Reasons plausible and possible scenarios of entry into the European Union turkish
The title of this article makes it a good idea of \u200b\u200bthe cut that I propose to give the topic in question, one of Turkey's European Union, from many quarters treated with messianic tones so threaten to turn the issue into a battle of absolutes that would , in my humble opinion, misleading, exaggerated and extremely counterproductive. Therefore need to be played down with clear objectivity.
The relationship of Turkey with the EU can be described metaphorically as a long and troubled history of love and hate, as the country's Anatolian knocked for the first time at the entrance of 'the West in 1963 with the Ankara Agreement and repeatedly since then to our window peeping as a rejected lover who, without giving up, keep the faint hope that finally the silent partner's feelings. Turkey is a European country and therefore may be eligible for the assembly of the Union? Treat the subject from a unified point of view it is not possible because of the inherent complexity of the relationships at stake and it is right, in my view, to separate the various components of the story into parts to clarify the best deep joints, which are essentially cultural identity on the one hand and by political and diplomatic 'else.
The surface on which the euro-Turkish relationship seems, at first, more susceptible to criticism and doubt is surely cultural, at least considering that part, strong, popular sentiment that our neighbors would see in a community too different from 'European identity. The most important brake is pulled from the explanations that considers the turkish people very in tune with the characteristics culture of our continent. But what are these characteristics? If we wanted to proceed with a brief review would find that the red thread of fate Europe got another example that is not motivated by religious and ethnic. As regards the first ground, the beginnings of the construction of the "Europe House" are firmly anchored and only the common Judeo-Christian matrix transversely interested in the formation of national societies from the fall of the Roman Empire onwards. There is no doubt that religion has played an important role as a cohesive factor, but the topic is likely to be in my view is simplistic and misleading, if not for the fact that the draft European constitution already rejected the question of decline from a theological point of view by saying that others are in fact the theoretical background that the EU has adopted as fundamental cornerstones. We must not forget the primarily technical nature of the community project, which is characterized, especially at the beginning, for economic and political and based on the overcoming of historical conflicts derived from it during the nineteenth and twentieth century. That is the articulation of identity is somewhat pretentious and especially dangerous if it is modeled on the religious question. And 'it must be noted that Turkey is a Muslim country, but better by analyzing the evolution of his company from the time Kemal Ataturk jolt of civilians to this day one can not help but notice how many steps have been made in the direction of secularization of the state. Certainly, someone could advance the argument that a party of strong religious backgrounds is now in government, but it could just as easily be recalled that some resurgence of "traditionalism" are a normal phenomenon of adaptation in a society that aimed to change as Turkey, of course tries to protect itself from sudden upheaval of its traditional structures, but failing to consider the fact that other European countries (Italy in particular) are still a very ambiguous relationship with the religious influences in his political life and that the arrival of one member from a different horizon most likely will not be liable to "Islamization" the Union (as some fear), but to provide the final impetus for a serious and final secularization of the Community institutions to guarantee a solid basis of equal opportunity under civil and not theological. The other reason given, that ethnography is itself without foundation, since the Community has already inside with many ethnic populations who often have few similar traits or, at most, are grouped into sub-areas such as cultural Romance or Finno-Ugric whose only contact points are of almost purely language, just because it is an entity that synthesizes multiple national realities.
If a problem of adherence to the Western tradition at all costs must be found, if anything, this falls within the legal framework. Although many steps have been taken to align the code turkish to that of most European states, such as the dismissal of the death penalty and improving the criminal justice system and prisons, other practices liberticide (Orhan Pamuk charged!) That violate basic principles of the modern rule of law seem to die hard and strongly influence the spirit of openness to those nations who have fought for decades for the spread of freedom and rights civilians in them and in international fora. Moreover, as heavy as a boulder, the question of the Kurdish minority seems anything but resolved and even in areas with high human activity as integration policies are beginning to bear fruit, in the deep rural areas many other instances of discrimination continue to occur. The crucial point seems to be more than the internalization of legal tradition - liberal policy now widespread and institutionalized throughout the Community not supposed cultural and religious barriers, easily cleared without fees with effective policies to mediate on a large scale, without forgetting that the processes of social identities are not already marked with a destiny, but can also be addressed by people towards real integration policies. The joint
which I think is really important is the political and diplomatic as opposed to "cultural issue" litmus test used by some persons to give a theoretical foundation to no ingress turkish, can be both an exceptional opportunities for integration and increased understanding of the influence of the Union as a subject in itself is a strong factor of destabilization of the integration process itself and the political stalemate. In this context, the main diplomatic scenarios can be considered as all those ambivalent and, because of this feature, are therefore crucial in all its peculiarities.
