France’s attitude against Turkey on the way of EU and proposals for solution.
Fatih Mustafa Çelebi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dans cet article, l’auteur, Turc, rappelle que les relations entre la France et la Turquie ne sont pas récentes. Les deux pays ont des contacts depuis longtemps. Mais concernant l’entrée de la Turquie dans l’Union européenne, la France fait tarder les choses, quand elle ne s’y oppose pas, en fonction des voeux des différents Présidents de la République et de leurs soucis électoraux. L’auteur construit son article en trois temps. Il souligne les propos français. Puis il indique la position d’autres pays (Angleterre, Espagne, Italie, Allemagne, Autriche), afin de faciliter la confrontation des perspectives. Sur cette base, enfin, il propose des arguments destinés à aider à contrer le discours français. On remarquera particulièrement dans ce texte le tableau par lequel l’auteur répond point par point à la position française, organisant ainsi d’autant mieux la possibilité d’un débat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Türkiye'nin AB'yle müzakerelerinin sürdüğü günümüzde, Türkiye'nin üyeliğiyle ilgili tartışmalar devam etmekte. Bilindiği üzere tartışmada iki cephe var. İlk cephe Türkiye'nin AB'ye ait olduğunu, ikinci cephe ise tam aksi düşünceyi savunuyor. İkinci cephenin geçmişten bugüne dile getirdiği düşüncelere, tezlere ve görüşlerini temellendirdikleri noktalara çok yapıcı ve elle tutulur cevaplar verildi, ayrıca da hali hazırda verilmekte. Bu cephenin ısrarla vurguladığı –her defasında da yanıt aldığı, ama hala dile getirmekten bıkmadığı- bir konu var; din konusu. Anlaşılacağı ve bilindiği üzere din ekseninde süren tartışmalar dahilinde, Türkiye'nin lehinde tutum sergileyen kesim somut açıklamalar yapmaktadırlar. Fakat konuya farklı pencerelerden bakılması ve açıklamaların çeşitlendirilmesi taraftarıyım. AB'nin bugünkü 27 üye ülkesinin nüfuslarının büyük çoğunluğu Hristiyan. Ayrıca sadece AB'de değil, bütün dünya'da Hristiyanlık dini önemli bir etkiye sahip. Türkiye'nin nüfusunun çoğunluğu ise Müslüman. İşte Türkiye aleyhtarı kesimlerce dile getirilen şikayetlerden biri. Onlara gore Türkiye AB'ye üye olamaz çünkü o, nüfusunun çoğunluğu Müslüman olan bir ülke. Türkiye çok zengin ve tarihi topraklar üzerinde yaşamını sürdürüyor. Anadolu, yani Türkiye'nin yaşadığı topraklar, ülke tarihini ve ülkenin gerçekte ne demek olduğunu çok iyi anlatmakta. İşte cevapta tam olarak orada; Türkiye'nin yaşamını sürdürdüğü topraklarda. Dinsel farklılıkları bahane ederek Türkiye'nin AB üyeliği önüne set çekmek isteyenlere verilecek cevap. Peki sadece Türk topraklarını işaret ederek nasıl bir cevap verebiliriz ki? Bu ne demek oluyor? Bugünkü Türk topraklarının, yani Anadolu'nun AB'ye üye olan 27 üye ülkenin nüfuslarının çoğunun inandığı din olan Hristiyanlığın bugüne gelmesinde ve bugünkü halini almasında çok büyük bir rolü var. Bu rol iki basit örnekle rahatlıkla açıklanabilir. Geçmişte İncil'in günümüz halini alması için büyük bir konsil toplandı. Bu konsilde dönemin önde gelen Hristiyan din adamları vardı. Konsil, İncil'in sayısının dörde indirilmesini kararlaştırdı. Yani, İncil'e bugünkü şeklini verdi. Bu konsil ise İznik'te, yani Anadolu topraklarında bir araya geldi. İkinci örnek ise yine çok kısa ve yine çok net. Hristiyanlık dinine ilk olarak 'Hristiyan' adının verilmesi ve bu şekilde adlandırılışı bugünkü Tarsus ve Antakya arasında kalan bir coğrafyada meydana geldi. Peki burası neresi? Yanıt bir kez daha Anadolu. Bu iki tarihi ve önemi kelimelerle anlatılamayacak olan örnekten şu sonuca varılıyor: Türkiye öyle güçlü bir medeniyet, öyle derin, zengin, tarihi ve anlamlı topraklar üzerinde yaşayan öyle eşsiz bir ülke ki, ona AB konusunda karşı çıkanların en temel tezini bile bin yıllar once çürütmeyi başarabilmiş. Bu bağlamda Türkiye karşıtı cephe aslında çok şanslı. Çünkü tartışmaya açtıkları konular onlar farketmesede Türkiye'nin elini her geçen gün daha da güçlendiriyor ve Türkiye'nin dünya uygarlığına neler kattığını ve gelecekte, farklı dinleri bir arada bulundurma kararlılığına sahip olan AB'ne üye olarakta neler katacağını gösteriyor.Son olarak şunu belirtmekte fayda var; Türkiye'nin tarihi ve kültürel geçmişiyle ilgili verdiğim bu iki örnek ve beraberinde yaptığım açıklamaların anlamı AB'nin ve bünyesinde barındırdığı insanların art niyetli olduğunu göstermiyor. Bunlar her demokraside olması gereken bir özellik olan çok sesliliğin bir sonucu olarak Türkiye aleyhinde görüş bildirenlere, ilgili konuyla bağlantılı verilen cevaplar sadece. Bu iki örnekle birlikte gerçek olan birşey daha var. AB çok önemli bir birikimin üzerinde oturmaktadır ve kendisini bugünkü konumuna getirmiş olan iradeye, kararlılığa ve doğru zamanda doğru kararlar verebilme yeteneğine tam anlamıyla sahiptir. Bahsi geçen bu iki büyük oyuncunun, yani AB ve Türkiye'nin ilişkileri iki tarafında en çok kazanacağı seçenek olan 'tam üyelik' seçeneğiyle birlikte yoluna devam edecektir. İlişkiler bu gelişmeler ışığında yürüyecektir, çünkü iki tarafta ortak çıkarların ortak noktalarda ve ortak hedeflerde buluştuğunu kestirebilecek vizyona ve büyüklüğe sahiptir.
