Why Shouldn`t Turkey Become a Member of the EU? (4/4)

Posted on December 11, 2014December 11, 2014 by Hacı Mehmet Boyraz

Young girl watching TV, Spotlight Europe — A corrupted European lifestyle could spread in Turkey. (Flickr: Catie Sayeg/licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

This is the last part of a series, discussing the pros and cons of an accession of Turkey to the European Union from all angles. Find the other parts here: First / Second / Third

In the third part of the series, I argued why Turkey should not become a member of the EU from the EU’s perspective. In this paper I focus on the argument from Turkey’s perspective. Basically the main arguments on “why Turkey should not become a member of the EU” are based on the cultural differences, corrupted European community, economic and political challenges within the EU.

Cultural differences

Blue Mosque in Istanbul, Spotlight Europe — The Blue Mosque in Istanbul (Flickr: Henrik Berger Jorgensen/licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

As known the main argument against Turkey’s membership is based on the fact that Turkey has a big Muslim population while the EU’s member states have the reverse situation. In this case Turkey should not become a member of the EU because it has a historical symbol in the Islamic world. In the era of the Ottoman Empire, one of the largest and biggest empires in the world, the Sultans ⁽¹⁾ were caliphates ⁽²⁾ at the same time. This difference based on religion is one of the double-standards applied by the Europeans against Turkey. For example, although there is no too big a difference between a Turk and a Greek, Greece is a member but Turkey is not. Their life styles, cuisines, cultures, and so on are very similar to each other but the only difference between them is based on religions within the societies: While a big part of Turkish population is Muslim, a big part of Greek population is Christian. From this point of view religion plays an important role for membership.

Also the argument in the eye of the Europeans that Turkey does not respect minorities is not true because when you visit Istanbul, an impressive city in the world, you can see mosque, church and synagogue together. This has been the same for many centuries all over Turkey but you cannot see this in many European states. There are still many European states that do not allow the European Muslims to establish their own mosques.

Thus, Turkey has its own history and background, so if it becomes a member, it can lose its socio-historical values.

Europe as a corrupted community

“[T]he European youth is on the verge of death.”

Today, the European youth is on the verge of “death”. They do not care about their lives. They consume a lot of alcohol every day. Annoyance, rape, violation, consumption of drug, and atheism are the situations seen very often in the European states. Thus, if Turkey becomes a member, these negative situations can spread to the Turkish society.

Economic challenges

At the beginning of the 2000s, economic crises and corruptions were seen very often in Turkey. However, by the ruling government, the Turkish economy has been developing itself in a more positive way. Today, some EU member states have very critical economic challenges. For example, if we look at current economic data, Greece, Malta, Portugal, Spain and some others have economic crisis, so their economic challenges can affect the Turkish economy in a negative way.

Also, the rate of unemployment has been rising in Europe, so by becoming a member of the EU, the rate of unemployment in Turkey can rise.

Thus, we can deduce that the argument that “If Turkey becomes a member, the Turkish workers would invade the Europe” is completely wrong. In fact, the European workers may invade the Turkish economy.

Political challenges

“[T]he institutional structure of Turkey is not ready for such a position.”

The EU has a complex institutional structure. The Commission, Council, Parliament, Central Bank and many other institutions work unlike the institutional structure of Turkey. Also, most of the political decisions within the EU are taken in supranational or inter-governmental negotiations. Unfortunately, the institutional structure of Turkey is not ready for such a position.

Another important issue related to the argument above is based on the difficulty of applying the common policies of the EU to the Turkish politics. Especially the common foreign policy, common security policy and common monetary policy are always in the agenda. Because of this, when Turkey becomes a member, it has to share those common policies with other members.

Thus, if Turkey becomes a member of the EU, it has to share the EU’s institutional and political structures.

As a conclusion, cultural differences between Turkey and the EU, the possible effects of the corrupted European community, economic possibilities and some political challenges indicate that Turkey should not become a member of the EU.

Endnotes

The word coming from Arabic language “Sultan” is the Emperor of the Ottoman Empire. They are the highest rulers that are the members of the Ottoman dynasty.
The word coming from Arabic language “Caliphate” is a form of political-religious leadership which centres on the caliph to the prophet Muhammad, the final prophet that was sent for the whole humanity by the almighty the Allah. The position of a caliphate can be seen as the position of the Pope in the Catholic world.

About the author:

Hacı Mehmet Boyraz (21) is a student of International Relations with Political Science and Public Administration at Gediz University in İzmir.

Europe in Our Hearts.

Posted on December 9, 2014December 9, 2014 by Jochen Bender

Crowd in London, Spotlight Europe — How can we foster patriotic feelings for Europe amongst 500 million? (Flickr:The CBI/licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Intellectual discussions on Europe do have their values. They are essential, there are no doubts. But bringing 500 million citizens to grow closer together can be better built with emotions. Emotionally we need to create a common feeling so that the 500 million within the European Union are all inlanders and not foreigners any more.

“When will 500 million citizens obtain a European passport?”

When will 500 million citizens obtain a European passport?
In addition to the national passport within a period of transition.
This will cause immense legal implications but the issue should not hold up what is good for Europe.

It seems to me to be a human behaviour that it needs a common problem or a common threat in order to be united. The Soviet Union in the past. Russia today? Wouldn´t it be much more desirable to be united for a common opportunity? And what a great opportunity the European Union is providing. A new fantastic horizon for all, especially for the young.

My observation is that especially many young people, well understandable, take all the wonderful achievements of the European Union for granted as they have not seen otherwise but place their focus on current matters in Brussels. The sometimes tough discussions, the poor egoistic style amongst politicians and worst of all, media, that publishes which president or chancellor is the winner of a negotiation.

Have we ever heard a journalist telling us that Europe is the winner?

We should not forget that we need to win hearts and minds of all 500 million for the European Union. Not only the elite. Students having participated in the Erasmus programs, school students who enjoyed exchanges with their peers in other countries, managers having worked within various EU countries. All these are excellent ambassadors for the European Union but they are a small minority. A most valuable minority, but still a minority.

“[W]e need to approach the national mass media and convince them to write appropriately critical […]”

Then, how can we convince the mind and heart of the other 90% of people in Europe?
Not an easy task at all. Since these people do not experience Europe by personally meeting other Europeans or through international business, we need to approach the national mass media and convince them to write appropriately critical but fair and respectful about other countries. And national politicians should refrain from taking applause for good news and exporting responsibility to Brussels for bad news. A very detrimental attitude towards our noble goals.

Media should at any time place critique on any current issues, on new laws, on political representatives of the EU but not on the noble cause of the European Union.

How can we foster patriotic feelings for Europe amongst 500 million?
Not only by reflecting on Europe´s great cultures but:
By creating awareness for the great joint achievements of Europe to be proud of.

• The current Philae space mission. Europe before America on a comet.

• By making everyone aware that the Airbus planes are a great European achievement. A perfect example: No single EU country would have been able to build such planes, competing most sucessfully with the US giant Boeing. Providing high tech jobs for over 120.000 people in Europe.
And many more.

And then…

• Should Europe not build its own Amazon or Google?

• Should we not have a common television channel in our different languages, the same programme and at the same time? A regular programme. Movies, news, entertainment et. al.

• Why don´t we employ native English speaking teachers from the U.K. or Ireland in all EU countries? The same in other languages.

• We could establish European teams in different sports competing with North America or Latin America, Asia and Africa, Australia and Oceania.

• Should we not invite well known, popular, respected European personalities giving public testimonials on the values of Europe as part of an advertising campaign?
(movie stars, sportsmen, singers, astronauts et. al.)
Example: “Nowhere in the World you can find so many great cultures within a three Hours` flight than in Europe.”

• We should install an EU exchange center. All EU nations have talent, experience and ideas which are beneficial to all members of the EU. Let us collect and exchange this most valuable asset and make it available to all.

• We should install a “European protection force.” 1.000 specialists joining from all our countries, stationed in the center of Europe, state of the art equipment, deployed in any EU region within 24 hours, fighting major fires, helping in the aftermath of earth quakes or floods. Then we can promise each single EU citizens that he, she is protected by 500 million people.

• We should install a “European protection fund”- say each country pays 1 Euro per citizen into the fund per year to compensate and to rebuild immediately damaged houses, farms and factories destroyed by a natural catastrophy. And again, we could promise each EU citizens that he, she is protected by 500 million people.

We Europeans, we all stand up for each other.
We all are good next door neighbours to each other.

About the author:

Jochen Bender is a passionate European. He has lived and worked in Rio de Janeiro, London and Germany. He is a developer of tourism and hotels. He travelled on business to almost sixty countries and spent a total of seven years in developing countries. More

Why Shouldn´t Turkey Become a Member of the EU? (3/4)

Posted on December 4, 2014December 4, 2014 by Hacı Mehmet Boyraz

This is the third part of a 4-part series, discussing the pros and cons of an accession of Turkey to the European Union from all angles. Check the blog regularly or sign up to our newsletter to be notified as soon as the final part is available. Find the other parts here: First / Second

In the previous 2 blogs I tried to explain why Turkey should become a member of the EU from both the EU’s and Turkey’s perspectives. In this and the following blog, I am focusing on the reverse: “Why shouldn’t Turkey become a member of the EU from the EU’s and Turkey’s perspective?”. In this blog, I am arguing from the EU’s perspective.
The main arguments in this passage are based on the problematic situation of Turkey’s neighbours, the uncertainties in the Turkish economy and politics, Turkey’s extremely big population, cultural difference in case of religion and some lacks in liberal democracy.

