The moment of truth has come. The EU must decide tomorrow whether to open accession talks with Turkey. Is today's union prepared to reverse a course first charted by such titans as Charles de Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer four decades ago?
When the European Heads of State and Government concluded in 1999 that, "Turkey is a candidate state, destined to join the union on the basis of the same criteria as applied to the other candidate States," they did so in full knowledge of all the arguments for and against Turkish EU membership. The same is true for the decision they took three years later, when they promised to open negotiations, should they find this month that Turkey fulfills the political criteria and should this be recommended by the European Commission. The latter happened in October.
ILLUSTRATION MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
When offering its recommendation, the commission highlighted Turkey's progress, while indicating those areas where greater effort must be made. The commission's conclusions, however, were clear: it "considers that Turkey sufficiently fulfills the political criteria and recommends that accession negotiations be opened."
Were Europe's leaders to now balk at beginning accession talks with Turkey, they would not only contradict their own previous decisions; they would also be in clear breach of the union's repeated political commitments to Turkey.
By nature and design, these negotiations must be directed at accession. They are expected to be long and difficult. But there is a benefit in this for Turkey, as it will give it time to continue -- and deepen -- the transformation process already underway.
For its part, the EU should make use of this interval to put its own house in order: to ratify the Constitutional Treaty and to conclude the integration of the new member states taken in this year as well as those -- Bulgaria, Romania, and Croatia -- that may join as the accession talks with Turkey take place.
To be sure, this task is not beyond the union's grasp. If the challenge is met, by the time Turkey and the union reach a final decision, both parties will have changed profoundly.
Because of Turkey's specific characteristics -- its size, geopolitical position and religious traditions -- accession to the EU presents both great challenges and huge opportunities for the two sides. None of the problems, however, should be seen as an unyielding obstacle to Turkish membership. Indeed, in its report, the commission has shown how to overcome them.
Most arguments put forward by skeptics about Turkish membership are, in fact, disingenuous and misleading. Surely, everybody must know that Turkey has always identified itself as a European state and was recognized as such by the rest of Europe decades ago. After all, how else could it be full a member of all European organizations and institutions except the EU?
In this respect, Turkey is fundamentally different from North African and Middle Eastern countries. It is simply not true that Turkish accession would open the floodgates to non-European countries.
Equally wrong is the view that Turkey's Association agreement of 1963 holds little relevance for its membership in the EU because at the time the community's character was purely economic. From the beginning of the integration process, Europe's founding fathers had made it abundantly clear that the ultimate goal was a political union, with economic integration being but the first step.
It is absurd to suggest that European visionaries such as Adenauer and de Gaulle failed to realize the consequences of their decision to admit Turkey as an associate member of the European Economic Community. Indeed, commission president Walter Hallstein repeated three times on that occasion that, "Turkey belongs to Europe."
When the European Council opened the way for Turkish membership in 1999, it fully took into account the establishment of the European (political) union by the Maastricht Treaty years earlier. Moreover, members of the European Convention could not have been blind to the possibility of early accession negotiations with Turkey. Finally, there is no reason to believe that the new Constitution could not accommodate Turkish membership.
Tomorrow, the European Heads of State and Government must take a clear and unequivocal decision in favor of accession negotiations with Turkey, honoring their own longstanding commitments and thus serving Europe's most profound interests. This is a historic date; the credibility of the EU is at stake.
Martti Ahtisaari is a former president of Finland, Michel Rocard is a former prime minister of France, and Albert Rohan is a former director-general of Austria's foreign ministry.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
RSS