Bagehot's notebook

British politics

Turkey and the EU

David Cameron's disingenuous defence of Turkey

Jul 27th 2010, 14:48 by Bagehot

"ANGRY"? Really? Speaking in Turkey earlier today, David Cameron used strikingly forthright language to describe his dismay at French-led efforts to block Turkey from membership of the European Union, saying:

I’m here to make the case for Turkey’s membership of the EU. And to fight for it.

Do you know who said this: “Here is a country which is not European…its history, its geography, its economy, its agriculture and the character of its people – admirable people though they are – all point in a different direction…This is a country which…cannot, despite what it claims and perhaps even believes, be a full member.”

It might sound like some Europeans describing Turkey. But it was actually General de Gaulle describing the UK before vetoing our EU accession. We know what it’s like to be shut out of the club. But we also know that these things can change.

When I think about what Turkey has done to defend Europe as a NATO ally and what Turkey is doing today in Afghanistan alongside our European allies it makes me angry that your progress towards EU Membership can be frustrated in the way it has been. My view is clear. I believe it’s just wrong to say Turkey can guard the camp but not be allowed to sit inside the tent.

To take first things first, Mr Cameron is quite right that the Turkey-EU relationship is in a bad place right now, and right to point out that this a huge strategic mistake. This newspaper has long argued that it is in Europe's strategic interests to admit Turkey, a dynamic, fast-growing, youthful, officially secular Muslim nation that sits astride vital shipping and trade routes, not to mention potentially important routes for energy pipelines that can bring oil and gas from the east, while avoiding Russia. Turkey is an important regional player, with close links to all sorts of places that matter to Europe such as Iran.

Mr Cameron was also speaking as a British prime minister leading a big trade delegation to a fast growing emerging market, home to plenty of touchily nationalistic politicians and commentators. In those circumstances he can be forgiven for laying it on with a trowel.

But his protestations of anger were still unwise, for a few reasons.

One is that his indignation was so obviously baloney. I am sure he is dismayed and concerned about the possibility of Turkey sliding away from Europe. But angry? Come on.

On a minor note, even his nice soundbite about it being wrong to allow someone to guard a camp but not sit inside the tent, does not stand up to much scrutiny. All sorts of camps are guarded by people you would not want to sit inside your tent.

More importantly, he is the representative of a British electorate who are not remotely "angry" about Turkey being excluded from the EU just now. Most British voters do not know much about Turkey's membership hopes. Successive governments in Britain have been leading supporters of Turkish accession, along with places like Poland, Spain or Sweden. But when the British public are asked about the question directly they are distinctly lukewarm. The EU is wary of polling the Turkey question too often, but a 2006 Eurobarometer found only one existing member, Sweden, where more people supported Turkish entry than opposed it. In Britain, 30% said yes to Turkey, 52% said no, and 18% did not know.

You only have to look at British views towards Polish immigrants, who are pretty unchallenging when it comes to integration, to wonder how they would react to the arrival of large numbers of Turks. And indeed, for all his panegyrics to the dynamic Turkish economy and Turkey's ability to influence Iran diplomatically, Mr Cameron has been having the same thought, judging by his careful comments at an Ankara press conference when he reserved the right to impose restrictions on large flows of labour migrants from Turkey before hastily saying he was sure no restrictions would be needed. According to the BBC:

At a joint press conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Mr Cameron suggested the UK would impose provisional restrictions - as with Bulgarians and Romanians after they joined - on the right of Turkish people to live and work in the UK after it joined the EU.

But the rapid rate of Turkey's economic growth would make any restrictions unnecessary in decades to come, he added.

He said: "One of the effects here is that [as] economies grow and become more evolved, the pressure and flow [of people] between countries isn't so great."

Mr Cameron could also have added: and if there are big flows of migrants from Turkey, the chances are they would head to EU countries with long-established Turkish communities, such as Germany, the Netherlands, Austria or Belgium, before they headed to Britain.

But I have a bigger beef with his protestations of outrage at those EU leaders who have been blocking Turkey's entry. He offered a neat list of three reasons why he thought some European governments were opposed to Turkey:

To make the case for Turkey’s membership of the EU and to seize the huge advances I believe we can make in our trade and our security there are three groups whose views we need to take on directly.

First, the protectionists. They see the rise of a country like Turkey as an economic threat we must defend against – not an opportunity to further our prosperity.

Second, the polarised. They see the history of the world through the prism of a clash of civilisations. They think Turkey has to choose between East and West and that choosing both is just not an option.

Third, the prejudiced. Those who wilfully misunderstand Islam. They see no difference between real Islam and the distorted version of the extremists. They think the problem is Islam itself. And they think the values of Islam can just never be compatible with the values of other religions, societies, or cultures.

All these arguments are just plain wrong.

I think Mr Cameron is right to call leaders like Mr Sarkozy on protectionism. Earlier this year, the French president staged an elaborate pantomime for the benefit of voters, summoning the boss of Renault to browbeat him about plans to make a small car, the Clio, at a plant in Turkey while his industry minister muttered about the French state increasing its stake in the carmaker to gain more control of its production choices (though, in fact, Renault's boss reportedly told Mr Sarkozy he could only make money on the Clio if it was built in Turkey, thanks to lower social charges there, and in the end the French government let the matter drop).

I think Mr Cameron is also right to call some EU leaders out for implying that Turkey is not European enough to deserve entry to the club. Mr Sarkozy is fond of saying that he will not be the one "to tell French schoolchildren that the borders of Europe extend to Syria and Iraq". (Though thanks to France's ex-colonial overseas territories and départements, he is of course quite happy to tell French schoolchildren that the EU's borders extend to Brazil). With my own ears I have heard another top EU leader, over a private lunch, state flatly that the EU is a Christian club, and public opinion will never stand for Turkish entry.

And yet, and yet, it is too neat to say that opposition to Turkey is all born of protectionism or Islamophobia. If you believe in the case for Turkish accession, as I do, you also have to admit that there are some perfectly understandable reasons to worry about it. And if you are a British supporter of Turkish accession, you have to be especially careful to admit that some of those understandable reasons matter less in Britain than elsewhere.

In a previous pseudonymous existence, I wrote in June about American supporters of Turkish EU membership, and how they often seemed to assume that it would not be that big a deal. This, I wrote, often seemed to be linked to a rather condescending view that European countries should hurry up and form a federal union, pronto, if they wished to count on the world stage. This, I felt, risked the accusation that Americans are rather casual about other people's sovereignty.

And Britain? Well, in Germany, for example, it is a big deal that if Turkey did achieve membership in 2025, say, it is projected to have a larger population than any other EU country. That would give Turkey, overnight, the largest delegation of members of the European Parliament. That profoundly shocks Germans, who take the EP rather seriously. In Britain, many people could not care less if a delegation of chimpanzees were elected to the Strasbourg assembly.

In France, for example, it is a source of profound angst that Turkey is full of farmers. How on earth could the Common Agricultural Policy survive the cost of subsidising tens of millions of Turks, it is asked in Paris. In Britain (and in Sweden), few would mourn the CAP if it vanished.

In Brussels, it is common to hear grumbling that British support for Turkish membership is essentially a plot to broaden the EU so much that it can never achieve deeper political and economic union. I think that is unfair, but not wholly. There are certainly British Eurosceptics whose support for Turkey reminds me of the old adage: you can also kill a cat with cream. If some of them could admit China, I suspect they would.

I am sure Mr Cameron is sincere in his support for Turkey. But he also has a vision of the EU as a relatively loose trading alliance of nation states, rather than a deeper economic or political union. That vision is both compatible with Turkish entry and sits at one end of the spectrum of opinion within the EU. His case would be all the stronger if he made a nod to Britain's outlier status, rather than presenting himself as Turkey's angry champion.

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.

Sort:

SirTaMer

you guys in europe are arguing if the west should let turkey in or not; while you should be worrying if turkey will let "you guys" in or not in the near future. with europe and the west in decline economically and demografically and strategically, and turkey on the rise in all those fronts, it will be europe knocking on the door of turkey begging for membership rather than the other way around. thank you for persistently denying access to turkey, which will be much better off being a non member of a decaying society. it's just a matter of time before this becomes a reality.

Setabos

la.výritý wrote: Aug 4th 2010 10:44 GMT
"The country the Germans just helped to bail out, Ireland, has a GDP (PPP) per capita of $ 42,200 (2009 est.). Still, Ireland is a steady net-receiver of approx 1 billion per year transfers from Brussels"

Since your posts are almost always BS, I checked this 'fact'. Ireland gets Euro1.2 billion over 5 years: 2007-2013 from the EU structural fund. 240m a year. Greece gets $24billion or $4.8b a year.

No way can the EU afford Turkey unless the EU budget is reformed.

Gianni

''this wasn't a annexion, but a Choice made by the Comores population''

Marie-Claude, that's the point! Comorians -, as recognised by France - didn't get asked to choose!

The problem here is that the French President just doesn't have the stature to be a worthy French President.

France is STILL GETTING BIGGER.
Unasked, it is making the EU bigger in the process - all at the whim of aristo De Nagy-Bocsa and the voters of Mohéli-Mayotte, which is as any fool geographer or socio-geographer knows, slap bang in the HEART of EUROPE.

How's the Republic getting on with the African Union on this one, by the way, Marie-Claude?
Des c***llonnades?

la.výritý

The last time I checked (CIA World Fact book) , Turkey had a GDP (PPP) per capita of $ 11,200 (2009 est.).

The country the Germans just helped to bail out, Ireland, has a GDP (PPP) per capita of $ 42,200 (2009 est.). Still, Ireland is a steady net-receiver of approx 1 billion per year transfers from Brussels . . . mainly money coming from the usual paymaster-countries, such as Holland, Germany, Denmark, Austria and Sweden.

Turkey is “third world” east of Ankara. Many roads are not paved (just the national roads). Villages without running water – even without electricity - in abundance . . . at least when I travelled last from Ankara via Gaziantep and Iskenderun into Syria by car (in the 1990s).

To achieve the EU required cohesion, Turkey not only needs a real growth rate (with sufficient infrastructure built-up) of at least 10 percent per year for almost 20 years – provided the EU has a growth stand-still. Plus, corruption in Turkey is even worse than in Greece.

Turkey’s admission must be done then without Germany’s, Austria's or Holland’s participation . . . in the case of the Germans, especially after the last experience when some of Germany’s Med Club partners shouted “Nazis” when the German taxpayers were reluctant to bail out proliferate Greece. This is at least what I've heard in EU-“milked” countries when I was there last.

The Germans would be idiots to let this ever happen again . . . only on a much larger scale than with Greece.

Antifon

Perhaps David cares to explain his people how come when important decisions are taken in Turkey, on anything, three people sit around a table: the President, the Prime Minister, and the Armed Forces Chief (the last having veto powers!), a legacy of the 1980 Turkish constitution, for a government of the generals, by the generals, for the generals.

Just what Europe needs to perfect its democracy!

We are dealing with a case of obvious political prostitution. David's accurate price can be determined via a complicated Excel sheet model. It is quite high! Too bad he happens to be representing an entire nation.

JelloB

Whose tent is Tukey guarding? The Cold War ended twenty years ago. Russia and Germany are now working on a very promising economic partnership. Iran is NOT a threat to Europe, no matter how hard US and Israel are trying to convince us otherwise. Now let's look at a more relevant topic, like illegal immigration from instance. From that perspective, Turkey is doing anything but guarding the tent. Tens of thousands of illegals come to Europe from this country every year. All in all, the idea that Turkey is crucial for European security is obsolete at best.

brianL001

Cameron certainly cannot be accused of being smart. His arguments are 1st grade elementary school. The point against Turkey, at least in its present form is that it is an extremely nationalistic country with no relation to western values that is already making imperial demands and occupying an EU member state. During WWII, The Soviet Union was also guarding the (Allied) camp, but they were not invited into the EU. For a very good reason.

Plutarco 09

It seems clear that this article lacks the necessary context. A growing worry that the old "special transatlantic relationship" was fading, prompted the PM to try to improve things in Washington. A self-absorbed Obama and a lot of new suitors in the international arena, mighty and youthfull China and Brazil, for example, made it necessary to renew the friendship. There even rumors that the American Consulate in Europe (Britain) could be replaced by a lesser entity, perhaps an American or Japan car dealer.
We could easily imagine the intimate meeting in the White House: "Cameron, we could not afford to lose Turkey. Look what they are doing now, drifting east and having rogue states as friends...You must give them all they want.. entry in the EU!!" Surely Cameron protested: "But Merkel and Sarkozy..." "Who are they to decide? Nobody. You must act now" was the sour answer. So poor Csmeron flew home having no idea of what to do. As an euroesceptic PM of an euroesceptic country he knew that his opinions had no much weight in Brusels but, nevertheless, he had to show the master in Washington that he was eager to comply with his instructions. The outcome was regrettable, but so is the situation. Normally, a planet can orbit only one star at the same time, except Britain, of course.

freethinking

From the Fin Tmes...