Problematic neighbours

Israeli West Bank barrier, Spotlight Europe — Borders and conflicts in the Middle East (Flickr: Ingmar Zahorsky/licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

The most important difficulty for Turkey with regard to the membership is its very critical geopolitical location because when Turkey becomes a member, the border of the European Union at the east and north-east will extend to the Middle East and Caucuses, one of the most problematic areas in the current global politics. If we look at the map, we can easily see that Turkey is surrounded by anti-democratic states including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Russia. All of these states have different internal issues which force them to be undemocratic. Because none of them is interested in a “win-win” idea, there is no stability in the region for a long time. Furthermore, the most prominent two problems “ISIS” and “Syrian refugees” make Turkey’s regional policy weaker because both of them are the problems that have political and security aspects. Thus, if Turkey becomes a member of the EU, the EU will have to face such problems as these because of the common foreign and security policies.

“[T]his possible membership will force the EU to change its foreign and security policies.”

Behind the EU’s own ongoing problems including the Ukrainian problem with Russia, it will face more and more problems. Related to this issue, if Turkey becomes a member of the EU, the EU will have to open its borders to Turkey, so the refuges and migrants will arrive to Europe via Turkey. This would force the EU to change its migration policy. Briefly, this possible membership will force the EU to change its foreign and security policies. From this point of view, Turkey should have to wait a little bit longer.

Uncertainty in economy and politics

Although the Turkish economy has been for a decade developing in a positive way, it has still structural, fiscal and monetary problems. Especially the percentage of unemployment is still about 10% which is above the EU’s criteria. This is a structural problem in the Turkish economy, so in order to solve it it will take a long time. Also, inflation, another structural economic problem, the taxation system and the economic inequalities within the society are still visible. Thus, the membership of Turkey economically seems a little bit early.

A huge population

Another handicap of Turkey is its big population. Today’s population is about 75 million (without the refugees) but will be 80 million by 2020, so this is really too big for the EU to absorb it in short-run. Thus, Turkey’s population can change the EU’s demographic structure.

Religion as a cultural difference

“Turkey’s membership will be a signal.”

As a reality, most of people in the Islamic world see the EU as the Union of Christians. From this point of view, as having a 95% Muslim population, Turkey’s membership will be a signal that Europe is open to the Islamic world. However, this is really debatable because although there are millions of Muslims living in Europe, Turkey’s membership will bring 80 million new Muslims to Europe, so this is a situation that can change the demographic structure of the EU too.

Lack on liberal democracy

Honestly speaking, Turkey still has problems with human rights, women rights, labour rights and homosexual rights. Although the state has been improving on these issues for a couple of years, this is a long-time tradition. Thus, while the EU still has some problems with the consolidation of former member states, integrating Turkey will impose new problems on the EU.

To sum it up: The problematic neighbours, the uncertainty in economy and politics, a big population, the cultural difference in case of religion and lacks in liberal democracy indicate that Turkey will need a decade at least to become a member of the EU.

About the author:

Hacı Mehmet Boyraz (21) is a student of International Relations with Political Science and Public Administration at Gediz University in İzmir.

Youth on Europe

Posted on December 2, 2014December 2, 2014 by Simona Mihalca

Simona (3rd from left side) at the Youth Council Panel discussion with MEP Elmar Brok (4th from left side) at the Steigenberger Hotel in Frankfurt, Germany.

2 months ago I received a very special invitation, one to be part of a discussion forum in Frankfurt on 14 November 2014. Known as “Youth on Europe – Regionalisation of the EU”, it was meant to introduce Mr Elmar Brok. He has been a German Member of the European Parliament for almost 35 years and is the current Chairman of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs.

“We have done our research, read all there was to be, followed closely news and foreign affairs.”

As a member of the YCF I had a chance to meet him, along with 4 of my colleagues and be part of a discussion panel on Regionalisation of the EU. We may not have been experts, but he surely was. We have done our research, read all there was to be, followed closely news and foreign affairs. Lastly, we packed and got on a plane to Frankfurt.