The first "front" portion is the symbolic significance of a possible entry in turkish. In an era in which the processes of globalization, seemingly unstoppable and as little government, urging the nations of the earth contacts increasingly pervasive, often accentuating the moments of friction rather than dialogue and in our particular historical epoch in which different scholars ( S. Huntington, for example) can see no other result from this process unless a "clash of civilizations", the final step in accepting Turkey would be a very strong signal to open and bring proof that the mediation and the provision of construction to the differences, both sides, it can also generate positive results and not just mutual mistrust, hatred and destruction. The entry of Turkey into an objective reality she does not fully comply could be considered an example, even practical, to resolve conflicts in the Middle East and then provide a foothold for its stabilization, if only because the credibility of 'act as a mediator in the Union would greatly increase an internal member having much more akin to the socio-demographic characteristics of that region. In addition, moving to South-East political borders of the Community would result to provide a safe bulwark against hypothetical terrorist infiltration, drawing on decades of experience turkish army, well trained and very substantial (about 800,000 actual), which has a strong technical and tactical cooperation with neighboring Israel.
scenario thus seems to pose only optimistic expectations, if not that, better addressing the distribution of alliances, we realize that the ambivalence found is anything but slight, since the close cooperation between Israel and Turkey could also catalyze the negative feelings of the Arab population, very sensitive to the fact that a Muslim country is so closely tied to their main political and military rival.
The second point of analysis focuses on the ambiguous role that Turkey would play an ally once considered its central position in NATO, especially in relation with the United States. As I just mentioned, Ankara has a very solid team that the Army stands as the second most militarized country behind the U.S., the Atlantic Alliance and for that his vocation as a buffer against the territory of the Middle East is that the powerful Soviet bear, representatives of Washington wanted to strongly establish an increasingly close relationship with the Turkish government. Now that the specter of the USSR no longer any reason to exist, this position could easily be used as a beacon to attract all panturaniche republics (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, etc..) that were previously chained to the will of Moscow. There is no need to stress the unique opportunity to influence throughout the Caucasus, the Union would be to engage with all corollaries of economic, trade and energy supplies in tow, but it is certain that even the powerful U.S. ally is would be in position to claim a special relationship with Turkey under the same motivations. It does not seem so strange and dispassionate interest in the U.S. for a continuous input of business in Ankara and Brussels is rather obvious the intention to manipulate this process of enlargement according Atlanticist tracing the same form of interference has already been tried for the former socialist states and the three Baltic republics. As many will recall there was a spectacular contingency between the accessions to the Treaty establishing the entry of those countries into NATO, thus aligned timed to embarrass even the most efficient performance of the Swiss watch!
strategists must therefore reside in various European capitals are well aware of the possible downside. Without easy-fomenting controversy once before, in the sixties and seventies, the United States succeeded in their efforts to drive morphological Community institutions, by inserting an active crowbar as a British outpost to secure control of continental affairs, is never that history will repeat itself in this matter because the result would be very detrimental and severely undermine the ability of EU foreign independence, precipitating perhaps forever to the status of vassal of the Yankees.
The third scenario, referred to, but less than probably most important, has to do with the age-old division of the island of Cyprus into two political entities since 1974 and is one that most hinders the resumption of negotiations and which reaches as a thorn in the side of domestic policy to the Union. In addition to the doubts of nature both cultural and political so far identified, the Cypriot situation opens a serious face of conflict and is repeatedly advanced as an insurmountable stumbling block is from Greece and from other States whenever the government in Ankara makes demands. If in fact the north of the island is home to a government of Turkish occupation, recognized only by the state Anatolian and therefore subject to all the trappings of international lawlessness connected to such a situation, it should also be stressed that both Athens and his supporters (above all, Britain enjoying extraterritoriality of two bases) have never left the shine serious desire to reach a compromise, perhaps aware that the Turkish military reaction of the seventies was good reason to protect the minority from the northern pro-Hellenic coup, an event which also overthrew the peaceful organization on the island by the agreements of 16 August 1960. The matter is extremely embarrassing especially when you consider that the two countries are both members of NATO! A possible crack may occur only when a sizeable majority of European countries would lay an ultimatum to the parties for collaboration in order to unlock the stalemate and put as a condition for further negotiations to restore the island's sovereignty. Certainly this should not mean a unilateral retreat from Ankara, but a new reorganization Administrative allowing better management of ethnic divisions under the umbrella, including military, the Union itself.
The conclusion to be drawn is very simple, and as its author, inspired by the most elementary principles of political realism. When the Fathers of the Community, made the journey difficult but exciting, process of integration prophesied would hardly believe that such a radical and impressive political machinery would be set in motion. However, cases in history have meant that the embryonic CZECH turning into the closest thing to the idea of \u200b\u200bYoung Europe is found today, laying the groundwork for a future entity that finally constitutes a home for all Europeans. It is with that pioneering spirit that our leaders should continue negotiations and end the stalemate in the process of rapprochement with Turkey, including both the enormous potential that this new member would bring with it, is dodging the hypothetical risk that its position inevitably involves borderliner with the single purpose in mind to build a community increasingly rich and increasingly powerful. Moreover one can see no real alternatives, nor I think it is plausible to retrace the steps taken seriously, especially if they have multiplied the pathways of cooperation between Europe and Turkey over the past 40 years, now double wire binding the destinies of these two players.
The title of this article makes it a good idea of \u200b\u200bthe cut that I propose to give the topic in question, one of Turkey's European Union, from many quarters treated with messianic tones so threaten to turn the issue into a battle of absolutes that would , in my humble opinion, misleading, exaggerated and extremely counterproductive. Therefore need to be played down with clear objectivity.
The relationship of Turkey with the EU can be described metaphorically as a long and troubled history of love and hate, as the country's Anatolian knocked for the first time at the entrance of 'the West in 1963 with the Ankara Agreement and repeatedly since then to our window peeping as a rejected lover who, without giving up, keep the faint hope that finally the silent partner's feelings. Turkey is a European country and therefore may be eligible for the assembly of the Union? Treat the subject from a unified point of view it is not possible because of the inherent complexity of the relationships at stake and it is right, in my view, to separate the various components of the story into parts to clarify the best deep joints, which are essentially cultural identity on the one hand and by political and diplomatic 'else.