""Why Turkey sits outside the tent
By Christopher Caldwell
Published: July 30 2010

It cannot be easy finding the right words for a joint public appearance with Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan – and prime minister David Cameron did not find them this week. European leaders have always seen Turkey as a “bridge” between the west and the Muslim world. But since the European Union opened negotiations with Turkey for full membership in 2005, Mr Erdogan has in many ways turned from the west. He has accused the Israeli government of war crimes while absolving the Sudanese government of them. He has accused Germany of “hatred” for Turkey, while his aides have cast doubt on the idea that Iran’s nuclear-weapons programme is meant to produce nuclear weapons.

For the EU, putting all the diplomatic eggs in the basket of Turkish accession has proved a mistake, damaging rather than consolidating relations. None of the European publics is keen on Turkish membership. The “bridge” role the west envisions for Turkey seems too modest for a country with the second largest army in Nato and the 16th biggest economy in the world. It is also condescending and outdated to assume that Turkey will happily convince its neighbours to water down their religion...""

freethinking

Mr Cameron is the prime Minister of a country that may have/has committed war crimes in Iraq/Afganistan (as evidenced also recently by wikileaks)...Maybe this explains his affinity to Turkey?

He might also have done Turkey a real favour by asking Turkey to honour its obligations to the EU (see below - Anakara protocol)...

Is it OK for the instrument of the Turkish state ie the disciplined Turkish Army to RAPE and then KILL women, children, old people and captured POWs (6000 in total, 1% of Cyprus' population) in just a few days (mostly during a CEASEFIRE) of July-August 1974?

Should WAR CRIMES continue to go unpunished?

Turkey cannot even honour its EU obligations (see Ankara Protocol)...

"In July 2005, Turkey signed a protocol extending its customs union to the EU-10 states, but at the same time Ankara issued a declaration saying that its signature did not mean it had recognised the Republic of Cyprus. Turkey also refused to open its ports and airports to Cyprus".

"Dec. 2006: Turkish fails to apply Ankara Agreement referring to the opening of its ports and airports to trade from Cyprus. Council blocks Turkey's EU talks as a result".

"On 29 November 2006, the European Commission recommended the partial
suspension of talks, because Turkey had refused to implement the Ankara Protocol and open its trade to vessels from Cyprus. On 11 December 2006, EU foreign ministers agreed to follow a Commission recommendation to sanction Turkey and suspend talks on light of 35 chapters. The eight chapters are:
Free Movement of Goods, Right of Establishment and Freedom to Provide
Services, Financial Services, Agriculture and Rural Development, Fisheries,Transport Policy, Customs Union and External Relations".

spoekenkiecker

@cutters
"Its a bit rich for France and Germany to talk down expansions of any sort, they are not they only EU members."

They can veto it, as any other member can, too.
Currently 5 members deny e.g. Turkey access - a number that will increase.

Cannes

Here's why Turkey should NOT be accepted in the EU, probably for a long time :
- Turkey's Islam was supposed to be secular : it is less and less secular and probably not any more,
- Erdogan's candidacy to join the EU was meant only to block the army and avoid any coup from them : he clearly showed recently that he was looking the other way, towards the Middle-East,
- There is still the unresolved Kurd problem and, by the way, Turkey's brutality with the Kurds in no less than Israël's in Gaza,
- Europeans are fed up with "Enlargement" and they want first the present EU (which is already too large)to function properly.

freethinking

Nice try to deflect attention from Turkey's actions (War crimes, invasion of a fellow EU member, occupation and continuing importation of illegal settlers from Turkey to Cyprus - war crime) and problems (lack of freedom of speech, no rights for women, Kurdish oppression, persecution of religious minorities eg Pogrom against Istambul Greeks of 1955, for which turkey is still losing cases in courts etc)...

