacy of the law and at the same time is an open society that can integrate diversity? Can we have a Europe advanced and democratic but also diverse? It is, of course, more difficult to be democratic and diverse. It is not difficult to be a democrat when you live in a small town in Switzerland and when you go to the market place and vote by raising your hand. That is an easy way of democracy. The more diversity comes in, the more challenging the functioning of democracy becomes. Culturally, I really wonder whether Turkey is that tremendously different from Europe, of course, it is different. Of course people can spot differences between Turkey and Denmark. But we also have our differences. Spain and Lithuania are not that similar and yet they are in the EU. It is a very diverse situation.

We already have had many relations with Turkey, especially in a very privileged way, through wars. We had Vienna in 1683. You do not fight people who you do not know. You have to know your adversaries to fight against them. But we had wars between France and Germany and now they are good friends. We did not have that many wars between France and Britain and they are not good friends. Let's not forget Turkey was sometimes at the frontline of emancipation. Although Islam is the dominating religion, women already could vote in the 1930s. For Belgium we had to wait until the late 1940s. Women in Turkey started to attend universities and become judges in the beginning of the 20th century, something which was very exceptional in Europe at that time. With regards to religion, I personally do not believe that the fact that most Turks are Muslims does not play a part. I am sure this religious element plays an important part in the discussion. Of course, not openly! We do not hear very much in Europe that we are Christians but we hear more of the argument that we are no longer Christians. I think that is the difficulty. Europe now is pretty much secularized and we are not used to seeing people who are attached to their beliefs. When we see so many Turks who are believers, that makes us uneasy from time to time. Because we are used to very weak religious feelings, weak Catholics, weak Protestants. All of a sudden, we confront people who are religious and who really practice their religion. We are not very comfortable with it anymore. The lack of our own Christian identity makes it more difficult for us to cope with people who have a clearer religious identity. In that regard, it is true, of course, that we are not a Catholic or Protestant Europe, but we are living in a post-Christian society which makes it even more difficult.

De Vos: Even though I agree that we are now more secular than before, I disagree on one point. First of all, you cannot take the past as a sound reference. It does not mean that if you are well advanced in one part of your history, you always remain at that point. You cannot impose democracy, it should come from the inside, from bottom to top not from top to bottom Turkey is not a unidimensional country. When you are in Istanbul, you are in a different world and then in Anatolia, you are in a different culture.

Gültaşlı: There are two basic and very popular arguments in favor of Turkey's accession. One is Turkey's membership is a remedy for the clash of civilizations. The other is the geostrategic argument, that is, if the EU wants to be a global player, it needs Turkey.

Torfs: I will never be in favor of integration because of the fear of a clash. Negative arguments, emotions, fears play a part but we have to try to rationalize as much as possible. If we are going try to convince people on behalf of Turkey, we should find something positive, it cannot be out of fear. It is a great challenge to show that a country with a Muslim majority can fit into the Western democratic model by becoming an EU member. It is quite an achievement. That is something much more than the fear of the clash of civilizations. As for the geostragetic dimension, I think that can only be a result of Turkey's membership but not a good argument for accession.

De Vos: It is a great achievement, of course, if Turkey can be fully democratic, respecting human rights and minorities. But please do not tell me that you need the EU to attain that goal. I would rather like to see Turkey achieve that not through foreign pressure but by herself, proudly, standing on her own feet, not through the pressure of "infidels." I think you will be a much better model if you can achieve it on your own but not by being a part of the EU. Secondly, I do not believe in an automatic domino effect. I do not think Turkey's relations with her neighbors are that pleasant. I do not think that they will immediately, automatically follow the Turkish example. I fully agree that it is very crucial that a big Muslim country like Turkey can combine her religion with democratic institutions but that should be on her own. On geo-strategy, Turkey is of course very strategically located, it has always been so. It is a bridge and I think being bridge should be Turkey's role rather than being enveloped into something else. Does the EU need Turkey as a geo-strategic partner? The answer is "yes." But Turkey is already in NATO. During the Iraq war, we saw that the EU could not speak with one voice, even without Turkey. So the remedy is not Turkey but to deepen, to strenghten the EU's institutional-political framework to speak with one voice. I do not think Turkey will make the EU become one voice. Turkey will be better off by continuing to be a bridge rather than being a part of one culture.