The surface on which the euro-Turkish relationship seems, at first, more susceptible to criticism and doubt is surely cultural, at least considering that part, strong, popular sentiment that our neighbors would see in a community too different from 'European identity. The most important brake is pulled from the explanations that considers the turkish people very in tune with the characteristics culture of our continent. But what are these characteristics? If we wanted to proceed with a brief review would find that the red thread of fate Europe got another example that is not motivated by religious and ethnic. As regards the first ground, the beginnings of the construction of the "Europe House" are firmly anchored and only the common Judeo-Christian matrix transversely interested in the formation of national societies from the fall of the Roman Empire onwards. There is no doubt that religion has played an important role as a cohesive factor, but the topic is likely to be in my view is simplistic and misleading, if not for the fact that the draft European constitution already rejected the question of decline from a theological point of view by saying that others are in fact the theoretical background that the EU has adopted as fundamental cornerstones. We must not forget the primarily technical nature of the community project, which is characterized, especially at the beginning, for economic and political and based on the overcoming of historical conflicts derived from it during the nineteenth and twentieth century. That is the articulation of identity is somewhat pretentious and especially dangerous if it is modeled on the religious question. And 'it must be noted that Turkey is a Muslim country, but better by analyzing the evolution of his company from the time Kemal Ataturk jolt of civilians to this day one can not help but notice how many steps have been made in the direction of secularization of the state. Certainly, someone could advance the argument that a party of strong religious backgrounds is now in government, but it could just as easily be recalled that some resurgence of "traditionalism" are a normal phenomenon of adaptation in a society that aimed to change as Turkey, of course tries to protect itself from sudden upheaval of its traditional structures, but failing to consider the fact that other European countries (Italy in particular) are still a very ambiguous relationship with the religious influences in his political life and that the arrival of one member from a different horizon most likely will not be liable to "Islamization" the Union (as some fear), but to provide the final impetus for a serious and final secularization of the Community institutions to guarantee a solid basis of equal opportunity under civil and not theological. The other reason given, that ethnography is itself without foundation, since the Community has already inside with many ethnic populations who often have few similar traits or, at most, are grouped into sub-areas such as cultural Romance or Finno-Ugric whose only contact points are of almost purely language, just because it is an entity that synthesizes multiple national realities.
If a problem of adherence to the Western tradition at all costs must be found, if anything, this falls within the legal framework. Although many steps have been taken to align the code turkish to that of most European states, such as the dismissal of the death penalty and improving the criminal justice system and prisons, other practices liberticide (Orhan Pamuk charged!) That violate basic principles of the modern rule of law seem to die hard and strongly influence the spirit of openness to those nations who have fought for decades for the spread of freedom and rights civilians in them and in international fora. Moreover, as heavy as a boulder, the question of the Kurdish minority seems anything but resolved and even in areas with high human activity as integration policies are beginning to bear fruit, in the deep rural areas many other instances of discrimination continue to occur. The crucial point seems to be more than the internalization of legal tradition - liberal policy now widespread and institutionalized throughout the Community not supposed cultural and religious barriers, easily cleared without fees with effective policies to mediate on a large scale, without forgetting that the processes of social identities are not already marked with a destiny, but can also be addressed by people towards real integration policies. The joint
which I think is really important is the political and diplomatic as opposed to "cultural issue" litmus test used by some persons to give a theoretical foundation to no ingress turkish, can be both an exceptional opportunities for integration and increased understanding of the influence of the Union as a subject in itself is a strong factor of destabilization of the integration process itself and the political stalemate. In this context, the main diplomatic scenarios can be considered as all those ambivalent and, because of this feature, are therefore crucial in all its peculiarities.
The first "front" portion is the symbolic significance of a possible entry in turkish. In an era in which the processes of globalization, seemingly unstoppable and as little government, urging the nations of the earth contacts increasingly pervasive, often accentuating the moments of friction rather than dialogue and in our particular historical epoch in which different scholars ( S. Huntington, for example) can see no other result from this process unless a "clash of civilizations", the final step in accepting Turkey would be a very strong signal to open and bring proof that the mediation and the provision of construction to the differences, both sides, it can also generate positive results and not just mutual mistrust, hatred and destruction. The entry of Turkey into an objective reality she does not fully comply could be considered an example, even practical, to resolve conflicts in the Middle East and then provide a foothold for its stabilization, if only because the credibility of 'act as a mediator in the Union would greatly increase an internal member having much more akin to the socio-demographic characteristics of that region. In addition, moving to South-East political borders of the Community would result to provide a safe bulwark against hypothetical terrorist infiltration, drawing on decades of experience turkish army, well trained and very substantial (about 800,000 actual), which has a strong technical and tactical cooperation with neighboring Israel.
scenario thus seems to pose only optimistic expectations, if not that, better addressing the distribution of alliances, we realize that the ambivalence found is anything but slight, since the close cooperation between Israel and Turkey could also catalyze the negative feelings of the Arab population, very sensitive to the fact that a Muslim country is so closely tied to their main political and military rival.