Résumé en Turc
Türkiye'nin AB'yle müzakerelerinin sürdüğü günümüzde, Türkiye'nin üyeliğiyle ilgili tartışmalar devam etmekte. Bilindiği üzere tartışmada iki cephe var. İlk cephe Türkiye'nin AB'ye ait olduğunu, ikinci cephe ise tam aksi düşünceyi savunuyor. İkinci cephenin geçmişten bugüne dile getirdiği düşüncelere, tezlere ve görüşlerini temellendirdikleri noktalara çok yapıcı ve elle tutulur cevaplar verildi, ayrıca da hali hazırda verilmekte. Bu cephenin ısrarla vurguladığı –her defasında da yanıt aldığı, ama hala dile getirmekten bıkmadığı- bir konu var; din konusu. Anlaşılacağı ve bilindiği üzere din ekseninde süren tartışmalar dahilinde, Türkiye'nin lehinde tutum sergileyen kesim somut açıklamalar yapmaktadırlar. Fakat konuya farklı pencerelerden bakılması ve açıklamaların çeşitlendirilmesi taraftarıyım. AB'nin bugünkü 27 üye ülkesinin nüfuslarının büyük çoğunluğu Hristiyan. Ayrıca sadece AB'de değil, bütün dünya'da Hristiyanlık dini önemli bir etkiye sahip. Türkiye'nin nüfusunun çoğunluğu ise Müslüman. İşte Türkiye aleyhtarı kesimlerce dile getirilen şikayetlerden biri. Onlara gore Türkiye AB'ye üye olamaz çünkü o, nüfusunun çoğunluğu Müslüman olan bir ülke. Türkiye çok zengin ve tarihi topraklar üzerinde yaşamını sürdürüyor. Anadolu, yani Türkiye'nin yaşadığı topraklar, ülke tarihini ve ülkenin gerçekte ne demek olduğunu çok iyi anlatmakta. İşte cevapta tam olarak orada; Türkiye'nin yaşamını sürdürdüğü topraklarda. Dinsel farklılıkları bahane ederek Türkiye'nin AB üyeliği önüne set çekmek isteyenlere verilecek cevap. Peki sadece Türk topraklarını işaret ederek nasıl bir cevap verebiliriz ki? Bu ne demek oluyor? Bugünkü Türk topraklarının, yani Anadolu'nun AB'ye üye olan 27 üye ülkenin nüfuslarının çoğunun inandığı din olan Hristiyanlığın bugüne gelmesinde ve bugünkü halini almasında çok büyük bir rolü var. Bu rol iki basit örnekle rahatlıkla açıklanabilir. Geçmişte İncil'in günümüz halini alması için büyük bir konsil toplandı. Bu konsilde dönemin önde gelen Hristiyan din adamları vardı. Konsil, İncil'in sayısının dörde indirilmesini kararlaştırdı. Yani, İncil'e bugünkü şeklini verdi. Bu konsil ise İznik'te, yani Anadolu topraklarında bir araya geldi. İkinci örnek ise yine çok kısa ve yine çok net. Hristiyanlık dinine ilk olarak 'Hristiyan' adının verilmesi ve bu şekilde adlandırılışı bugünkü Tarsus ve Antakya arasında kalan bir coğrafyada meydana geldi. Peki burası neresi? Yanıt bir kez daha Anadolu. Bu iki tarihi ve önemi kelimelerle anlatılamayacak olan örnekten şu sonuca varılıyor: Türkiye öyle güçlü bir medeniyet, öyle derin, zengin, tarihi ve anlamlı topraklar üzerinde yaşayan öyle eşsiz bir ülke ki, ona AB konusunda karşı çıkanların en temel tezini bile bin yıllar once çürütmeyi başarabilmiş. Bu bağlamda Türkiye karşıtı cephe aslında çok şanslı. Çünkü tartışmaya açtıkları konular onlar farketmesede Türkiye'nin elini her geçen gün daha da güçlendiriyor ve Türkiye'nin dünya uygarlığına neler kattığını ve gelecekte, farklı dinleri bir arada bulundurma kararlılığına sahip olan AB'ne üye olarakta neler katacağını gösteriyor.Son olarak şunu belirtmekte fayda var; Türkiye'nin tarihi ve kültürel geçmişiyle ilgili verdiğim bu iki örnek ve beraberinde yaptığım açıklamaların anlamı AB'nin ve bünyesinde barındırdığı insanların art niyetli olduğunu göstermiyor. Bunlar her demokraside olması gereken bir özellik olan çok sesliliğin bir sonucu olarak Türkiye aleyhinde görüş bildirenlere, ilgili konuyla bağlantılı verilen cevaplar sadece. Bu iki örnekle birlikte gerçek olan birşey daha var. AB çok önemli bir birikimin üzerinde oturmaktadır ve kendisini bugünkü konumuna getirmiş olan iradeye, kararlılığa ve doğru zamanda doğru kararlar verebilme yeteneğine tam anlamıyla sahiptir. Bahsi geçen bu iki büyük oyuncunun, yani AB ve Türkiye'nin ilişkileri iki tarafında en çok kazanacağı seçenek olan 'tam üyelik' seçeneğiyle birlikte yoluna devam edecektir. İlişkiler bu gelişmeler ışığında yürüyecektir, çünkü iki tarafta ortak çıkarların ortak noktalarda ve ortak hedeflerde buluştuğunu kestirebilecek vizyona ve büyüklüğe sahiptir.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Turkey-France relations have a long background and there is no doubt that will have an important future. France was the first Christian country with which Turkey, or rather the Ottoman Empire established official relations. Turk-French relations started in 1483. These relations became amicable in 1525. The king of France, François the 1st was taken captured by Roman-Germen Empire Charles-Quint. For this reason, France called for help from the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman Empire answered that call.
During the Turkish Independence War, France was the first western country recognizing the Ankara Government with the Treaty of Lausanne signed on 20 October 1921. However, there were disputes on the subjects between France and Turkey during the Treaty of Lausanne and relations were damaged.
However, with the foreign expansion policy of Turkey started during the period of rule of Özal, Turkish – French relations got into action and became affirmative. In the light of these developments experienced, Jacques Chirac who was elected as the President of France had made contribution to the affirmative course of Turkish-French relations.
Attitude of France against Turkey on European Union (EU) may be divided into two as Jacques Chirac Term and Nicolas Sarkozy Term. Attitude during the term of Chirac was quite smooth and affirmative. During this term, France had played an important role in signing of Customs Union Agreement in 1995, and in Turkey's effort to obtain a candidate country status to the European Union in Helsinki Summit that was held in 1999. With the constitutional amendment adopted in the General Assembly on 28 February 2005 France decided that approval of Turkey’s accession into to the European Union would be by holding a referendum. However, this article is now amended and a new article is being arranged saying that ‘approval of a country of which population is exceeding the 5% of the EU population shall be by holding referendum. In addition, it should not be forgotten that political relations of both countries was heavily damaged in 2001. Making a law on recognizing 1915 events in France deeply disappointed Turkish people and the Government of the Republic of Turkey. Relations becoming normal in 2003 were stressed by adoption of the law supporting the groundless Armenian allegations and foreseeing heavy penalties for refusal of such claims in the French National Assembly in 2006. However this draft bill has not brought in the agenda of French Senate and this has importance.
Nicolas Sarkozy term on the other hand is pretty new but very fluctuant term. Sarkozy became President in the Presidential election that was held on 6 May 2007. His pre-election attitude continues and he is still against the membership of Turkey to the European Union.
Nicolas Sarkozy is a hard leader but not very much to cope with. He has a manner and style that are usually contrary to his country’s political traditions. He is coming from a migrant family and coincidencely he probably has a far kinship with Turks. The entire thesis that Sarkozy is using in his attitude against Turkey’s membership to the EU may be confuted. Even in his own Party the number of people who have affirmative attitude against Turkey is pretty high. The former French Prime Minister Dominique De Villepin is one of good examples. Sarkozy term will not last forever and even there will be countless adverse developments against Turkey, these adverse developments may case affirmative developments along with correct policies and rational implementations.
Attitudes of Prominent EU Member Countries (such as England, Italy, Spain, Germany, Austria) against Turkey.
European Union is a project that appeals to every thought. For this reason, it is a composition including different countries, different cultures and different civilizations and establishing a unity from diversities. There are 27 member countries in European Union. All have their own views and policies about Turkey. In this section, I am going to analyze attitudes of prominent EU member countries. First, I am going to start with England.
England wants to be an “elder brother” of Turkey on its way of full membership to the EU. Apart from financial aids, England provides all kinds of contribution and support. Starting with Tony Blair, this affirmative period is still continuing with Gordon Brown. It is very important for Turkey that England is standing near Turkey.
Spain has taken no adverse attitude against Turkey. It is in a more moderate position compared to England but it is still contributing Turkey. Spain thinks that after Turkey would become a member of the EU, this would not damage Spain. This view constitutes the basic thesis of Spain.
Germany had taken a very positive attitude against Turkey about the EU during the term of Gerhard Schroder. However, this atmosphere changed upon election of Angela Merkel who came to power after Schroder. Now, Germany follows an adverse policy against the membership of Turkey to the EU.
Austria as well is taken an adverse attitude against Turkey's membership to the EU just like Germany. Austria pubic opinion has a great role in this policy. Today, it is still possible to see the impacts of the events happened during the reign Ottoman Empire. In addition, impact and impression left by the workers who went to Austria in 1960s to work in this country caused a formation of bad Turkey image in the eyes of Austrians. The same impression may be seen in different countries of Europe including Germany. However, it should not be forgotten that our workers are not responsible for the picture of Turkey due to worker migration and my aim in mentioning is not to blame or insult our workers. A similar migration had happened from Italy. However, Italian embassies in the countries to which Italian workers went have never left those workers alone. However, Turkey have not done the correct move and therefore still have the effects.
Attitude of Italy against Turkey is affirmative by the effect of Silvio Berlusconi. Just like England, Italy also supports Turkey’s membership to the EU and has been helping Turkey during negotiation process.
Perhaps Sweden is the most affirmative country against Turkey. Sweden is one of the very first countries to help Turkey. They promised that they will make all kind of assist to Turkey at bureaucrat level even before the negotiations have not been opened.
As it is seen, there are different countries taking affirmative or adverse attitude against Turkey on the way of membership to the EU. However, there is one important point to take account. No country likes another. Countries establish their policies just by considering their interests and they make implementation accordingly. At this point Turkey should be very careful, should maintain its relations with other countries based on this truth and should determine its targets by most rational ways on the way of the EU.
Basic thesis that Nicolas Sarkozy defends against Turkey’s membership to the EU and concrete answers given/may be given.
Thesis of Nicolas Sarkozy
Concrete answers
1) 98% of Turkey’s soil falls out of Europe.
1) Turkey is geographically included as well in Europe to where the entire Cyprus island belongs.
2) Turkey will become the most populated country of the Union within 20 years.
2) There is a probability that Turkey will become the most populated country of the Union in 20 years. This may change some balances in the Union. However, this change will be favor of the EU, the Union will gain more strength. Because, the purpose of Turkey is not that weakening the EU. In addition, when we consider the population of the EU getting older, we can say that the young Turkish population is a need fort he EU.
3) Turkey’s culture carries mostly Muslim factors.
3) Europe and the European Union mean a union that is established by differences. Religious discrimination will only lead the world to worst. Ensuring permanent peace between Christian and Islam world will only be provided by getting rid of such religious obsessions. Besides, membership of Turkey to the EU is an important opportunity to establish permanent peace between Christian and Islam world.
4) If Turkey becomes a member to the EU, the fact called European Policy will be destroyed.
4) It is useful to consider the changing balances and new facts appeared in the world. Today politic actors are changing their roles. In this sense, European Policy may be strengthening by the membership of Turkey to the EU.
5) Turkey has to fulfill its historical task against Armenia.
5) 1915 events are completely a different issue. However, Turkey has the self-confidence and legitimacy required to discuss this issue at every platform. For this reason, it is the historian’s job to interpret the historical facts based on true documents and it is the politicians’ job not to limit the freedom and expression.
6) If Turkey becomes a member to the EU, memberships of Israel, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco may be in question. Thus, the EU becomes a sub-region of the United Nation.
6) The legal frame of Turkey-EU relations and in this context its status targeting full membership completely different from other countries in question. All institutions of the Republic of Turkey involve in European organizations and almost all organizations from scientific, sportive, cultural associations and institutions, ton on governmental organizations and political parties are recognized by other countries in Europe. In addition, Turkey is one of the founder countries of the European Council.
7) In the referendum held in November 2005 on the European Institution, French and Dutch people vote ‘no’ to the institution which means they do not want to see Turkey in the Union.
7) Some communities in Europe do not know Turkey and Turkish people well enough, do not sufficiently know the possible effects that Turkey would make to the Union with its membership and therefore they make wrong determinations on the membership of Turkey to the EU. It is obvious that the ‘no’ votes will turn to ‘yes’ with an objective, true, planned and programmed introduction of Turkey and Turkish people.
How does the Decision Process Work in the EU? How does the Full Membership Process develop?
Turkey started full membership negotiations with the European Union on 3 October 2005. Pace of the reform works maintained effectively during pre-negotiation process unfortunately decreased after negotiations start. No matter what, negotiations continue although they slow down. In this context, there is a long and challenging way in front of Turkey. This way is one of the most important phases of the decision process of the EU. In order to be successful on this way, it is quite important to understand how does the decision process work and how does the full membership process develop and to convey these to the public opinion.
It is obligatory to start full membership negotiations and to fulfill all criterions under the 35 titles in these negotiations in order to be a full member to the European Union. Before starting the full membership negotiations, a country has to obtain a candidate country status and commencing negotiations after obtaining the status in question are different and challenging ways. To be brief, there are certain criterions in order to commence negotiations and there are certain criterions in order to complete negotiations and be a full member. Basically the decision process of the EU may be summarized as above.
