The EU was the dream of a handful of visionary leaders who came together in Rome to sign an agreement among six nations to lay the foundations of a united Europe that had suffered through so many massacres, genocides and massive wars that also grew in her belly. The founding leaders of that day may have wished, but probably never expected, to see that the agreement they signed fifty years ago would encompasses 27 states, some of which did not even exist then, and 500 million people. Even the present leaders of the 27 seem baffled and refrain from speaking about further enlargement.What the EU is today is the epitome of human achievement, but that is not clear from serious problems that need to be solved for the sustainability of the union. Let us cite the pros of the union first. The EU has been based on rule of law, human rights and democracy. Built on these principles and institutions the union has been inspirational to other countries, including Turkey. EU citizens feel that they are freer than ever and their freedom is more secure. It has increased the welfare of its member states and provided a deeper sense of economic security for its citizens. A common market and money unit created a wider zone of enterprise and labor and increased the living standards of its members. The EU is the biggest donor organization in the world in humanitarian and development aid.
Yet there are substantial unsolved issues. Many citizens of the EU feel that there is too much bureaucracy and Brussels is too distant from home (local issues). They also feel that the “public space” in Europe is too narrow and has little depth. This is basically due to the lack of a common language. The citizens of member states are reading different newspapers and watching different TV channels all in varying languages. Pan-Europeanism has yet to be built from emotion to fact. The second void is apparent in the absence of a common political stage where differing actors can pay a role in the same European narrative written for all Europeans rather than staging their own plays one after the other executed in their native tongues. Maybe the negative response of the Dutch and French voters during the vote for the constitutional agreement was because they felt that EU institutions and the Brussels offices were not close or responsive enough to their (more human) needs as opposed to general matters. This is the biggest emotional barrier to the “humanization” of the enormous machinery created for the first time in the history of mankind that brought 27 nations and states together.
This void is also seen in the international affairs or the union’s influence at the global level. The EU is definitely a global economic force, but politically it has little international clout and is a military dwarf. It needs the support and protection of the US. However, after the invasion of Iraq and the events that followed proved that the US (at least under the administration of President George W. Bush) lacks the leadership capacity in international matters that need high moral and legal standards. The EU has not evinced the leadership capacity in international issues that has been left wanting by the US. The same can be said of the manifesto released by the EU provisional leadership regarding enlargement to make the union a global actor in the foreseeable future. So far the EU has been a success story, but the culmination of this project is making the union a global actor on all fronts; economic, political and military-defense. So far we do not see a visionary leadership that is capable of realizing or even visualizing this project to its logical end.
It seems Turkey will be seen as a liability until the EU project is perceived and carried through to its historical destiny by more capable leaders. In the meantime Turkey must cease to quarrel with EU standards and its politicians must drop the hypocritical role of posing as if these standards are imposed on Turkey rather than being preconditions to comply with to be a member of the European club. A Europe that takes on the challenge and responsibility of developing and integrating Turkey will not only contribute to the making of a “dream team,” but will find more realistic solutions to consolidating its economy with more entrepreneurship, rejuvenating its aging population, replenishing its workforce with a dynamic and younger generation that will also keep its social security system working. Last but not least, incorporating Turkey’s defense apparatus, Europe need never feel insecure in the face of the excesses of superpowers or runaway states acquiring weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism organized internationally.
We hail the EU of today, and expect the EU of tomorrow to be our common home with the people with whom we share the same high human ideals that made such a project possible.
