What Turkey and Europe need: political icebreakers made in Sweden

Swedish society transformed itself from an overly regulated welfare state -- which actually became known as the Swedish model and worked quite well as long as its state coffers were full -- into a modern, more liberal economy fully integrated with both the European Union (since Jan. 1, 1995) and the global marketplace. Its citizens enjoyed remarkably peaceful times until the murder of Prime Minister Olof Palme on Feb. 28, 1986. Sweden has its fair share of domestic and external problems like everyone else, but can best be described as a reformed, stable and solid democracy. Its people and government have come to terms with the fact that public spending should ideally not exceed what the state has earned in taxes first.

Sweden has furthermore demonstrated that a country can easily integrate its peace-oriented foreign policy into the wider EU context without losing too much of its national identity. It underlines at the same time that EU foreign policies can only be successful if its initiatives are supported by 27 capitals and, above all else, originate from these capitals, too.

Stockholm's EU presidency starting in July of this year could not come at a better moment for Ankara's EU aspirations. The roadmap needs fine tuning and more support from both Ankara and Brussels. Ideally two or three EU acquis chapters would be opened under each rotating presidency so that Turkey's technical readiness could be proven by 2014 and the next seven-year EU budget, if not before. Let us hope that Swedish politicians are negotiators skilled at keeping unwanted attention at bay. Let us further expect that Swedish leaders know the difference between a model partnership (Turkey with the United States), full membership (Turkey and the EU) and a “privileged partnership,” which to me sounds like nothing more than your favorite department store's loyal-customer reward program.

I often comment on French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, but mostly out of necessity. Ignoring their viewpoints would be wrong, even if we can assume that both leaders will have been replaced due to normal voter preference fluctuations come Turkey's EU accession. Saying “No” to Turkey's EU aspirations halfway into the race leaves not only a bad aftertaste but indicates that some European politicians have found nothing better for trying to win the European elections scheduled for June 7 than to use Turkey as a “negative” motivational instrument. While not ignoring them, Turkey could lobby the remaining 25 member states, and starting with Sweden would be a good decision. If the vast majority of EU member states support Turkey's EU bid, a few “naysayers” can easily be accommodated, even if they include two big shots.

We must not forget that there are many groups and factions within Sarkozy and Merkel's political spectrum and that many conservative voters support Turkey's EU membership. Besides, on the EU level the conservatives will part ways with the Christian Democrats after the next European election, which will allow Turkey to play a more economically oriented card in a future, more economically prosperous EU, should new groupings become part of the European parliamentary as well as national majorities.

Before coming to this week's column's final paragraph, let me introduce you to two very successful Swedish authors who shed light on the less positive aspects of a welfare state that somewhat resembles a Big Brother house. Maj Sjöwall and Per Wahlöö criticized the Swedish model from a “leftist” perspective in so far as they argued -- through their characters (police investigator Martin Beck in particular) -- that capitalism in the disguise of a “social democratic” approach takes away even more of individual liberty and freedom of choice than the real thing. The husband-wife team tackled issues such terrorism (perhaps they even foresaw its rise) and big corporations overtaking small companies. They wrote about alcoholism, social conflict and single parents. They wrote about a society that, according to them, went in the wrong direction. The interesting thing is that their first 10 books were written between 1965 and 1975 at the height of the “social reform movement.” Wahlöö described their goal for the series as using “the crime novel as a scalpel cutting open the belly of the ideologically pauperized and morally debatable so-called welfare state of the bourgeois type.”

If today's Swedish politicians have learned their lessons and interpret modern statesmanship as the sum total of their citizens' concerns, similar to the present-day government in Ankara, Turkey will have found a close ally for drumming up enough support for its EU bid. Political icebreakers made in Sweden may be just what the EU needs.