Negotiations of Turkey on the way of full membership to the EU have been continuing about three years. In this three years Turkey has recognized that the full membership process would be challenging. However, there is a point that should be considered. 85% of the negotiations are completed in the related candidate country. That is to say if Turkey wants to complete full membership negotiations, first of all it should force itself and make an effort. Of course, here the effect of the political power is considerable. If the political power wants, negotiations may be put on the right track and an affirmative course may be ensured. In this connection, I want to forecast how the full membership process in Turkey will develop.
First of all, it is useful to remind some developments occurred in Turkey. Public opinion is a very important factor in the process of full membership. People who direct and have effect on the public opinion should be very careful in precision level of their speechs and they have to be sure about the accuracy of the information that they give. However, speakers appeared on the most viewed TV channels and people who have effect on the public opinion may give some inaccurate information on the EU in their speeches. Interestingly people may give such information in full of self reliance. These kind of events lead to misinformation of the public opinion and to decrease in public opinion support given Turkey on the way of the EU.
Furthermore, other factors in Turkey should also be taken into account. In a country it may be seriously destructive for that country to pretend like ambitious on something but in fact being not so. These two continuing developments that I have just mentioned damage the full membership negotiations of Turkey to the EU. Also, along with these, there are also other developments that are vitally important and reminding me implementations out of democracy. If these developments are concluded as those who are ambitious to govern the country by taking the power in anti-democratic ways want to be, full membership negotiations of Turkey may be stopped which means an adverse result for Turkey that may not be described by words and which would, there is no doubt, bring back Turkey about 20-30 years.
Developments experienced in other countries than Turkey are very important as well. There is no doubt, the external developments affecting the full membership negotiations of Turkey are seen amongst the countries that are full members for the EU. As it is known, some of the EU member countries including notably Austria, France and Germany are against the membership of Turkey and for this reason they are in some activities in order to prevent Turkey’s membership. Particularly the efforts (!) of France relating to this subject matter became very interesting. France wants to put the provision that asking the EU membership in a referendum out of its constitution. However, at the same time it wanted to put a provision in its institution that asking the EU membership of countries that are not geographically in Europe in a referendum. Then, a draft bill that makes the population ratio a criterion was prepared. Claiming that Turkey is not located in Europe as to geographical aspect is the first statement that France -mostly Sarkozy- likes to make. It is not necessary to say that this thesis is not valid anymore. However, it seems that someone has not still fed up with Turkey giving South Cyprus example. Additionally, France has blocked 5 of the titles out of 35 in the negotiations of Turkey with the EU. This is another development to be taken into account as well.
Already, Turkey’s full membership negotiations are continuing in such an atmosphere and development of the full membership process depends on the results obtained in such an atmosphere. Although it seems that the negotiations continue in an adverse environment, there is no obstacle before Turkey to put this adverse environment into a right track by taking determined steps. Turkey has such potential and power to do so. Also, despite the policy that is followed by some EU member countries including France against Turkey seems adverse about the full membership, there are people in those countries who are affirmative to Turkey and of course political powers in these countries would change after a certain time.
Proposals for Solution.
Turkey will have to convince France to change its attitude against Turkey if Turkey wants to be a full member of the European Union. Convincing Nicolas Sarkozy is very important with this respect. Solutions may be proposed by pages of letters or reports. However, I think it is more useful to simplify the events. For this reason, I feel that listing the proposals for solution one by one as to easy reading and understanding is useful. Therefore, following there are some proposals for solution in order to solve some dilemmas between Turkey and France on the EU:
- European Union is a project that may appeal to every thought as long as such thought is not a radical one. Thesis defended by some who are against the European Union are not on strong grounds and not based on correct information. For example, there are some people defending that some of our values will die out when we become the member of the EU. Then, which member country to the EU had lost its values? That is, the first proposal for solution is to suggest that European Union project should be understood, learnt and covered by all parts at first stage.
- It is so obvious and clear that 85% of the negotiations with the European Union are run in the related country itself. That is to say Turkey needs a very strong political will about the EU.
- In some countries of Europe, the image of Turkey does not reflect the truth. Namely, Turkey has an image problem in Europe. For this reason Turkey should prepare a communication program. For example, a country that is a member of the EU now, hired a theatre hall in France and had performed plays from its own country during the negotiation process. Turkey should well analyze this example and make a serious, systematic and planned communication program to introduce to Europe.
- Sarkozy established a new union named The Mediterranean Union. He invites Turkey to join this unity as well. A Mediterranean Union may not be considered without Turkey yet. However, according to some parties, Sarkozy offers the Mediterranean Union as an alternative of the European Union. I think Turkey should strictly decline the membership of the Mediterranean Union offered by France if it’s going to be seen as an alternative to Turkey for EU. I believe that moves against France should be more strict and aggravated. We can only tip the scales in our favor in this way. We have to show the real force of Turkey in diplomatic area and that Turkey really wants the European Union.
- France should also convince itself about the full membership of Turkey to the EU.