Can we have the links to the below articles please? Taken from Turkish Ministry of Propaganda Bible maybe?

I live in Limassol and I can assure you that there is only 1 Turkish Quarter here and it has never been burned down (a bit difficult as houses are built in stone and brick!

sgok

interesting, but you should kno who is who?

In January 1964, an Italian journalist in Cyprus made the following observations:

"Right now, we are witnessing the migration of Turks from their villages. The Greek cypriot Terror is ruthless; thousands of people are leaving their houses, lands and flocks. The Hellenistic claims and Plateau can not conceal these savage and barbarous behaviors. Curfew starts in Turkish villages everyday at 16:00 p.m. As soon as darkness falls, threats, weapon sounds and attempts of arson begin. Any resistance seems impossible after the Christmas slaughter which spared neither women nor kids (Giorgio Bocca, I?l Giorno, 14 January 1964).

Observations by an American Journalist

Time Journalist Robert Ball wrote the following about the incidents in Ayios Sozomenos village of Nicosia:

"The most severe clash took place at the western side of the village on which Greek cypriots had attacked by taking advantage of the dense round olive trees. The window of an adobe house which sheltered 9 Turks was blown up with a bazooka shell and its second floor was riddled because of bullet holes.

A Turkish shepherd who desperately raced to the river bed to escape was shot a few steps away from the door. Another tried to attack the Greeks pointlessly with a pitchfork in his hand and was killed immediately". (Robert Ball, Time, 14 February 1964).

Observations by an British Journalist

"After Cyprus was occupied, hundreds of Cypriot Turks were taken hostage by National Guardsmen, Turkish women were raped, kids were killed on the streets and Turkish quarters in Limasol were totally burned down". (David Leigh, The Times, London, 23 July 1974).

Observations by a German Tourist

"Human mind can not comprehend the barbarism of Greeks... Greek National Guardsmen represented extraordinary examples of brutality. They broke into Turkish houses; they ruthlessly shot women and children; cut the throats of many Turks and gathered and raped Turkish women... (Germany's Voice, 30 July 1974).

Quotes from Crushed Flowers

"Greek cypriots behaved barbarously in the 20th Century and exercised massacres. They not only slaughtered Turks in a bloodthirsty manner but also buried them half alive. Many corpses in this mass grave unfolds the Greek brutality to the people of the world. The corpses disentombed out of the mass graves were evident of how vile Greeks were and the feudal laws that had been applied by them for years..." (James Rayner, Crushed Flowers, Nicosia, 1982, p. 25).

freethinking

And let's not forget War Crimes;

The Turkish state through the disciplined Turkish Army achieved to RAPE and then KILL women, children, old people and captured POWs (6000 in total, 1% of Cyprus' population in just a few days (mostly during a CEASEFIRE) of July-August 1974?.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=8295199

Should WAR CRIMES go unpunished and rewarded through EU Accession?

So much fuss (and rightly so) is made for Darfur, Bosnia, Cambodia, Iraq and Afganistan (though there no Blair/Bush will ever be punished), why should Turkey be treated so favourably?

freethinking

That's why Turkey feels it can flout international law (eg Cyprus' occupation, threats against Greece), ignore human rights (eg with Kurds and small religious minorities in Turkey), disobey judgements of the European Court of Human Rights (found guilty on numerous cases brought by eg Greekcypriot refugees demanding restitution of their properties in the occupied north of Cyprus)...link and extract below:

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=htm...

"The Court maintained its view that pending resolution of the illegal occupation of northern Cyprus, it was crucial that individuals nonetheless continued to receive protection of their rights on a daily basis"

freethinking

Turkey wants to join the club (EU) but it bangs on the door demanding that the club changes its rules, so as to accomodate Turkey; this is the crux of the problem i.e. the Turks thinking that the rules (European Law, norms, culture, human rights respect etc) are not important to Europeans, compared with Turkey's money making potential (plus this overhyped idea of the Turks for Turkey e.g. "bridge between west and east" etc)...

About Bagehot's notebook

In this blog, our Bagehot columnist surveys the politics of Britain, British life and Britain's place in the world. The column and blog are named after Walter Bagehot, an English journalist who was the editor of The Economist from 1861 to 1877

RSS feed

Advertisement

Trending topics

Read comments on the site's most popular topics

Advertisement

Products & events