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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS