Why Turkey’s Entry into European Union Is
Being Blocked
June
17, 2005
In this space last week we had
considered the implications of the rejection on
May 29 by the French voters of the proposed constitution
for the European Union. One of the reasons was the
likelihood of the entry of Turkey into the Union.
In this column we shall focus on the background
of the general negative attitude of Europe to Turkey.
A significant reason underlying this attitude is
the vehement opposition of the Holy See to the admission
of a Muslim state into what it views as a strictly
Christian Club. Vatican has all along been working
for fusing together the Christian and European identities
of the Union. Having failed in its efforts to have
Christianity declared as the official religion of
the Union, it has now concentrated efforts on blocking
the entry of Turkey into the Union.
In an interview with Le Fargo magazine, in mid-August,
2004, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Catholic Church’s
top theologian, remarked that linking Turkey to
Europe would be a mistake as that country was “in
permanent contrast to Europe”.
The New York Times editorially commented on August
15, 2004: “Like meddlesome clerics the world
over, Cardinal Ratzinger is inflaming an important
political debate. He is elevating religious differences
over political process and personal beliefs over
values that are universal, not a Judeo-Christian
monopoly…It would be refreshing if the Cardinal
had chosen to emphasize the positive potential in
combining the best Christian tradition of charity
and the best Muslim tradition of social justice.”
The Cardinal’s stance is as myopic, as against
the march of events, as that of Osama bin Laden
vis-à-vis the US. The current phase of history
is based on globalism, on interdependence, on multinational
corporations, on cooperative productivity and on
excellence. Religion cannot be in the forefront
in such a milieu.
It would strengthen the status of the secular leaders
of Turkey if their country was welcomed into the
European Union without any reservation. The salutary
effects of Turkey’s presence in the Union
as a friend rather than an adversary knocking at
the gate have finally been accepted and negotiations
will start next October to smooth out the wrinkles.
But that may take a decade or more.
Turkey’s Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
leader of an Islamist party has staked his political
future on membership in the European Union.
History and geography have combined in Turkey to
create a sort of cultural tug-of-war with the ultra-modern
sectors pulling it towards the West, Europe in particular,
while the conservatives, the Islamists, underscoring
the country’s glorious past, the need for
closer ties with the neighboring Muslim countries
and for the retention of the nation’s Islamic
complexion.
The split between the conservatives and the liberals
is nothing new in modern democratic societies. Most
of them are divided on those very lines. But, in
the case of Turkey, the rift is more fundamental
and is so embedded in the country’s geography
and history that it clogs the operation of Hegelian
dialectics of thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis.
Geographically, Turkey straddles both Asia and Europe.
The Turks of even the Ottoman period had always
their sights towards Europe and their Western border
extended up to Vienna in the sixteenth century during
the reign of Suleyman the Magnificent. Modern day
Turkey has only a small portion of its territory
in Europe. Yet, geography has placed it crucially
as the bridge between the East and West. Geography
has also put it next door to Iran that went through
an Islamic revolution in 1979. Then, it is in the
vicinity of the Central Asian Islamic republics.
These erstwhile Turkish territories, where Turkish
language or its dialects are still spoken, have
become partners of Turkey in ECO – the Economic
Cooperation Organization, which was founded a few
years back by Iran, Pakistan and Turkey to replace
RCD.
As for history, the Turks can undoubtedly be proud
of it. The Ottoman Empire (1299-1923) held sway
over the present-day Turkey and vast areas in Asia,
Africa and Europe, for 624 years. At its apex during
the rule of Suleyman the Magnificent (1520-1566)
its borders extending from the Crimea in the North
to Yemen and Sudan in the South, and from Iran and
the Caspian Sea in the East to Vienna in the Northwest
and Spain in the Southwest.
The masterly monuments left behind by the Turks
in Anatolia, South Asia, North Africa and in Spain
pay abiding tributes to their builders’ genius.
A student of history cannot help marveling, likewise,
at the institutions set up by the Turks for the
maintenance of law and order in their vast empire.
The Ottomans created the first standing army in
Europe, the janissaries, in the middle of 14th century.
The pull of such a rich and exemplary history is
bound to be felt by the present-day Turks. But,
history has its murky side too. The first major
blow to the empire came with the Turkish defeat
in the Battle of Lepanto in 1571 in which the Christian
forces were led by Don Juan of Austria. The Turkish
emperor at that time was Selim ‘the sot’.
He used to be drunk all the time so much so that
he drowned drunk in his own bathtub.
Muslim intellectual stagnation began in the 18th
century largely because of the obscurantism of the
mullahs who opposed every new idea even if it had
little to do with religion. Europe, on the other
hand, was undergoing an intellectual revolution.
The concept of nation-state and the process of decision-making
through debate and discussion had replaced monarchies.
Successive Sultans, seeing the writing on the wall,
tried to introduce reforms in their system, but
the orthodox and reactionary elements sabotaged
all such moves. They opposed the codification of
laws, use of printing presses, study of natural
sciences and even the construction of an observatory.
The downward slide continued till the Sultan was
made to sign the humiliating Treaty of Sevres in
May 1920 after the WWI defeat. That was unacceptable
to the Turkish troops who kept fighting the European
powers as they could easily foresee the intentions
of the Europeans to divide among themselves all
Turkish territories and put an end to the Turkish
state. It was at this point that the Indian Muslims
launched the Khilafat movement to pressure the British
to abandon their nefarious design. It did have its
effect.
More important were the legendary victories against
all odds of the Turkish forces led by Mustafa Kemal.
He was the only Muslim hero of that time who refused
to accept the subservience of the West. The ensuing
Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 acknowledged Turkey as
a fully sovereign, independent state in the territory
that constitutes till now as modern Turkey.
Ataturk abolished Khilafat, got rid of the mullahs
being fed up of their obduracy, the Sufi orders,
Islamic courts, religious schools, fez (symbolic
headgear of Muslims), women’s veil, polygamy,
and the treatment of women as inferiors. He had
a Western-style constitution and secular law codes
adopted.
By 1928, Islam was no longer the state religion.
Turkey has continued since then as a secular state.
No doubt, Ataturk and his followers tried to affect
a complete break with the Ottoman past and to bring
Turkey within the cultural orbit of Europe. Over
eighty years have passed since the advent of Kemalist
Turkey. The Republic is a member of NATO, has been
accepted into the European Customs Union and has
been knocking at the door of the European Union.
Turks are extremely honest, hardworking and by and
large quite decent. Turkey’s accession to
the European Union would do credit to the senior
members of the Union if they consider the issue
objectively and from the point of the community’s
interest. If considered objectively, they would
have little hesitation in admitting a great nation
to their fold, despite the protests of religious
extremists like Cardinal Ratzinger. (arifhussaini@hotmail.com
)