### Turkey's Membership

### Can Remind Islam's

### Contributions to Europe

Chandra Muzaffar

I hope that with Turkish membership, Europe will begin to appreciate religious, cultural heterogeneity as a strength, not a weakness.

Viewed from inter-civilizational understanding and amity, Turkey's entry into EU may be a positive development. Because of its huge Muslim population, an EU with Turkey will cease to be 'a continent with an exclusive Christian background.' When a minority is so substantial in numbers, the majority will have no choice but to enter into serious dialogue with it. Europe will have to learn how to accept, and more important, how to respect 'the other' as an equal - something which European civilization has always found problematic.

One hopes that after Turkish membership Europeans will begin to appreciate religious and cultural heterogeneity as a strength, not a weakness. Europeans should understand that the only other successful regional grouping in the world, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is home to at least five distinct religions. For the most part, the different religious and cultural communities in ASEAN have lived in peace for centuries. It will be good if Turkey joins the EU for yet another reason. Given the Ottoman Empire's role in Europe in the past, Turkey, will serve as a strong reminder to contemporary Europe of Islam's outstanding contribution to the growth of European civilization. There is a need to emphasize yet again that simple truth - largely because Europe and the West continue to remain in a state of denial ---that it was Islamic civilization that gave birth to the Renaissance. Through Turkey, Europe, it is hoped, will come to terms with its own history.

At the same time, as Turkey adjusts and adapts to human rights standards and the canons of good governance laid out by the EU, it will also have to re-examine and re-evaluate its own Islamic heritage. There should be a sincere endeavor to discard dogmatic, literalist interpretations of the religion which negate its dynamic, evolutionary spirit orientated towards justice and compassion. It is only through introspective, reflective inquiry that the underlying values and principles of Islam---rather than its rituals and practices ---will emerge as the defining characteristics of the faith. Such a transformation in Turkish Islam will benefit the entire Muslim world. However, adjustment to the EU should not lead to the surrender of fundamental Islamic teachings on matters of right and wrong. Gay marriages and homosexuality for instance are not acceptable to the religion. Turkey should not embrace the stark individualism with its distorted notion of free choice that underlies certain so-called human rights practices in Europe. It should continue to protect and preserve the integrity of family and community just as it should remain deeply committed to the Oneness of God as the foundational principle of its worldview -whatever the pressures from a secularized Europe, which has become estranged from the sacred. If Turkey's membership is to benefit humanity, it should remain faithful to its own spiritual and moral identity.

'Turkey in Europe?'

İmmanuel Wallerstein

Is Turkey European? For Europe, the

issue is whether Europe will base its future on a Christian or a secular culture.

Is Turkey European? Will Turkey be accepted as part of the European Union? This question, which has been lingering for a good twenty (if not fifty) years, gets very little attention outside of Turkey and to a much lesser extent in western Europe. Yet, it is one of the more important geopolitical issues of the coming decades.

An intelligent answer to this question has to start in the sixteenth century, when the Ottoman Empire was at its peak of glory and importance under Suleiman the Magnificent. At that time, the Ottoman Empire seemed to be the anti-Europe - a Muslim empire expanding everywhere, including into Christian Europe. It not only controlled most of what we now think of as the Arab world, but it was conquering all of southeastern Europe. This culminated in the seventeenth century, in the so-called Türkenjahr, when the Habsburg emperor successfully resisted the second Ottoman siege of Vienna, in the very center of Europe. After this, the Ottoman Empire began to recede slowly, until in the nineteenth century, it was considered the "sick man of Europe." Yet, note, it was called the sick man "of Europe."

The Ottoman Empire finally collapsed in the wake of the First World War. The military hero of the battle of the Dardanelles in 1915, Mustafa Kemal (later to be called Atatürk, father of the Turkish people), founded in 1919 a national liberation movement that was dedicated to the creation of a Turkish republic, nationalist and secular. By 1922, the Ottoman Sultanate was abolished. In 1923, the Turkish Republic was proclaimed, with Atatürk as President. And in 1924, the caliphate, that is, the religious authority that the Ottoman Sultan had incarnated, was abolished as well. (When in 2001, Osama bin Laden, referred to 80 years of Muslim humiliation, he specifically traced it to the abolition of the caliphate.)

