| In two months, Europeans will have to make a fundamental decision, which will largely determine what the Old World will become over the next decades and where its border will lie in the future. The European Commission is to announce whether negotiations on Turkey's accession to the European Union will begin. In recent years, the country has found itself at the intersection of several major political processes - the fight against terrorism, attempts to carry out reforms in the Greater Middle East, and European integration. Europe fears that refusal will push Ankara towards radical Islamists. And Islamic Türkiye is a serious threat not only to Europe, but also to Russia. However, not everyone in the Old World is ready to recognize Turkey as Europe. Thierry de MONTBRIAL, one of the most authoritative European political scientists, director of the French Institute of International Relations, discusses the complex perception of the neighboring country, which has a very long and controversial history with Europe. The full article will be published in the journal “Russia in Global Affairs.”
May 2004 marked the beginning of a new stage in the history of what geographers and historians somewhat vaguely call “our continent.” Due to the inclusion of the countries of the Balkan Peninsula (beginning with Slovenia) and the expansion of the cultural influence of Orthodoxy (this process began with the accession of Greece to the EU and will continue with the accession of Bulgaria), Europe has become dangerously heterogeneous. This is the context in which the so-called Turkish question arises today.
It certainly did not arise out of nowhere. The list of mutual obligations undertaken by Turkey on the one hand and the European Community, and then the European Union on the other, would be too long. Suffice it to recall that after the conclusion of the Association Treaty in 1963, both Ankara and Brussels always had in mind the prospect of Turkey's future accession to the European Union. In recent years, the European Council, the EU's highest authority, has repeatedly made serious statements on the Turkish issue. This first happened in December 1997 in Luxembourg, when it was announced that Turkey's request would be considered based on objective criteria, as is the case with other candidates. These criteria, formulated in Copenhagen in 1993 (at the session of the European Council at the level of heads of state and government - Ed. ), are based primarily on such concepts as democracy and the rule of law, human rights, respect and protection of the rights of minorities, as well as on economic indicators.
After the European Council session in December 1999 in Helsinki (at which it was decided to formally recognize Turkey as a candidate - Ed. ), Turkey entered a period of preparation for joining the European Union. Three years later in Copenhagen, the European Council recalled the previously expressed demands and called on Ankara to actively pursue reforms in order to achieve compliance with the necessary criteria. Meanwhile, immediately before the Copenhagen EU summit, elections to the Grand National Assembly were held in Turkey. The traditional parties were driven out in disgrace, and the Justice and Development Party (AKP), led by Recep Tayyip Erdogan and declaring its commitment to the ideals of Islam, came to power.
Since then, the AKP has been doing everything possible to be considered a party of “Muslim democracy” (similar to “Christian democracy”). To the great surprise of many observers, the new government of Turkey accelerated the implementation of reforms (thus undermining the position of the Republican People's Party, which remains faithful to the covenants of Atatürk (Mustafa Kemal Atatürk - the first president (1923-1938) of the Turkish Republic - Ed. ), and calmly accepts groups of European Commission inspectors who come for familiarization purposes. Ankara’s active support for the UN plan for the reunification of Cyprus, which was ultimately rejected by Greece, was also unexpected.
By the end of September 2004, the European Commission will evaluate the successes achieved by Turkey, responsibility for this is assigned to the EU Commissioner for Enlargement, Gunther Verheugen. Such negotiations are usually very protracted and detailed. And when we are talking about such a large and complex country as Türkiye, it is obvious that the duration and even the outcome of the negotiations is difficult to predict in advance.
Why are they afraid of Turkey?
Meanwhile, for almost two years now, political circles and public opinion in Europe have been divided into two camps: in one there are opponents of Turkey, in the other, much less numerous, its supporters. A problem that will not become relevant any time soon is already causing such violent passions today. The reason for this is fear.
For wide circles of Europeans, the Turkish question has still remained completely abstract, although it was considered at various levels. But in the context of the active expansion of the European Union, the prospect of Turkey joining this organization is becoming real. At the same time, most Europeans associate Turkey with events and phenomena that are rooted in the past and cause fear. What images appear in the minds of Europeans when it comes to Turkey? These are the aggressive empires scattered across the Eurasian continent, these are the Crusades and the Seljuks, the Ottoman Empire, the capture of Constantinople, the terrifying greatness of Suleiman the Magnificent, who dreamed of conquering Europe, this is the “sick man of Europe,” as Nicholas I once said about Turkey, pan-Turkism and, finally, , an authoritarian republic created by Atatürk after the First World War. This is even Attila and similar leaders who came from the outskirts of China - Genghis Khan and Tamerlane. There is an image of a dangerous enemy, a conqueror.
Another reason to fear Turkey is demographic. The country's population is constantly growing and today is about 70 million people. By joining the EU, Turkey is likely to have the largest representation in the European Parliament.
In addition, Europeans are afraid of Islam, and this fear has grown immeasurably since September 11, 2001. Residents of Europe also fear that uneven economic development and the free flow of goods, services, capital and labor will collectively have a harmful effect on their economy. Europeans do not want to understand: economic integration, carried out according to strictly established rules, is a powerful factor that reduces differences in development; With regard to the introduction of free movement of persons and goods, a long transition period is expected.
Türkiye and European identity
At a time when the nature of the fears that Europeans have regarding Turkey is influenced by a variety of factors, the question inevitably arises: what is Europe? In November 2002, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, then chairman of the EU Convention on the Future of Europe, unexpectedly told reporters: “Turkey is a state close to Europe, where there is a real political elite. Türkiye is very important, but it is not a European state.” Therefore, if Türkiye joins the EU, it will be the “end of the European Union.” Hinting at Britain's position, the former French president noted: "Those who make the greatest effort to insist on the expansion of Europe through the inclusion of Turkey are the opponents of the European Union."
The European Union project has never been clearly formulated by all member states. This was done indirectly, for example, during the development of the Copenhagen criteria in 1993, but then no one had the goal of deliberately closing the doors to this or that country. Probably, the ideas of the founding fathers of the community of six European states (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and France - Ed. ) about Europe were based on the ideals of Christian democracy. This approach was widely adopted, but such a statesman as General Charles de Gaulle did not share it, and the vision of the Founding Fathers was not expressed in the conclusion of any international agreement. Paradoxically, de Gaulle twice opposed Britain's entry into the union because, in his opinion, it could distort the character of the community. That ban was lifted by Georges Pompidou, and Great Britain, Denmark and Ireland joined the “club.” But anyone who set out to determine the common features of the states included in this “community of nine” would have a difficult time. In the 1980s, Greece, Spain, and Portugal also joined the European Community. With the entry of Greece in 1981, this community was split into two parts, between which the communist (at that time) states “lay”. And what is especially important, it has already gone beyond the principles of Western Christianity, which served as its cultural foundation. The door was opened to a completely different cultural space of a completely alien, although also Christian, denomination and, what is probably more significant, to a rather vast and unclearly imagined cultural space of the East as a whole. Although Greek is spoken in Greece, it was not the state of Pericles that joined the European Community, but a political formation that had not completely rid itself of the legacy of four hundred years of Ottoman rule and which had gained independence only 150 years before joining the union.
It can be argued that parts of Spain were also under Muslim rule for several centuries. However, the Reconquista, which was actively continued in the 11th century and largely completed its tasks in the 13th century, was completely completed by the end of the 15th century, that is, more than five hundred years ago. This is why the residual effects in both countries are not comparable. Be that as it may, I am convinced that it was the annexation of Greece, which was supported by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, that opened the way for Turkey to this community.
After the collapse of the USSR, another expansion of the European Union took place: three neutral states joined it - Austria, Finland and Sweden. The neutrality of Finland and Austria is a direct consequence of the Cold War. Sweden's neutrality has deeper roots; it is a factor that largely determines the country's distinct national identity. Sweden's accession to the EU has strengthened the position of those who, like Great Britain and Denmark, see the European Union as an international organization that is not much different from others. Under these conditions, the diversity of Europe has increased, but at the same time its heterogeneity has probably also increased, which a priori has further complicated the problems of security and defense.
Of the countries that will border the European Union from 2007 - Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and Turkey - only the latter has clearly stated its desire to join the EU. As for Russia, firstly, it views itself as both a European power (since the era of Peter the Great) and an Asian power (from time immemorial), which it constantly reminds the countries of Asia of. Secondly, Moscow believes, and no doubt with good reason, that it will be able to enjoy significantly greater freedom of action if it acts as an independent partner of both the European Union and NATO. And finally, Russia is completely unwilling to submit to the draconian disciplinary requirements, without which the country cannot become a candidate. If we talk about the other three states - future neighbors of the EU, then none of them is ready to put forward their candidacy, even despite the fact that many residents of these countries, especially Ukraine, strive for integration with the West.
All attempts to “provide” Europe with “natural borders” are doomed to failure. The Urals and the Caucasus, the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles are boundaries only insofar as they are considered such. At the end of the 19th century, Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu noted that the Urals were not a barrier at all. Why is North Ossetia (part of Russia) located in Europe, and South Ossetia (part of Georgia) in Asia? Why is Turkish Western Anatolia less European than Greece? Why is Cyprus an island European state (under this pretext, its accession to Europe is considered completely natural), and Ankara, located at the same longitude, is an Asian city? Such a distinction, based on historical and cultural considerations, can be a decisive factor for some - as, for example, for those who insisted on Greece joining the European Community after the fall of the military regime in the country. But this is a subjective factor, and it will never become objective. In history one can find confirmation of the most contradictory arguments, which does not at all detract from its importance. I oppose determinism, according to which the future is supposedly completely dependent on the past. But do new ideas and people's freedom really have no significance for building the future? We must not forget that the modern generation lives in an era of world transformation unprecedented in its intensity and scale. If we talk only about France, we have experienced a complete loss of all guidelines due to the destruction of family foundations, changes in the education system and the abolition of compulsory military service. Whether we like it or not, Turkey’s accession to the European Union will not affect the current situation: 8% of the population of France are Muslims, and, therefore, it has already become a multinational or rather multicommunity state. Sooner or later we will have to admit that the “united and indivisible French nation” has acquired a new face.
That is why it is so important to find the right answers to the key questions that arise: how to change France so that it does not lose its identity? How to build our home - Europe, extracting the best not from today's Europe, but from the numerous Europes of the past? If we do not want to tread on shaky ground, we must start from the history of the European idea. We approach this project with a mixture of hope and skepticism, and it is being watched with increasing attention by the whole world, with the exception, of course, of the United States, which is completely absorbed in its own problems.
A chance for universal reconciliation?
It is clear that the European Union is based on several concepts that are so interdependent that they form a single system: universal reconciliation, democracy, human rights, the rule of law, respect and protection of minorities, secular governance, security; solidarity; market economy.
With this in mind, three issues are of utmost importance when considering the Turkish question: the relationship between democracy and minorities, secular governance and global reconciliation.
During the Ottoman Empire, there was a system in which minorities had a lot of autonomy, but their leaders were personally responsible to the Sultan. However, in the 19th century, this system ceased to exist: after the Great French Revolution, there was a surge of national consciousness in Turkey. The growth of national consciousness and colonial contradictions are the main geopolitical reasons for the First World War; Since then, the entire history of Europe - right up to the civil war in Yugoslavia at the end of the 20th century - has been marked by a tragic series of “ethnic cleansings”. European countries have not yet learned how to solve problems arising in connection with minorities. (Only those states where there are no minorities know how to act and teach others.) The principles of maintaining existing borders, dividing territory along national lines, the right of people to live on the land where their ancestors lived, turn out to be completely incompatible with democracy. We hope that in the future European Union these problems will be solvable. That is why, following the Copenhagen criteria, Turkey has taken initiatives, in particular in the linguistic field, regarding the Kurdish minority, whose numbers are very significant and whose existence it has hitherto denied, following the Kemalist principle of the indivisibility of the nation, directly borrowed from France. It should be noted that to this day, nowhere in the world (and not just in Europe) has a successful system been created that would take into account democratic principles and the interests of minorities in practice. The experience of the United States, a country of immigrants, does not apply to other countries, and although India is the world's largest democracy, its social structures remain traditional, based on inequality and very far from the Western idea of democracy. Therefore, if in the next ten to twenty years it becomes clear that a country like Turkey has been able, in accordance with Western concepts, to find feasible solutions to the problems of its minorities, mainly the Kurds, this will be a significant achievement.
As for the secular nature of governance, it is a political concept (French both in its origin and because in France it is considered universal), the essence of which lies in the separation of temporal and spiritual affairs in political institutions. In the Middle Ages this was called the "theory of two truths." The secular nature of the management implies a departure, at least intellectual, from the principle of Cujus regio, ejus religio (whose earth, that faith). This principle can have the opposite action (what is the religion of the country, such is the religion of the ruler), and it has still been fundamental to the political history of religions. That is why the appeal in the X century Poland in Western Christianity is due to purely political reasons, and therefore, a little later, Kievan Rus joined the Eastern Christianity. If we talk about the moral aspect, then the concept of the secular nature of the management contains another idea that also arose in the Enlightenment, but this time in Germany (Kant). According to this idea, there is an opportunity to formulate the universal principles of morality that will not rely on religious principles. I personally believe that the main world religions are based on the same moral values, which allows us to consider the possibility of creating truly universal morality based on a principle such as “human rights”. From a political point of view, the possibility of the existence of secular universal morality, which some postulate regardless of any transcendental concepts and associate with the survival instinct, has a huge advantage due to the fact that it can include all the concepts underlying the geopolitical project of the European Union. When Ataturk called the Republic of Secular founded by him, he put into this word absolutely “French” meaning. The difficulty, however, was that the revolution of the Kemalists (like the Iranian Khomeinists Revolution) had its defenders, that is, the army, which is still standing at the helm of the National Security Council (NSB). To meet the Copenhagen criteria, changes to the country's constitution were made in Turkey: from now on, the authority of the NSB is reduced, and a civilian has the right to lead it. It remains only to check this reform in action, which can take several years. In fact, conducting democratic reforms in order to join the European Union, Turkey in case of failure risks opening, and maybe open the doors to irreconcilable Islamists. However, it is quite possible that some of them, hoping that Turkey’s candidacy will be rejected, are already waiting in the wings.