- Countries that support Turkey’s membership in the European Union should convince France as well.
- Policy is considered based on economy in countries. You can easily form your relations with big countries through important tenders. Turkey should not waste its time in dealing with obsessions and vicious cycles. It should give importance to economic developments in the world and should produce solutions relating to economic problems and make rational plans to improve in economy.
- European affect in Turkey should be enlivened again. That old excitement at the peak before the negotiations should be recreated. With this respect, people having a voice before public opinion, non governmental organizations, education institutes and of course the political power is responsible. Only they can make it possible.
- Turkey should give importance to the philosophy of “along with people for people”. Turkey should activate its potential and should produce alternatives. Problems should be resolved under the umbrella of democracy and political life should give chance to the youth and new faces.
- Turkey has a power to cope with every problem and to produce solution. Fort his reason, Turkey and Turkish people should never give up, should not abandon itself to despair and should not desist from the European Union that is the most important modernization project in its history. I think this is the key proposal for solution.
During the Turkish Independence War, France was the first western country recognizing the Ankara Government with the Treaty of Lausanne signed on 20 October 1921. However, there were disputes on the subjects between France and Turkey during the Treaty of Lausanne and relations were damaged.
However, with the foreign expansion policy of Turkey started during the period of rule of Özal, Turkish – French relations got into action and became affirmative. In the light of these developments experienced, Jacques Chirac who was elected as the President of France had made contribution to the affirmative course of Turkish-French relations.
Attitude of France against Turkey on European Union (EU) may be divided into two as Jacques Chirac Term and Nicolas Sarkozy Term. Attitude during the term of Chirac was quite smooth and affirmative. During this term, France had played an important role in signing of Customs Union Agreement in 1995, and in Turkey's effort to obtain a candidate country status to the European Union in Helsinki Summit that was held in 1999. With the constitutional amendment adopted in the General Assembly on 28 February 2005 France decided that approval of Turkey’s accession into to the European Union would be by holding a referendum. However, this article is now amended and a new article is being arranged saying that ‘approval of a country of which population is exceeding the 5% of the EU population shall be by holding referendum. In addition, it should not be forgotten that political relations of both countries was heavily damaged in 2001. Making a law on recognizing 1915 events in France deeply disappointed Turkish people and the Government of the Republic of Turkey. Relations becoming normal in 2003 were stressed by adoption of the law supporting the groundless Armenian allegations and foreseeing heavy penalties for refusal of such claims in the French National Assembly in 2006. However this draft bill has not brought in the agenda of French Senate and this has importance.
Nicolas Sarkozy term on the other hand is pretty new but very fluctuant term. Sarkozy became President in the Presidential election that was held on 6 May 2007. His pre-election attitude continues and he is still against the membership of Turkey to the European Union.
Nicolas Sarkozy is a hard leader but not very much to cope with. He has a manner and style that are usually contrary to his country’s political traditions. He is coming from a migrant family and coincidencely he probably has a far kinship with Turks. The entire thesis that Sarkozy is using in his attitude against Turkey’s membership to the EU may be confuted. Even in his own Party the number of people who have affirmative attitude against Turkey is pretty high. The former French Prime Minister Dominique De Villepin is one of good examples. Sarkozy term will not last forever and even there will be countless adverse developments against Turkey, these adverse developments may case affirmative developments along with correct policies and rational implementations.
Attitudes of Prominent EU Member Countries (such as England, Italy, Spain, Germany, Austria) against Turkey.
European Union is a project that appeals to every thought. For this reason, it is a composition including different countries, different cultures and different civilizations and establishing a unity from diversities. There are 27 member countries in European Union. All have their own views and policies about Turkey. In this section, I am going to analyze attitudes of prominent EU member countries. First, I am going to start with England.
England wants to be an “elder brother” of Turkey on its way of full membership to the EU. Apart from financial aids, England provides all kinds of contribution and support. Starting with Tony Blair, this affirmative period is still continuing with Gordon Brown. It is very important for Turkey that England is standing near Turkey.
Spain has taken no adverse attitude against Turkey. It is in a more moderate position compared to England but it is still contributing Turkey. Spain thinks that after Turkey would become a member of the EU, this would not damage Spain. This view constitutes the basic thesis of Spain.
Germany had taken a very positive attitude against Turkey about the EU during the term of Gerhard Schroder. However, this atmosphere changed upon election of Angela Merkel who came to power after Schroder. Now, Germany follows an adverse policy against the membership of Turkey to the EU.
Austria as well is taken an adverse attitude against Turkey's membership to the EU just like Germany. Austria pubic opinion has a great role in this policy. Today, it is still possible to see the impacts of the events happened during the reign Ottoman Empire. In addition, impact and impression left by the workers who went to Austria in 1960s to work in this country caused a formation of bad Turkey image in the eyes of Austrians. The same impression may be seen in different countries of Europe including Germany. However, it should not be forgotten that our workers are not responsible for the picture of Turkey due to worker migration and my aim in mentioning is not to blame or insult our workers. A similar migration had happened from Italy. However, Italian embassies in the countries to which Italian workers went have never left those workers alone. However, Turkey have not done the correct move and therefore still have the effects.
Attitude of Italy against Turkey is affirmative by the effect of Silvio Berlusconi. Just like England, Italy also supports Turkey’s membership to the EU and has been helping Turkey during negotiation process.
Perhaps Sweden is the most affirmative country against Turkey. Sweden is one of the very first countries to help Turkey. They promised that they will make all kind of assist to Turkey at bureaucrat level even before the negotiations have not been opened.
As it is seen, there are different countries taking affirmative or adverse attitude against Turkey on the way of membership to the EU. However, there is one important point to take account. No country likes another. Countries establish their policies just by considering their interests and they make implementation accordingly. At this point Turkey should be very careful, should maintain its relations with other countries based on this truth and should determine its targets by most rational ways on the way of the EU.
Basic thesis that Nicolas Sarkozy defends against Turkey’s membership to the EU and concrete answers given/may be given.
Thesis of Nicolas Sarkozy
Concrete answers
1) 98% of Turkey’s soil falls out of Europe.
1) Turkey is geographically included as well in Europe to where the entire Cyprus island belongs.
2) Turkey will become the most populated country of the Union within 20 years.
2) There is a probability that Turkey will become the most populated country of the Union in 20 years. This may change some balances in the Union. However, this change will be favor of the EU, the Union will gain more strength. Because, the purpose of Turkey is not that weakening the EU. In addition, when we consider the population of the EU getting older, we can say that the young Turkish population is a need fort he EU.
3) Turkey’s culture carries mostly Muslim factors.
3) Europe and the European Union mean a union that is established by differences. Religious discrimination will only lead the world to worst. Ensuring permanent peace between Christian and Islam world will only be provided by getting rid of such religious obsessions. Besides, membership of Turkey to the EU is an important opportunity to establish permanent peace between Christian and Islam world.
4) If Turkey becomes a member to the EU, the fact called European Policy will be destroyed.
4) It is useful to consider the changing balances and new facts appeared in the world. Today politic actors are changing their roles. In this sense, European Policy may be strengthening by the membership of Turkey to the EU.
5) Turkey has to fulfill its historical task against Armenia.
5) 1915 events are completely a different issue. However, Turkey has the self-confidence and legitimacy required to discuss this issue at every platform. For this reason, it is the historian’s job to interpret the historical facts based on true documents and it is the politicians’ job not to limit the freedom and expression.
6) If Turkey becomes a member to the EU, memberships of Israel, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco may be in question. Thus, the EU becomes a sub-region of the United Nation.
6) The legal frame of Turkey-EU relations and in this context its status targeting full membership completely different from other countries in question. All institutions of the Republic of Turkey involve in European organizations and almost all organizations from scientific, sportive, cultural associations and institutions, ton on governmental organizations and political parties are recognized by other countries in Europe. In addition, Turkey is one of the founder countries of the European Council.
7) In the referendum held in November 2005 on the European Institution, French and Dutch people vote ‘no’ to the institution which means they do not want to see Turkey in the Union.
7) Some communities in Europe do not know Turkey and Turkish people well enough, do not sufficiently know the possible effects that Turkey would make to the Union with its membership and therefore they make wrong determinations on the membership of Turkey to the EU. It is obvious that the ‘no’ votes will turn to ‘yes’ with an objective, true, planned and programmed introduction of Turkey and Turkish people.
How does the Decision Process Work in the EU? How does the Full Membership Process develop?
Turkey started full membership negotiations with the European Union on 3 October 2005. Pace of the reform works maintained effectively during pre-negotiation process unfortunately decreased after negotiations start. No matter what, negotiations continue although they slow down. In this context, there is a long and challenging way in front of Turkey. This way is one of the most important phases of the decision process of the EU. In order to be successful on this way, it is quite important to understand how does the decision process work and how does the full membership process develop and to convey these to the public opinion.
It is obligatory to start full membership negotiations and to fulfill all criterions under the 35 titles in these negotiations in order to be a full member to the European Union. Before starting the full membership negotiations, a country has to obtain a candidate country status and commencing negotiations after obtaining the status in question are different and challenging ways. To be brief, there are certain criterions in order to commence negotiations and there are certain criterions in order to complete negotiations and be a full member. Basically the decision process of the EU may be summarized as above.
Negotiations of Turkey on the way of full membership to the EU have been continuing about three years. In this three years Turkey has recognized that the full membership process would be challenging. However, there is a point that should be considered. 85% of the negotiations are completed in the related candidate country. That is to say if Turkey wants to complete full membership negotiations, first of all it should force itself and make an effort. Of course, here the effect of the political power is considerable. If the political power wants, negotiations may be put on the right track and an affirmative course may be ensured. In this connection, I want to forecast how the full membership process in Turkey will develop.
First of all, it is useful to remind some developments occurred in Turkey. Public opinion is a very important factor in the process of full membership. People who direct and have effect on the public opinion should be very careful in precision level of their speechs and they have to be sure about the accuracy of the information that they give. However, speakers appeared on the most viewed TV channels and people who have effect on the public opinion may give some inaccurate information on the EU in their speeches. Interestingly people may give such information in full of self reliance. These kind of events lead to misinformation of the public opinion and to decrease in public opinion support given Turkey on the way of the EU.
