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
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS