EU mentality

We can conclude from these developments that EU officials and EU member countries have a particular EU mentality: "The decisions taken by the current members of the EU must be complied with by non-member countries unconditionally if they want to be EU members." From an ethical perspective, setting this as a precondition can be meaningful only under the following condition: complying with the precondition will serve as a guarantee for accepting the candidate as a member. However, it is still not certain that Turkey will be accepted as a member. Moreover, everything is being done to increase the number of obstacles to Turkey's membership. Consider the fact that half of the chapters that are required to be negotiated are "frozen" and whether they will be thawed or not depends on the whims of EU members. Furthermore, the process by which opened chapters are closed does not proceed as it should because of obstruction from certain EU members.

Interestingly, these barriers are in position not because of procedural defects but because of political considerations. In other words, Turkey's EU membership is handled according to the national politics of individual EU members. But these EU members get angry when Turkey pursues its individual policy on any issue. This should not be misunderstood. It is Turkey that is still a nation state. On the other hand, EU member countries have transcended the concept of nation statehood, having proceeded to turn this geographical area into a common island of peace and stability. In other words, they are the countries which are expected to exercise ethical principles, celebrate cultural diversity and realize the potential for creating a common language, not conflict, power or self-interest. However, it seems, being an EU member does not serve to help many countries mature sufficiently. Thus, they still pursue nationalistic ends but preach to the candidates whose membership is uncertain that they should abandon their nationalistic approach.

And yet, the matter at hand is more problematic than it seems. Indeed, Rasmussen was nominated for NATO, of which Turkey is a member, but have those EU members who seemingly attach great importance to common decisions and a common language ever thought about consulting the proposed EU candidates about their NATO nominations? Which option does democratic culture advise: to obtain the consent of would-be members or to urge such "second-class" countries to comply with their decision? How can the ideals of the EU be implemented with such a conceited, humiliating attitude?

In the face of such an attitude, Erdoğan's stance is fair. First of all, the prime minister stressed that it was his personal opinion, in order to keep the door open for not vetoing Rasmussen. Yet, what is more important than this is the argument he put forward against such a nomination. Indeed, if the top position at NATO is occupied by someone who fails to comprehend the diversity of the global world and who still has premises in the back of his mind about the ontological supremacy of the West, then it is very likely we will enter a higly problematic era. The liberal position that posits the cartoon crisis as a matter of freedom of expression does not have much to tell today's world. This position needs a democratic attitude that lends an ear to the perception of its opponents.

I am not suggesting that Erdoğan is a democrat departing from this point. Clearly, we are in a time when everyone readily becomes democratic when they are victimized or when their own rights are at stake, but when they assume power, they tend to seek refuge in the defense of liberalism. On the other hand, a politician like Erdoğan who comes from a devout group in a country like Turkey may not be supposed to be a democrat. But it is really disheartening to see EU officials and national leaders who come from the European culture trapped inside such a shallow mindset.