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
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS