Rachman called, in an article titled “End the Hypocrisy and Talk Turkey” (August 23, 2010), for a stop to what he sees as a massive wave of insincerity in the ongoing debate on Turkish membership and offered a path to break the ice to make it possible to move ahead. “It would indeed be a wonderful thing if Turkey were to join the EU. But if that is to happen, Turkish membership has to be agreed on a new basis. It cannot involve the totally free movement of people between Turkey and the rest of the EU,” he argued, concluding: “Membership in the EU without complete free movement of people is a deal Turkey might choose to reject or accept. But at least it is an offer that could be made in good faith.”
Rachman’s view, based on the premise that Turkey can not and must not be kept out of the club, was soon challenged, perhaps not surprisingly, by a German intellectual. “Turkey is a Bridge Too Far For Europe” was the title of the article by Josef Joffe, the editor of Die Zeit -- a leading paper that covers Turkey more regularly and consistently than most in Europe.
As Rachman seeks to open paths to persuade European public opinion on the issue of mass immigration into the union, Joffe chooses an elitist line, arguing on identity and geopolitics, that Turkey can not and should not be given full membership.
“Turkey is a different kind of animal, never mind its Islamic coloration though this becomes stronger by the day. On the inside, democracy is as yet untested. The government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, though democratically certified, is using illiberal means to finish off an illiberal rival, the generals. But the means tend to corrupt the end, and so a “demilitarized” polity may not shine forth as Sweden-on-the-Bosporus. The government is also conducting brutal warfare against its own Kurds, as have its secular predecessors. This does not enhance domestic tranquility or undying respect for the rule of law. On the outside, the EU would suddenly abut Syria and Iran, states of dubious repute that Europe has been able to keep at arms length. This would be a lot for Europe to digest,” he wrote.
Joffe asked: “Why would the EU want to take on a ‘hinge’ country that is a conduit to serious trouble?” and concluded in a disturbingly categorical manner:
“The EU, this serene and inward-looking place, is not a real empire that would impose order within its borders and out. It presupposes stability. It is an ‘empire by example,’which – pace Britain or France -- has neither grand ambitions nor a grand strategy. Let us give the Turks all the trade and investment privileges Europe has to offer, by all means. Let us reserve for them a berth for the day when they will want to accept Europe as their home port. But not now and not for at least a generation…”
The essential nature of this exchange is nothing new: It reflects a radical difference of approach between the Anglo-Saxon and the German mind. While the former is based on the age-old trust in social evolution (change of public perceptions), the latter is severely old-fashioned -- unaware of its vertical, power oriented, rather arrogant and patronizing tone.
There are some points that make Joffe’s piece utterly problematic in its lack of lucidly analyzing how boldly Turkish democracy is being tested, contrary to what he simplistically claims. He displays a surprisingly weak knowledge of Turkish political history -- how the conservative right through the decades pushed forth an agenda of freedom, albeit a flawed one.
This vision makes Joffe reach troublesome conclusions: He views the government and the army as “illiberals wildly fighting each other,” falling short of giving clear arguments as to why a demilitarized policy “may not shine as Sweden on the Bosporus.” This view, certainly, rejects the entire idea of the evolution of mankind, the notion that one has to take risks to see if progress for the better works or not. It is a profoundly conservative view that is based on fear of the new.
And it blurs the understanding of the real nature of why Turkey struggles to get out of its straightjacket. If one fails to see what lies beneath -- that Turks and Kurds and others have come closer than ever to a point of negotiating thoroughly and that Turkey feverishly discusses the dosage of religion in democratic life (similar to that of Germany) -- what is visible to categorical rejectionists is the Turkish adventure as a vicious circle. Given the rise of xenophobia and Islamophobia in the (“inward looking”) continent, the narrow minded” foreign policy and economic mismanagement in the EU, it will have to be, as it seems at the moment, Turks and Kurds who one day may decide whether it is worthwhile to become EU citizens or not.
