German minister - 'never' to Turkey-EU membership

by jacob Wed Jul 07, 2004 18:23

I suppose its all about what we want the EU to do and how it should best be able to do this. The evolution of name was very deliberate from European Economic Community to European Union. Its moving away from the notion of just being a trading bloc. I think that matters, and geographic factors can count also. Look at the record of the EFTA.

The Benelux Union was not a random grouping of states. The "European" Coal and Steel Pact was a bit more adventurous.

UEFA and the Eurovision song contest have geographical limits based on national boundaries. The inclusion of Israel dates back to a time when Europe was far more sympthetic to the then new state.

I agree that national boundries, and other similar divisions can seem ridiculous. But thats how most people seem comfortable dividing the world up. For similar reasons I think the EU can function better as a Community (trading bloc, with parliament, legislative and other powers) with a common identity. Is a European identity more exclusive than an African identity?

by Ray Wed Jul 07, 2004 18:06

There are economic reasons why you might **NOT** want Turkey, Russia or the Ukraine to join

by Ray Wed Jul 07, 2004 17:45

Why?

Why is a cohesive identity necessary for the EU? Why should we worry about whether 'Europe' includes Russia and Turkey or not? What catastrophe will befall us if we can't point to a line and tell everyone on the other side to fuck off?

While you're thinking about that, you could perhaps explain how UEFA manages to include Israel, Russia, the Ukraine, and Turkey in Europe without collapsing. And why the world didn't end when Turkey (and Israel) won the Eurovision Song Contest.

The EU is, first and foremost, a trading block. There are economic reasons why you might want Turkey, Russia or the Ukraine to join, though those reasons also applied to most of the recent members. But geographical ones? Cultural ones? Nonsense.

BTW, if you're worried about the name, you might want to remember that it wasn't always called the EU either.

by jacob Wed Jul 07, 2004 17:26

Late maybe but the issue is still a live one.

I agree its very hard to come up with definitions of Europe and European identity. And it can be dangerous to do so as racists can hijack the issue. But I think it is worth doing so. The EU is more than just a trading bloc and a cohesive identity is necessary. So long as it is the "European" Union I think we need to define a limit to Europe, with or without Turkey and Russia.

The other EU territories you mention outside of Europe were part of those member states (usually colonies) before they joined the EU. Not a hugely impressive distinction I'd admit.

There are other organisations which define their limits like the Organisation of African States, NAFTA, The Arab League, etc. I dont believe it is racist to set limits to an Organistion called the EU. If it expands into others continents it might as well be the Trans-Continental Trading Bloc with its own Parliament and Addtional Powers over Member States. Or else "Airstrip 1!".

by Ray Wed Jul 07, 2004 16:10

Check the date of the previous comments, why don't you?

But since you ask, why shouldn't the EU border on Iraq, Iran, or Syria? Some parts of the EU border on Brazil, and Suriname, others are close to Argentina, or Trinidad and Tobago. What about the east - do you think Russia should be allowed join the EU (in 20 0r 30 years time, perhaps)? How many new borders would that open up? If Russia can't join, does that rule out any countries that border on Russia? (Shh, don't tell the Poles or Estonians)

I didn't bring up the Ottoman Empire because I thought all of its former holdings should have an automatic right to join the EU. But it was a political entity that had a major impact on the history and culture of many current and aspiring EU members. Clearly, Turkey shares this history and culture. Therefore, Turkey can't be excluded on that basis.

Many of the countries that joined the EU this year, and many more of the countries that hope to join, were very recently dictatorships, not liberal democracies. The possibility of joining the EU could have a powerful effect on Turkish democracy, forcing the ruling elites to allow more dissent. Actual membership (which I don't think should be offered as long as Turkey oppresses its Kurdish population) could be a strong stabilising influence on Turkey.

If you want to argue that Turkish membership of the EU would be premature, or destabilising, or bad for other members, that's up to you. But arguments against Turkish membership based on some 'essential meaning' of Europe or European identity are embarassing to watch at best. At worst they're simply racist.

by jacob Wed Jul 07, 2004 15:37

I don't think it right that the EU should border on Iraq, Iran, and Syria. It is well beyond Europe so the EU loses any meaning it has. As well as other issues involved in bordering these "unstable" places.

The Ottoman Empire?
They once had control of Libya, Iraq and all the Arabian peninsula, why not incorporate them into the EU as well.

"'Europe is not a monolithic entity". No, our modern multicultural policies allow for diversity, islamic extremists take a different view though. Turkey's secular identity is protected by its military, often against the democratic wishes of its people and their elected representatives. Israel's only regional ally is Turkey. What are we getting ourselves into ?!!!

Turkey's human rights record, etc

But George Bush thinks its a great idea!

by Ray Thu Apr 17, 2003 10:14

You get called on your useless definition of European identity, so you fall back to bare assertion. You're not convincing anyone.

by neddy Thu Apr 17, 2003 09:47

It just goes to show that the ruling capitalist classes of Europe are incapable of genuine international cooperation despite all the crap we were fed at the time of the Nice referenda.

The only way that genuine international cooperation can take place is when we break with the market and capitalism.

Will this documentry be shown on BBC or RTÉ at any stage?

by Josef Wed Apr 16, 2003 17:18

Tree huggers can bleat about inclusiveness all they like but it's simply denying the reality of situation.

It's easier to say what europe isn't rather than what it is. Turkey has no place in the European Union. Any child in the EC knows that.

by Ray Wed Apr 16, 2003 16:44

The area now known as 'Turkey' used to be part of the Roman empire, a pretty significant force in Europe for about a thousand years.
It was also part of the Ottoman empire, which also ruled a significant part of Europe, though for a shorter period.
If Bulgaria is 'culturally' part of Europe, then so is Turkey.

by Ray Wed Apr 16, 2003 15:27

'Europe' is not a monolithic entity, and wasn't 'founded' by any set of principles, Christian or otherwise.
Europe is a geographical area, which has, since humans first started moving in, been host to hundreds of different ethnic groups and religions. Sun-worshipping druids, animist Germans, pantheist Greeks and Romans, iconoclastic 'eastern church' types, Islamic Moors in Spain, Christian heretics all over Spain and Eastern Europe, alchemists and gnostics, predeterminist puritans in the north, indulgence-selling Catholics along the Med, Jewish communities all over Europe, and lets not forget the atheists...
Saying that 'Europe is founded on Christian priciples' is ignorant rubbish - and generally just a (bad) attempt at disguising racism.

by Josef Wed Apr 16, 2003 14:40

It's a simple non-racist fact. You people are so quick to start labelling those not conforming to your central planning.. There's nothing racist in what I said. Europe is founded on Christian principles with a clear separation of Church and state. Governement and religion are inextricably bound together in Islamic counries as you all know. This sort of culture will never fit our European institutions. That's why I say Fuck off to them.

by Mike Wed Apr 16, 2003 14:26 stepbystepfarm at shaysnet dot com

Just 90 years ago Turkey was a major belligerant in a major European war, remember? And as far as being all that backward, I seem to recall that they were advanced enough to turn the Brits back at Gallipoli.

However I think I ought to say something about the original report. You do all realize, I hope, that JUST from that translation of the one line quote from the German minister you do NOT know which if any of these is true .....
1) He is promising this (he is pledaging his support for the effort to keep Turkey out -- but NOT necessarily confident of success).
2) Like #1, except he IS confident of success.
3) He is simply stating a fact of political reality about an issue he doesn't care about much.
4) He is simply stating a fact of political reality about an issue he does care about a great deal, say Gernamy wants Turkey in, but they know they will lose the fight.

Of course from some of the responses above we have OTHER information about the way some Europeans feel about Turks. Presumably refelcts the way some Germans think.

by Herr Himmlers secretarys hat Wed Apr 16, 2003 13:28

hmmm, surely you could voice opposition to turkish accession to the EU based on facts, and not your narrow-minded racismo world-view. Stuff like their appalling human rights record rather than their religious creed.
Oh, methinks the Turkey issue is going to open a whole new can of white supremacist rascist/fascist nazi worms across the whole of europe in the near future.
stay tuned.

by Ray Wed Apr 16, 2003 11:41

Or, as you so succinctly put it, 'fuck off'.

Racial, ethnic, or religious stereotyping is not welcome on indymedia, and will be deleted.

by Josef Wed Apr 16, 2003 11:06

Turks are not compatible with Europe. NO WAY. There's 80m of the fuckers and they're mostlyliving in the middle ages. Imagine opening our borders to that lot. Muslims too, big no no. They don't fit the European identity. and before some goody two shoes starts bleating about how they're all people I'dlike to say fuck off. If you had hundredsof them as your neighbours you'd soon change your mind.

NO WAY. NEVER is not far enough away.

by Josef Wed Apr 16, 2003 11:03

Turks are not compatible with Europe. NO WAY.

by mish mash Wed Apr 16, 2003 05:51

europe is already a multi-cultural mish mash. it has the second highest concentration of languages and ethnicities in the world after sub-saharan africa. besides half the people in eastern europe are actually just different turkish tribes who went christian instead of muslim.

by Nogawd Wed Apr 16, 2003 03:51

We don't need your anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish nonsense. Stop spreading hate.

by Caspian Wed Apr 16, 2003 03:37

Who is to gain by the destruction of Europe? Who will gain by turning Europe into a multi-cultural mish-mash? Has Israel got anything to do with it?
Israel for Jews, only. Fuck the rest of Europe.
Jews take over all of the Middle East. Get the Americans to invade Syria when they have finished with Iraq. Then Iran. Next we get our proxy soldiers, the Americans, to invade Korea. Then we get them to fight a war for us in China. Yes, China!
I wonder if we could get them to wear those funny little hats for us. Yarmulkas?
What war could we get this next one to coincide with? Last one was Purim. We all know the story behind that.
Has China got any biblical stories? What I am trying to say is, can we find any Biblical connections with Israel and China? Could we get away with invading China? Could we put any settlements in Chinese territory? Can we persuade the Americans to bomb China? Do Americans prefer Chinese take-aways? Would they be happy with just Macdonalds and freedom fries?

by Caspian Wed Apr 16, 2003 02:47

How many people actually read that load of shite?
I'm sure it was fascinating but who can be bothered reading all that guff?

We must not let the Turks into Europe because quite simply they are 80,000,0000. Yes, eighty million and we cannot cope with them. Muslims too. Eighty million Muslims being allowed into Europe? No fucking way!

by OBSERVER Tue Apr 15, 2003 22:28

Under US influence, the EU is taking its own actions to boost security, STEPHEN GARDNER writes
EUOBSERVER / SALT&PEPPER - George Orwell would surely have been impressed by the linguistic capabilities of the current US administration.

The influential English writer invented the term 'newspeak' in his famous novel 1984, describing the co-option of language for political purpose. Newspeak has become common, especially with military clichés like 'collateral damage' (dead civilians) and 'fog of war' (a shifting of responsibility for things you shouldn't have done, as in 'It wasn't us who killed those journalists, it was the fog of war').

The Bush administration has made significant contributions to the newspeak lexicon. The USA Patriot Act, adopted soon after September 11 2001, is a prime example. It significantly expanded US government powers to collect information and conduct surveillance, whilst reducing legal checks and balances. This is 'patriotic'. Opponents of the Act are therefore unpatriotic, thus un-American and potentially supporters of terrorism. Such use of language to create black and white divisions can be highly effective in suppressing even the most reasonable dissent.

The security creep
But what does this have to do with Europe? The answer is that the EU is being affected by a kind of 'security creep', directly influenced by the US.

This security creep - or paranoia creep, depending on how you look at it - influences the EU in two ways.

Firstly, under US influence, the EU is taking its own actions to boost security. A recent example was agreement on common rules to prevent cyber crime, under which people attacking or interfering with information systems face prison. Other initiatives include setting up a European Agency for Information and Network Security and strengthening Europol.

Secondly, and arguably more seriously, new US rules are impacting directly on Europe. The US Aviation and Transport Security Act, for example - another post September 11 measure - imposes on airlines flying to the US the requirement to give US authorities access to the data they hold on passengers and crew.

Data exchange
The US is also due to sign into law the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act. This will require anyone entering the US from October 2004 to carry some form of biometric identification - fingerprints or similar embedded in passports or visas. These initiatives place huge obligations - and costs - on EU countries.

These trends are extremely concerning. It is ironic that all this activity, which to a great extent concerns collection of information, is taking place in a kind of information vacuum. The situation is complex and few people are aware of what is being done to keep them 'secure'.

If they were, they might reflect that their rights are simply not being protected. The EU approach has been characterised by a lack of what politicians like to call joined-up thinking. The European Commission agreed to US demands regarding the new air passenger data regulations rather hastily, attracting strong criticism from the European Parliament and Member State data protection authorities, whose laws may even be contravened by the Commission's compliance.

The EU's own initiatives have also been confused. More and more data is being exchanged across Europe via a multiplicity of systems. The Schengen Information System, Eurodac, the Europol information system and others have been set up at different times for different purposes, but often overlap and duplicate one another. The overall trend has been for increased police co-operation but not enough data protection. Meanwhile, EU data protection laws are often poorly transposed and enforced, and Member State data protection authorities are under-resourced.

In the face of US pressure
It sometimes seems that data is being collected for the sake of it - not for any practical purpose. In this context it is essential the EU reaffirms some fundamental principles. EU citizens have a basic right to protection of their data and this must be upheld. Any collecting of data or security measure should therefore be proportionate to the real risks involved.

Secondly, the EU must work more effectively in the face of the obligations being imposed by the US. A united front is essential, to ensure that due negotiations take place, and that there are sufficient checks and balances to protect the fundamental right of EU citizens. Hasty agreements made by the European Commission in the face of US pressure, without appropriate consultation, are just not acceptable.

The need for the EU to organise its response is even more pressing in the face of the US Domestic Security Enhancement Act, known as `Patriot II', which is looming on the horizon. It will give the authorities even broader surveillance and arrest powers, including the right to strip Americans of their citizenship. Even right-wing organisations like the American Conservative Union and Gun Owners of America have expressed doubts.

A Gun Owners of America spokesman explained that the first Patriot Act hadn't bothered the organisation too much, as it had been aimed at non-US citizens. But Patriot II is different.

"A lot of people could become non-citizens," he said. "The whole thing is Orwellian."

STEPHEN GARDNER - is a freelance journalist, researcher and EU affairs consultant based in Brussels and the UK. He runs the website www.euro-correspondent.com, a collective of freelance journalists writing on European affairs and working across Europe in countries such as France, Italy, Norway, Scotland and Ukraine.

Website Euro-correspondent Written by Stephen Gardner