Coming back to this city was something I really looked forward to. It is the perfect mix of a small town and a big town, new and old. It has something for everyone. And, of course, I got to meet with my colleagues and the awesome guys who run the “My Europe” Initiative. After spending some time in the city and meeting for a small teambuilding it was time to head for the event.

The first thing that could tell us this would be a special night was laying eyes on the hotel. The event was held in the fanciest most elegant one I have seen, bar none. We got there early to plan and prepare. Changed the strategy a bit and patiently waited for the distinguished guests to arrive.

Meeting Mr Brok was something much better than expected. While I had a great opinion of his person, I was so pleasantly surprised to see how nice and approachable he was, how eager to discuss with you, how for him each and every one of us and what we had to say mattered. We bonded over some political small talk and then got to our seats.

Now was not the moment to be nervous. We were supposed to debate European policy and try to come up with sensible answers and pertinent solutions, while in the presence of such distinguished members. And let’s not forget, all of it was broadcasted over the internet. That was all, nothing to worry about.

“[T]he more independence a region has, the more independence it wants.”

I could not tell you what exactly we have talked about. Of course, regionalisation in general and specific cases of Scotland and Catalonia were the main topics of the evening. It was so interesting to hear what our distinguished guest had to say. We did not have any big breakthroughs on the issues of Europe, but it definitely was a learning experience for me. Mr Brok said that, the more independence a region has, the more independence it wants. When writing a constitution or when redacting laws one must always bear in mind that, in order to respect the nature of a unitary state, all regions should be equal. A parent is never supposed to love one child more, let alone show it.

I will let the video (and respectively us) speak for itself, as you can watch the panel on the “My Europe” website and we urge you to do so. It is always interesting to see people coming together from different countries, different cultures, people who have learned and live different things. You are what Europe is all about: “United in Diversity”. That is one motto we stand by at “My Europe”.

I would like once again to thank Mr Brok, the amazing people from “My Europe” who organized this event and took care of us, our distinguished guests and all of you guys and girls at home who watch us, who read what we write, who are invested in what we do.

Auf Wiedersehen, Frankfurt!

Simona (19) is member of the Youth Council for the Future. She joined “My Europe” after the workshop in Bucharest in 2011.

How Many Rights Can Be Violated at Once?

Posted on November 28, 2014November 28, 2014 by Anathea Cristea

Room in an abandoned hospital, European Spotlight — Hospital Room (Flickr:Luca Rossato/licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

September 15, 1985:
Valentin Câmpeanu is born. He is a Romanian citizen of Roma ethnicity abandoned by his mother at birth and placed in a foster home.

1990:
Valentin is considered to be part of the severe disability group, having “profound mental retardation” and “an IQ of 30”. He is also confirmed to be HIV-positive, a virus he contracted during the pregnancy.

2003:
The boy turns 18 and is meant to be on his own. However, because of his condition the government is forced to take responsibility for him.

February 5, 2004:
Valentin is placed in a medical institution that supposedly suits his needs, after his medical file reads “average disability group” and signs of “social integration”.

February 6/7,2004:
He starts feeling agitated and is violent towards members of staff and other patients.

February 9, 2004:
Valentin is taken to Poiana Mare Neuropsychological Hospital (PMNH) for examination.

February 13, 2004:
The boy is once again taken to PMNH, this time for four to five days of psychiatric therapy.

February 1,9 2004:
He stops eating and taking his medication. He is prescribed an IV treatment. He is however found to be in a damaged state.

February 20, 2004:
A group of volunteers from the Centre for Learning Resources (CLR) is inspecting the PMNH and finds Valentin in horrible conditions, with only his pyjama blouse on, in a cold room and with no help to eat or use the bathroom, which at that time he could not do alone. They inform the hospital staff, however on that night Valentin is found dead.

His story did not end there. In the following days, the CLR decided to pursue legal action against the Romanian government which has obviously misplaced Valentin and mistreated his medical condition. They take the case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), even though Valentin is dead and he cannot file a claim anymore. Until this case, the ECHR has not accepted any case on behalf of deceased clients. For 10 years, the NGO CLR had fought alongside Interights, a London-based charity which offers legal consulting services, to move the case further and prove the importance of bringing justice to Valentin Câmpeanu to the authorities.

In 2014, a decision has been made, a historical one we could say. The grand jury of the ECHR ruled in favour of Valentin Câmpeanu and sentenced the Romanian government to pay € 25,000 to CLR and € 10,000 to Interights, for the costs involved in maintaining the lawsuit.

“Given the timeline of Valentin’s life and the improper and poor manner in which he has been taken care of, there is no doubt the Romanian Government need to be held accountable for his death. However, the sentence given by the ECHR is questionable.”