The second point of analysis focuses on the ambiguous role that Turkey would play an ally once considered its central position in NATO, especially in relation with the United States. As I just mentioned, Ankara has a very solid team that the Army stands as the second most militarized country behind the U.S., the Atlantic Alliance and for that his vocation as a buffer against the territory of the Middle East is that the powerful Soviet bear, representatives of Washington wanted to strongly establish an increasingly close relationship with the Turkish government. Now that the specter of the USSR no longer any reason to exist, this position could easily be used as a beacon to attract all panturaniche republics (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, etc..) that were previously chained to the will of Moscow. There is no need to stress the unique opportunity to influence throughout the Caucasus, the Union would be to engage with all corollaries of economic, trade and energy supplies in tow, but it is certain that even the powerful U.S. ally is would be in position to claim a special relationship with Turkey under the same motivations. It does not seem so strange and dispassionate interest in the U.S. for a continuous input of business in Ankara and Brussels is rather obvious the intention to manipulate this process of enlargement according Atlanticist tracing the same form of interference has already been tried for the former socialist states and the three Baltic republics. As many will recall there was a spectacular contingency between the accessions to the Treaty establishing the entry of those countries into NATO, thus aligned timed to embarrass even the most efficient performance of the Swiss watch!
strategists must therefore reside in various European capitals are well aware of the possible downside. Without easy-fomenting controversy once before, in the sixties and seventies, the United States succeeded in their efforts to drive morphological Community institutions, by inserting an active crowbar as a British outpost to secure control of continental affairs, is never that history will repeat itself in this matter because the result would be very detrimental and severely undermine the ability of EU foreign independence, precipitating perhaps forever to the status of vassal of the Yankees.
The third scenario, referred to, but less than probably most important, has to do with the age-old division of the island of Cyprus into two political entities since 1974 and is one that most hinders the resumption of negotiations and which reaches as a thorn in the side of domestic policy to the Union. In addition to the doubts of nature both cultural and political so far identified, the Cypriot situation opens a serious face of conflict and is repeatedly advanced as an insurmountable stumbling block is from Greece and from other States whenever the government in Ankara makes demands. If in fact the north of the island is home to a government of Turkish occupation, recognized only by the state Anatolian and therefore subject to all the trappings of international lawlessness connected to such a situation, it should also be stressed that both Athens and his supporters (above all, Britain enjoying extraterritoriality of two bases) have never left the shine serious desire to reach a compromise, perhaps aware that the Turkish military reaction of the seventies was good reason to protect the minority from the northern pro-Hellenic coup, an event which also overthrew the peaceful organization on the island by the agreements of 16 August 1960. The matter is extremely embarrassing especially when you consider that the two countries are both members of NATO! A possible crack may occur only when a sizeable majority of European countries would lay an ultimatum to the parties for collaboration in order to unlock the stalemate and put as a condition for further negotiations to restore the island's sovereignty. Certainly this should not mean a unilateral retreat from Ankara, but a new reorganization Administrative allowing better management of ethnic divisions under the umbrella, including military, the Union itself.
The conclusion to be drawn is very simple, and as its author, inspired by the most elementary principles of political realism. When the Fathers of the Community, made the journey difficult but exciting, process of integration prophesied would hardly believe that such a radical and impressive political machinery would be set in motion. However, cases in history have meant that the embryonic CZECH turning into the closest thing to the idea of \u200b\u200bYoung Europe is found today, laying the groundwork for a future entity that finally constitutes a home for all Europeans. It is with that pioneering spirit that our leaders should continue negotiations and end the stalemate in the process of rapprochement with Turkey, including both the enormous potential that this new member would bring with it, is dodging the hypothetical risk that its position inevitably involves borderliner with the single purpose in mind to build a community increasingly rich and increasingly powerful. Moreover one can see no real alternatives, nor I think it is plausible to retrace the steps taken seriously, especially if they have multiplied the pathways of cooperation between Europe and Turkey over the past 40 years, now double wire binding the destinies of these two players.
Federico Maisenti
0 comments:
Post a Comment