Wednesday, November 27, 2002

Err, Turkey's not in Europe



Srdja Trifkovic pours scorn on the idea that Turkey is in any way European:

Although Turkey has managed to hold onto a small piece of Europe's southeastern corner in the aftermath of the Balkan wars, it is an Asiatic country not only in the bulk of its land mass, but more importantly in its people's history, culture, outlook, religion, and way of life.

Iain Murray (a naturalising American like Mr Trikovic) would not agree, labelling opposition to inclusion of the Turks within the EU as "disgraceful" and "racist". Well I can see how he can think that.

First, is the wish to deny the Turks access to the EU racist? Most Westerners who lives in or around Turkish people would react with surprise with that assertion. Turks seem to mostly be Mediterranean in appearance and hardly distinguishable from other people from the Eastern Mediterranean. This may be because the vast majority of Turks are either from Western Turkey or Cyprus or they are Rumelian Turks who were descendants of European converts to Islam. Other Turks will be less ethnically European, although they are initially less likely to come over here.

The Turks are probably the most Caucasian of Asian peoples, and there's the rub. It is not race that militates against Turkey but culture.

To quickly take on immigration. At a time of heightened sensitivity within the Muslim world is it really a good time to be opening the door to a tens of millions of Muslims? We must be mad, literally mad. Let other less enlightened souls worry about the racial stock, I just think of all those potential terrorists that we're importing.

Then there's the question of political culture. Now Turkey's got a few of these. Firstly there's the oriental despotism of the Ottomans, the proto-fascism of Ataturk (Father of the Turks, no less) or the now incipient Islamism. What we don't see in Turkish political history is a convincing display of democracy or human rights. Is the Army still in control behind the scenes, is Kurdish still banned? This may suit the Eurocrats, but I don't really want representatives or bureaucrats from this political tradition making decisions regarding British lives. Now many of us Eurosceptics point to the shallow democratic roots of present EU members, but Spain's democratic roots appear deep by comparison to Turkey.

And then there's the strategic imperitives. Now Turkey is part of (a dying) NATO so the damage is partly done. However do we really want closer strategic ties with a country that borders Iran, Iraq, Syria, Armenia and Georgia? I can't see how the British national interest is enhanced by having a presence in this unstable region, but I can see plenty of new risks coming in. More risks and no benefits sounds like a bad deal to me.

There is a seductive argument that has been around since the 1980s, the enlargement falacy. I am not talking about all the e-mails that you get about changing certain aspects of your physique but the idea that by increasing the scope of the European Union one somehow dilutes it making it harder to unite. Since we joined in 1973 the EU has more than doubled it's membership. Has the integration clock been turned back one second in that time?

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Archive