The EUIC had extended an invitation to me to address the gathering. The audience included representatives from civil society, embassies, universities and young people currently benefiting from internships at the EUIC itself.
Please do not misunderstand me -- my column is not about me! But this week I thought I would share my impressions about this seminar where I was the orator, rather than the commentator. I actually do believe columnists should do both as often as feasible. But, having said that, the topic and the comments made by the participants is what really matters -- nothing else.
The issues at hand were closely related to discussing the world economy as seen in Davos, only on a much more down-to-earth level. To be precise: How did the EU from 1985 onward -- via 1992 and the Treaty of Maastricht -- embrace the people's viewpoint about how far EU integration, and economic harmonization in particular, should go? In a document published by the European Commission way back in 1985, it was stated that three types of barriers -- physical, technical and fiscal -- would first need to be overcome to be able to achieve four very important liberties, or freedoms, as the text says in the original EU Treaty: the free movement of people, goods, services and capital within a borderless EU. The EU felt, during a period of public disillusionment before the next wave of enlargement (Spain and Portugal were "ante portas" in 1985), that it had to make sure that the single market actually worked. European citizens, businesses and governments had to be convinced. Sounds all too familiar in 2009, doesn't it?
In a nutshell, the "people's" freedom would include the right to travel, work and settle all over the EU without restrictions as long as they did not abuse the social benefit system of their new host country. "Goods" refers to no limitations on what to import or export as long as EU internal health and safety standards are met. "Capital" means exactly that, i.e., the free movement of it (buying property, banks, shares, trading, opening bank accounts, et cetera, and many of these things within hours, rather than weeks!). "Services" was and is a tricky issue, to say the least, and in spite of a new legislative package this issue is far from being totally liberalized.
My presentation focused on the relevance of these four freedoms from various perspectives: as a tool to teach Turkish citizens and business leaders about the benefits of EU membership; as an instrument to show to the EU that Turkey will be "technically ready" for full membership shortly; and, of course, to start an honest debate about the costs and benefits of certain aspects of EU harmonization. During Turkey's EU negotiations the four freedoms are summed up in chapters one through four of the acquis communautaire. Why is it, then, that hardly anyone explains them to Turkish citizens?
Questions from the audience included the role of today's nation-state, whether the EU would try to integrate everything, whether Turkey after EU accession could make the same mistakes Bulgaria recently did (not totally eradicating corruption or misspending EU funds), how the EU managed to make war within its borders unthinkable, and how long it would take to modernize the secondary and tertiary education system in the country. Please be aware of the fact that this was a primarily Turkish audience, rather than foreigners debating amongst themselves.
When trying to answer these and other questions, I compared developments in Turkey with past scenarios in France, Germany, Belgium and the United Kingdom to explain that similar obstacles had to be overcome in many other countries, too. Furthermore, Spain and Portugal encountered the same hostility before finally being accepted as full EU member states.
The gist of that meeting was that apparently very few people in Turkey know enough about the concept behind the four freedoms, which are basically what the EU was meant to be -- a single market with a strong corresponding social dimension. The political and foreign policy dimension was added later and it is still not clear how much of that EU citizens really want.
Davos underlined at the just the right moment that Turkey is not some island in the Pacific Ocean, but a proud and strong nation-state that is soon to be the economic engine of a new Europe (dear readers, please forgive me for restating that line, but I truly believe in it!). I hope that high school teachers will have better access to information about the EU. I hope that universities will not only teach about EU law, but economics, culture and society, too. I also hope that a strong professionally trained middle class will, once and for all, form the backbone of Turkish society. Millions of unskilled laborers and a few millions of underpaid or unemployed university graduates are a lethal mix for starting social unrest in particular if the remaining vast majority has no voice in everyday affairs.
I know that we cannot revive the coffeehouse lecture system that was once famous all over Turkey. What we can do, however, is train teachers and other social actors about the importance of removing barriers and creating freedoms for all citizens. The economic dimension is not the worst one to begin with!