And the last thing to consider is the problem of universal reconciliation. Half a century ago, our parliament rejected the project of the European defensive community (EOS), which nominated the French government, fearing Germany. Three years later, the Roman agreement laid the foundation for the process of universal reconciliation, and today the entry of Poland to the EU seems an important contribution to this matter. The creators of great projects have the right and are even obliged to dream. Why can't we dream of reconciliation between the Greeks and the Turks, between the heirs of Byzantium and the Ottoman Empire and, if you imagine something even more incredible, between representatives of three monotheistic religions?
Requirements for receiving and accepted
The main meaning of the European project is the gradual construction of a system, the basis of which is the adoption of principles and values arising from the concepts presented here. But this is construction - a process involving the fulfillment of three conditions.
The first condition: in order for the entire system of the European Union to fall apart, each stage of expansion must withstand the trial period. In particular, this applies to the institutional system of the European Union, which should undergo the stage of the necessary adaptation and be subjected to appropriate verification. Today's difficulties are due to the fact that we often run ahead. At least for this reason, the accession of such a significant country as Turkey cannot be imagined earlier than a few years later.
The second condition: Candidate countries must prove in practice (and so that it is easy to check) their true commitment to Copenhagen criteria. From this point of view, those who fear that Arab countries crowd at our doors are mistaken. I would like to add: unfortunately.
The third condition: Upon completion of negotiations on the entry, not a single candidate state can be made without the unanimous approval of this decision by all member states. Obviously, the complexity of this process increases with an increase in the number of member countries, and there is no doubt that if there was now the need to ratify the already signed agreement on Turkey, the chances of success would be almost zero. In fact, if we build forecasts for one generation forward, which is already a long time in our complex world, we will see: these conditions make the new mass expansion of the European Union almost unthinkable. For a more distant perspective, I do not take anything to predict.
It is necessary to understand: if the report of the European Commission contains a positive assessment of Turkey in accordance with the criteria that we ourselves developed, it would be a serious mistake not to start negotiations in the near future. If we do not, anti -European nationalists and Islamists will immediately leave the shadows and in this country a serious political crisis will inevitably begin, the consequences of which no one can predict. And besides, the beginning of negotiations is by no means equivalent to their completion.
The answer that Turkey will eventually receive will apparently entail in the long run serious changes in the Transcaucasia, which historically is the object of rivalry between Turkey, Persia and Russia. In its geostrategic significance, Transcaucasia is comparable to the straits connecting water spaces. Nowadays, this region has gained special significance in connection with the oil and gas fields available there, as well as all kinds of trade routes that pass through its territory. In cultural plan, Azerbaijan is partially connected with Turkey, with multinational Georgia, and especially with Christian Armenia. Although it is difficult to imagine, you can, of course, dream about the reconciliation of the Turks and Armenians based on the European project. But be that as it may, the fate of Transcaucasia cannot be determined only by the EU policy. It will be determined by the relationship of European, Russian and American geopolitics. It is still difficult to say how relations with our other future neighbor - Russia will develop. If there is a well -intended development plan for Russia, then, without a doubt, the main thing in it is its relationship with Ukraine. It can be suggested that the future of relations between Russia and the European Union depends on the Russian-Ukrainian ties. Of course, a large role will play as far as Russia will continue to pursue a policy of national healing (which is currently not entirely clear). In a more general plan, the main changes in the territory of the Eurasian continent are the result of interaction between the four main geopolitical platforms. This European platform is quite plastic; Russian - solid, but fragile; Chinese - rapidly developing, but unreliable; The American platform located outside, which plays a key role. Türkiye is located between these platforms, its position is (and will be) is of great importance for the development of the situation in Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Near and Middle East. And this should not forget neither the leaders of the states, nor the leadership of the European Union.
|