The program of Atatürk was resolutely "Westernizing" - transformation of the legal system, liberation of women, abolition of religious symbols (such as the wearing of the fez), and above all "Etatism" - the central role of the state in the life of the citizens. Westernizing, but not pro-European, in the sense that the Turkish republic was vigorously anti-imperialist, and played the role in the League of Nations that we associate later with the role of India in the United Nations - a constant critic of colonialism and imperialism. While relations with the Soviet Union were initially good (shared anti-imperialist sentiments), they deteriorated seriously in the interwar period. And in the second World War, Turkey remained neutral, to the great displeasure of the Allies.

When, in 1946, Great Britain announced its political withdrawal from the Middle East, the United States took up the slack. The Truman Doctrine put the U.S. squarely behind the governments of Greece and Turkey in the face of what they and the U.S. considered the Soviet menace. So, when NATO was formed in 1949, it seemed self-evident that Turkey would become a member. And when the United Nations appealed for troops to aid South Korea in 1950, Turkey responded in an important way. By now, Turkey had shifted its cultural model of Westernization from France (initially favored in the 1920s) to the United States. When the party founded by Atatürk began to lose strength for the first time in the post-1945 period, the Turkish armed forces moved into the foreground as the principal guarantor of secular nationalism and Etatism (that is, a homogeneous Jacobin version of the role of the state). When, in the 1970s, the then European Economic Community began to expand into southern Europe, Turkey indicated its interest, but it was passed over. It is not sure, however, that Turkey itself was all that anxious at that point to join Europe.

Turkey was consumed by its internal problems: an armed forces that had seized power on several occasions, an emergent rebellion of the large Kurdish population located in southeastern Turkey, and the beginnings of an Islamist revival. For the mainstream Turks, and especially the armed forces, Kurds did not exist. There were only Turks. And they were unwilling to allow any recognition of group rights, including linguistic rights. The armed forces repressed rebellion, at very great cost. Nor were the armed forces willing to make any concessions to Islamists. They too were repressed. This was however an era of increasing concern in western Europe with human rights and the pattern of brutal repressions and military takeovers was deemed in western Europe very unacceptable in a country aspiring to integration in European institutions. There was a second consideration. In the 1950s, western Europe needed an influx of workers to sustain its expanding industries. And they turned in particular to Turks. This was especially true of Germany, which had a large Gastarbeiter program. But in the 1970s, with the beginning of the Kondratieff B-phase and therefore of increased unemployment, both the governments and the public began to think that the Turks should go home. However, by now, we were into second-generation Turks, born in Germany and elsewhere in western Europe, who considered themselves natives of these countries and wished not only to remain but to exercise the full rights of citizens. As the Turks remained in western Europe, and as many North Africans came also to migrate there (especially but not only to France), the percentage of Muslim population began to grow markedly. And as Islamism began to grow in influence among these Muslims, acute cultural (and political) conflicts began to play an important role in the daily life of western Europe.

In the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, western Europe turned to the incorporation of east-central Europe into its institutions. And Turkey was moved repeatedly to a place after these countries. Meanwhile, in Turkey, a remarkable thing occurred. An Islamist movement actually came to political power. But it was an unusually "moderate" Islamist movement, which became more enthusiastic about integration into Europe than the old Etatist military. The Islamists in power saw Europe as a guarantee of their civil rights. So did the Kurds. The United States also favored Turkish integration into Europe, seeing it as constraining any tendency of Turkey to break with the West, and therefore with the United States. With the prospect of Turkey actually joining the European Union looming on the horizon, some west European leaders began to verbalize their fears, notably Valérie Giscard d'Estaing and Helmut Kohl, who openly suggested that Turkey did not fit. What they meant of course was that including Turkey into the European Union would suddenly augment significantly the percentage of Muslims in Europe. But this was a moment when France was banning the wearing of the Muslim head covering by girls in school. And politicians throughout Europe were beginning to respond openly to anti-Muslim fears.

Suddenly, the issue has become acute, for Europe and for Turkey. For Europe, the issue is whether Europe will base its future on being a Christian culture or being a secular culture. It should be noted that, at this very moment, Europeans are debating fiercely whether, in the new constitution, there will be explicit reference to the Christian heritage of Europe, something being strongly pushed by the Vatican. The seeds of expanded internal turmoil depend on the degree to which Europe can or cannot find ways to make cultural space for its inevitablyincreasing Muslim population. Integrating Turkey is seen by some as tilting the balance in the direction of greater turmoil. But it is seen by others as one of the best ways of overcoming this turmoil.

Meanwhile, in the greater Middle East, as the Bush administration likes to call it, a rejection of Turkey in Europe could add a major factor to the equation. Turkey is Muslim but it is also the heir to Ottoman domination of the Arab world, and has been regarded with great suspicion by the Arab populations and states ever since their independences. On the other hand, were Turkey to be barred definitively from Europe, it is quite possible that the "moderate" Islamism now in favor might give way to a less "moderate" version, something that would rebound on Europe significantly. Turkey in Europe is not a minor question.

### Turkish Accession

### Forces Europe to

### Rethink the Middle East

Cem Özdemir

A common EU foreign policy needs to use Turkish assets, culture and know-how in

the Middle East to redouble stalled efforts.

Turkey is a part of Europe. This week's European Commission recommendation in advance of the December European Council meeting is a clear signal not only to Turkey, but also to the whole Middle East and to U.S. and European policymakers. Much of Europe has been debating Turkey's fulfillment of the Copenhagen criteria and assessing what problems Turkish membership, with its population of 71 million mostly Muslims, could bring to the EU. Detractors argue that Turkey is economically not ready, has human rights failings, and that its Muslim population is too different to be compatible to the European project. Membership would end attempts to deepen integration or to create a "United States of Europe." Supporters cite Turkey's ability to rapidly reform and note the timetable of a decade (even at its most optimistic) for Turkey to continue reforming and carrying out laws before officially joining the EU club. We tend to forget that Portugal and Greece - fresh from staging successful shows by hosting the European Cup and Athens Olympics - were not the rosy pictures they are today at the time they began EU accession negotiations. At the time of possible Turkish accession around 2015, we will be speaking about a different Turkey, as well as a different EU.

The Commission's stamp of approval for the beginning of accession negotiations reaffirms Turkey's path of the last 40 years. But it also importantly sends a message to the wider Middle East that Muslim societies can be part of the West, that Islam and democracy are compatible.

Following their association agreement in 1963, Turkey was unanimously named a candidate for EU membership at the Helsinki Summit in 1999 and has exponentially increased its rate of reforms since 2002. Such reform as the abolition of the death penalty (which for its worth would rule the United States incompatible for membership in the EU) occurred even under the previous Turkish government and without incident. More recent reforms include scaling back on the military's decision-making power, granting language rights for Kurds and other minorities and encouraging the reunification of Cyprus - a bid which failed this year for the first time not because of the Turks, but because of the Greeks.

This irreversible process can, however, be looked at in a different geopolitical way not visible to European architects in 1963 or even 1999 - as a European "soft power" contribution to change in the Middle East.

The United States, United Kingdom and other allies are amassed in a quagmire in Iraq under the auspices of (since they have given up on WMD) democratizing and transforming the Middle East. American military planners admit too little advance planning into winning the war for the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis. Many in Europe, have been critical of the U.S. focus on military hard power to transform the region. Europeans can now begin to answer.

Turkey's future membership in the EU would signal that modernizing governments can and will be rewarded. Turkey has a dominant Muslim society that has said to Europe, we want to be more like you, and not like Saudi Arabia. This secular democracy - firmly anchored in Europe's borders, laws and free markets - will touch on Syria, Iraq, Iran and the southern Caucasus. American policymakers take note. With Iraq bordering the EU, future opportunities for stability and trade will be generated. With Iranian theocracy bordering on the EU, that country's internal reform movement can only be further strengthened.

The Middle East will be inescapably in Europe's backyard. A common EU foreign policy needs to use Turkish assets, culture and know-how in the region to redouble stalled efforts beyond a cooperative strategy in Iran and attempts to broker Israeli-Palestinian peace. Now that the path toward Turkish membership is set-let us look down the road.

Affirmed by the European Council meeting in December, the decision to begin accession negotiations with Turkey has implications well beyond its borders. We the Europeans need to not limit ourselves to the internal debates. The outside world with its many challenges will not wait for us to complete first our European project. We should recognize our need to make Turkey a European success story and expand our efforts through this process to encourage democratization and transformation in the Middle East. The mere presence of a stable, democratic and secular country with a large Muslim majority within the EU is a powerful soft weapon supporting our way of life. We need only to effectively use it as a stepping stone for renewed engagement in the Middle East.

'No' creates problems

### both for EU and Turkey

Marco Ansaldo

A failure of the Turkish accession process would mean the loss of vital opportunities for the future of both Turkey and EU.

Viewed from Italy, Turkey's access to EU is a must and a necessity for Europe itself. In Rome, there is no doubt on it, from each side of the Parliament. The center right government of Silvio Berlusconi and the center left opposition have at least in common one matter in which they are marching unite: the inclusion of Ankara in the Union. For many reasons. At a time when the European Union is set to assume greater responsibility, Turkish accession would considerably strenghten the Union's capabilities as foreign policy actor in fields and areas where its action is dramatically poor. Due to its geo-strategic positions, infact, Turkey would add new dimensions to Europe's foreign policy efforts in important regions as the Middle East, the Mediterranean, Central Asia and South Caucasus.

In the Middle East, especially, a vital area to Europe both for historical reasons and because of its impact to security, EU has much to gain in profite and status. Despite being the largest provider of aid to the Palestinians and entertaining strong commercial links with Israel and Arab states, Europe has only played a modest role in the search for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But with Turkey, as an effective member in the alliance, there will be good arguments for a more assertive European role, without intention to challenge the leadership of the United States of America in the area. Turkey could even play a new decisive role in the South of the Union, adding to the "Northern Dimension" initiated by Finland, a new powerful "Southern Dimension". This should not be seen as a danger, but as another great opportunity. With its pivotal position at the heart of the Eurasian region and a western pillar of the wider Middle East, Turkey can be of indisputable benefit to European action in an area where EU always showed a sort of difficulty to move. In conclusion, Ankara's accession would offer an incomparative benefit both to the European Union and Turkey itself. For the Union, the unique position of Turkey at the crossroads of the Balkans, the Middle East, South Caucasus and Central Asia, its importance for the security of Europe, and its political, economic and military weight would be a great asset. And more, as a large Muslim country firmly embedded in the European Union, Turkey could play a significant role in Europe's relations with the whole Islamic world.

For Turkey, EU accession would be the ultimate confirmation that its century-old orientation towards the West was definitely the right choice. EU membership would also ensure that the country's transformation into a modern democratic society has become irreversible, enabling Turkey to fully exploit its rich human and economic resources. At the contrary, a failure of the Turkish accession process would mean the loss of vital opportunities for the future of both sides. It could provoke a serious crisis of identity in Turkey, leading to political unrest and instability at the Union's doorstep. A situation that could cause serious and unexpected troubles to Europe's future itself. Italy understands and knows it well. Therefore it is standing as a firm ally behind Turkey's shoulders.

### The ırrefutable soundness

### of a European Turkey

Jan Nahum

A properly discovered Turkey could be a major step in enhancing life on earth. Turkey is yet grossly undiscovered by the the EU too.

During the four billion years of Earth-Life, there have been many cataclysms that wiped almost 60 to 70 % of all living species. Nature has known how to rebound and diversify all over again. Nevertheless, cataclysms happen and threaten, that life, which has been regenerated and has prospered until they strike once again. Hence, diversity, a major concern when it diminishes, since it is assessed as a loss to the quality of life and a security for its continuation, has become a goal of modern society and civilizations. The civilized world has become geared to preserve, generate and propagate diversity in order to enhance life, its fulfillment and maximize the satisfaction derived from it. Turkey, and the Turkish society is, by itself, a great mixture, created both by a geographic coincidence such as being situated at the crossroads of civilizations, and by historical happenings generated through the character of the people living there and events of ancient times. A product of the Earth's and Nature's capability of creating great diversity, it is a rich cultural mix, sitting on its archeological infrastructure and background, yet to be discovered with much to reveal, and as such, makes up for a most precious part of the World Heritage in need of preservation, uncovering, and divulging. In its unending search for a better quality of life, a large part of the civilized world, or better said a major portion of the people living within it, have yet to learn about and discover the Turkish phenomenon, and its contribution to the un satiable quest for diversity.

A properly discovered and propagated Turkey and Turkish society could be a major step in the enhancement of life on Earth, just by its contribution to the expansion of known diversity. As is, Turkey is yet grossly undiscovered by the populations of the developed world, including the EU, a major reason for this estrangement being the fright of the "strange, to whom we feel we do not belong", and being so undiscovered, just by overcoming this fright of the strange, which would be achieved with EU membership, and so being discovered will greatly contribute to diversity on Earth. Once uncovered, or unveiled, Turkey becomes a precious gift to the people who are experiencing it. In this context and because it is not well known, Turkey's introduction to the EU will resemble the discovery, unearthing, and preservation of a precious treasure in an extension to the museum for the preservation of World Heritage, if there ever were to be something of the sort. Besides its cultural and geographic wealth, Turkey has a young population that is far behind the level of income that it has been fantasizing about and striving to achieve, and is ready to sacrifice much more than many other nations would, simply to prove to itself that finally it is as good as any other within the developed nations it feels part of. If there was anything like an economic DNA, then the Turkish people seem to have one which has got the characteristics of the developed world, but not having been able to achieve this positioning, there is a non ending quest for ever more achievement in the direction of this "Magic Call" the developed world has become to the Turkish nation. Going to Europe, winning a soccer game against a European team, using European goods, exporting to Europe, are all icons, remnant of a European pigeon holing of the Ottoman Empire as the sick man of Europe. It is this internal inferno, trying to incinerate this centuries old evaluation which helps fuelling the bursts of growth Turkey displays once in a while, a fire burning wild, until recently sometimes untamed and undirected, such that it consumes its self away, becoming the root cause of frequent recessions that break our back, every time we raise our pace in the process of prosperity. The lack of patience within the desire to become everything we longed for right now; that is the Turkish nation's "Call of the Wild". A rare trait by itself, worth preserving, simply because there remains so few like it on Earth; and this same trait is so much worth harnessing in the right direction, simply for the tremendous potential it can unleash benefiting all.

The EU membership and the adoption of its "Acquis" would be Turkey's harness as put on a wild Mustang to harness its strength and power; otherwise an un harnessed force of nature. EU membership would act as the carbon rods that regulate a nuclear reaction.

A young and dynamic nation, eager to chew at everything thrown in its direction, a dynamo of development, that will deliver quality, or productivity, Total Quality, or Kaizen; no matter what it takes as long as it is a vehicle on the road to the "Call".

The "Magic Call" that makes for the Turkish Nation's vision of being one of the developed and prosperous nations within the world community which creates value, and its "Call Of The Wild", which make up its young and restless attribute in reaching its vision make for the diverse combination that could bring so much to enhance the overall level and quality of life on Earth. It is this same Turkish population who, with EU membership will grow from 4000 $ per capita to to 7500 $ in 10 years and to 12000$ per capita in 20 years, generating an estimated 400 billion $ a year in private consumption growth. A population that on the one side has an un satisfiable need to run towards a goal "the Magic Call", and on the other hand the need to asses and satisfy its self that it is on track by spending its new found prosperity "the Wild Call"; both also other sources of new found diversity for the EU. Not only diversity but, a tremendous economic boost to a mature and saturated environment. Turkey is set to bring life into a mature home, as would a teenager coming from away to his parent's .

Maybe situated on its boundaries, maybe predominantly of a different religion, or culture, not exactly yet in line with all EU values or rules, yet, if there is anything that is a common character of Europe, as a root European DNA, the Turkish people have got it, and it takes to be Turkish to really appreciate and feel this instinctive European impulse combined with its various quests, that may yet become the best rejuvenation and diversification of the European DNA by enriching it with this new found source of diversity.