Furthermore, other factors in Turkey should also be taken into account. In a country it may be seriously destructive for that country to pretend like ambitious on something but in fact being not so. These two continuing developments that I have just mentioned damage the full membership negotiations of Turkey to the EU. Also, along with these, there are also other developments that are vitally important and reminding me implementations out of democracy. If these developments are concluded as those who are ambitious to govern the country by taking the power in anti-democratic ways want to be, full membership negotiations of Turkey may be stopped which means an adverse result for Turkey that may not be described by words and which would, there is no doubt, bring back Turkey about 20-30 years.
Developments experienced in other countries than Turkey are very important as well. There is no doubt, the external developments affecting the full membership negotiations of Turkey are seen amongst the countries that are full members for the EU. As it is known, some of the EU member countries including notably Austria, France and Germany are against the membership of Turkey and for this reason they are in some activities in order to prevent Turkey’s membership. Particularly the efforts (!) of France relating to this subject matter became very interesting. France wants to put the provision that asking the EU membership in a referendum out of its constitution. However, at the same time it wanted to put a provision in its institution that asking the EU membership of countries that are not geographically in Europe in a referendum. Then, a draft bill that makes the population ratio a criterion was prepared. Claiming that Turkey is not located in Europe as to geographical aspect is the first statement that France -mostly Sarkozy- likes to make. It is not necessary to say that this thesis is not valid anymore. However, it seems that someone has not still fed up with Turkey giving South Cyprus example. Additionally, France has blocked 5 of the titles out of 35 in the negotiations of Turkey with the EU. This is another development to be taken into account as well.
Already, Turkey’s full membership negotiations are continuing in such an atmosphere and development of the full membership process depends on the results obtained in such an atmosphere. Although it seems that the negotiations continue in an adverse environment, there is no obstacle before Turkey to put this adverse environment into a right track by taking determined steps. Turkey has such potential and power to do so. Also, despite the policy that is followed by some EU member countries including France against Turkey seems adverse about the full membership, there are people in those countries who are affirmative to Turkey and of course political powers in these countries would change after a certain time.
Proposals for Solution.
Turkey will have to convince France to change its attitude against Turkey if Turkey wants to be a full member of the European Union. Convincing Nicolas Sarkozy is very important with this respect. Solutions may be proposed by pages of letters or reports. However, I think it is more useful to simplify the events. For this reason, I feel that listing the proposals for solution one by one as to easy reading and understanding is useful. Therefore, following there are some proposals for solution in order to solve some dilemmas between Turkey and France on the EU:
- European Union is a project that may appeal to every thought as long as such thought is not a radical one. Thesis defended by some who are against the European Union are not on strong grounds and not based on correct information. For example, there are some people defending that some of our values will die out when we become the member of the EU. Then, which member country to the EU had lost its values? That is, the first proposal for solution is to suggest that European Union project should be understood, learnt and covered by all parts at first stage.
- It is so obvious and clear that 85% of the negotiations with the European Union are run in the related country itself. That is to say Turkey needs a very strong political will about the EU.
- In some countries of Europe, the image of Turkey does not reflect the truth. Namely, Turkey has an image problem in Europe. For this reason Turkey should prepare a communication program. For example, a country that is a member of the EU now, hired a theatre hall in France and had performed plays from its own country during the negotiation process. Turkey should well analyze this example and make a serious, systematic and planned communication program to introduce to Europe.
- Sarkozy established a new union named The Mediterranean Union. He invites Turkey to join this unity as well. A Mediterranean Union may not be considered without Turkey yet. However, according to some parties, Sarkozy offers the Mediterranean Union as an alternative of the European Union. I think Turkey should strictly decline the membership of the Mediterranean Union offered by France if it’s going to be seen as an alternative to Turkey for EU. I believe that moves against France should be more strict and aggravated. We can only tip the scales in our favor in this way. We have to show the real force of Turkey in diplomatic area and that Turkey really wants the European Union.
- France should also convince itself about the full membership of Turkey to the EU.
- Countries that support Turkey’s membership in the European Union should convince France as well.
- Policy is considered based on economy in countries. You can easily form your relations with big countries through important tenders. Turkey should not waste its time in dealing with obsessions and vicious cycles. It should give importance to economic developments in the world and should produce solutions relating to economic problems and make rational plans to improve in economy.
- European affect in Turkey should be enlivened again. That old excitement at the peak before the negotiations should be recreated. With this respect, people having a voice before public opinion, non governmental organizations, education institutes and of course the political power is responsible. Only they can make it possible.
- Turkey should give importance to the philosophy of “along with people for people”. Turkey should activate its potential and should produce alternatives. Problems should be resolved under the umbrella of democracy and political life should give chance to the youth and new faces.
- Turkey has a power to cope with every problem and to produce solution. Fort his reason, Turkey and Turkish people should never give up, should not abandon itself to despair and should not desist from the European Union that is the most important modernization project in its history. I think this is the key proposal for solution.