Given the timeline of Valentin’s life and the improper and poor manner in which he has been taken care of, there is no doubt the Romanian Government need to be held accountable for his death. However, the sentence given by the ECHR is questionable. The purpose of this lawsuit seemed to make the Romanian civil society as well as the political class aware of the situation in the medical system and of what should be the repercussions of negligence towards citizens. But instead of asking the Romanian government, for example, to implement a self-regulating system of the medical institutions, in particular those dealing with members of minorities, which could be overseen by an NGO, they sentenced the government to only pay money to the two NGOs that have supported the case in court. Asked how the money will be used, a representative from Interights responded that “the money represent the expenses of the organisation that have supported the case in court and in front of authorities for ten years. Therefore the money will be used however they find it appropriate, limited by their charitable purpose.”

It is thus difficult to say whether there won’t be any other case like Valentin Câmpeanu’s in Romania; it is yet unknown whether the Romanian government will take the necessary measures to regulate the irregularities in the medical sector. The fate of Romania’s parentless, disabled and Roma-ethnical citizens is still undecided.

About the author:

Anathea (19) is a member of the Youth Council for the Future. She is involved in “My Europe” since the workshop in Bucharest in 2011.

How the EU Can Deal with Chaos on Its Borders

Posted on November 27, 2014November 27, 2014 by Prof. Ludger Kühnhardt

Commissioner Johannes Hahn at the Baltic Development Forum, SpotlightEurope — Commissioner Johannes Hahn at the Baltic Development Forum,2011 (Flickr:Baltic Development Forum/licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

The planned ring of friends around the European Union has turned into a zone of chaos and uncertainty. In the new European Commission, policies for enlargement and neighbourhood policies fall under Austrian Commissioner Johannes Hahn. He faces an uphill struggle. Bereft of convincing incentives, Europe’s unique ‘neighbourhood policy’ can no longer promote its noble goals. Instead it produces the opposite: disillusionment within the EU, and disdain in neighbouring regions and in the power centres that stand behind them, whether they are in the Kremlin or somewhere in the Middle East.

“Most of the controlling forces behind Europe’s neighbours no longer believe in benevolent integration and transformation.”

Most of the controlling forces behind Europe’s neighbours no longer believe in benevolent integration and transformation. The EU has to deal with a wide and difficult world that encompasses the problems of Sahel, Russia and the Caucasus, piracy and terror in eastern Africa and even the kidnapping of Europeans in southeast Asia. The bitter truth is that, 100 years after the first world war, Europe is no longer exporting stability around the globe. For the first time, it is importing instability, through terrorism, illegal migration, cyber-crime and other forms of destabilising activity on and across its borders.

As Commissioner Hahn knows from his own country’s history, the EU can offer only one real incentive towards those it tries to link to its values and interests: EU membership. Yet any further enlargement is off the table at least until 2019. This is bad news for Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo and, of course, Turkey.

The EU’s neighbourhood policy is falling a long way short of its aim of extending European values and instruments and helping develop a common market. The policy, in effect since 2004, involves a large budget, with €15.4bn due to be spent between this year and 2020. The Treaty of Lisbon gives the neighbourhood policy quasi-constitutional status. The policy has met some success in a technocratic sense since 2004. But this year the environment has suddenly turned darker.

“The neighbours are no longer consumers of European ideas”

Neighbourhood policy, by definition, is a paternalistic concept. Its objectives cannot be fulfilled in the climate of revolutionary turmoil to the south and east of the EU’s borders. The neighbours are no longer consumers of European ideas; instead, they are agents of change in their own right. Ukraine may be drawn toward the EU more than any other place in the east; Tunisia may be more promising than any other southern state. But even these two countries, no matter how hard they try to keep to the neighbourhood policy precepts, know they will not receive the prize of EU membership as a reward for their achievements.

Their struggle shows that Europe should proceed on a case by case basis rather than directing well-intentioned but ultimately useless policies towards diverse neighbouring countries grouped into irrelevant categories. The EU needs appropriate tools for specific countries in improving standards in areas like health, tax and anti-trust regulations. These should be integrated into general EU work.

The new Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policies should reset his priorities by striving to eliminate his own job. The aim should be to complete EU Balkan enlargement as soon as possible. The Commission should then consign into oblivion a portfolio that has become a testament to the EU’s shattered illusions.

About the author:

Ludger Kühnhardt, member of the OMFIF Advisory Board, is Director at the Center for European Integration Studies, Bonn University. He is author of European Union – The Second Founding and editor of Crises in European Integration. This article was originally published by OMFIF.