After some Googling, I have to correct my reply to George. Cyprus was not part of Greece when Turkey invaded and occupied it. It was a souvereign nation. Nevertheless, the invasion of Cyprus was, and its occupation is, a violation of international law. No country, including the United States, recognizes it as rightful; no country, including the United States, recognizes the Turkish Republic of Cyprus. Turkey is the only one. So I don't see how my position reveals a difference between European and American conceptions of international law. The official position of the US government is consistent with mine. But maybe the reason for the confusion was my misconception of Cyprus as a Greek province.
That removes some of my amazement at your earlier replys.
The process by which Greece organized the revolutionary movement in Cyprus and exploited Cold War anxieties to legitamize its expropriation of the former British mandate was hardly more laudable than the direct Turkish takeover of the Turkish area in the north. The Greek religious/cultural/political revolutionary movement offered and promised nothing good for the Turks inhabiting the island, and the Colonels then in charge in Athens showed no inclination to mitigate that. I believe the Turks behaved with remarkable forbearance, doing only what appeared to them necessary to protect their people.
I do agree that in terms of the legalisms that increasingly substitute for morality and common sense in this world (and particularly in Europe), the position of the Greeks is unassailable - more or less as you recounted. I believe the U.S. was also complicit in this sad affair, believing that the Turks were committed to NATO, no matter what, because of their historical and justified fear of Russia and the Soviet Union, and that the relatively more volatile, unstable Greeks might go either way. That was a reasonable strategic assessment, but it offered no justice for the Turks in Cyprus.
Returning to my original point, I strongly believe that holding the question of Turkish accession hostage to this relatively small and irrelevant (= silly) issue in Cyprus is a foolish step for the EU, not in its best interests. It may well be that public paralysis and tensions over issues involving the unresolved assimilation of Moslem immigrants and the larger issue of the encounter with a resurgent, revanchist element in the Moslem world are relieved by focusing instead on a relatively trivial legalism.
The standards you recited with respect to the development of democratic process, enforcement of human right, and civilian control of the military are certainly reasonable. However it is not entirely clear that the same criteria are being applied to Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria, or were applied to all the member states (or fragments of them) of the former Soviet Empire.
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 01:27 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
The standards you recited with respect to the development of democratic process, enforcement of human right, and civilian control of the military are certainly reasonable. However it is not entirely clear that the same criteria are being applied to Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria, or were applied to all the member states (or fragments of them) of the former Soviet Empire.
You mean exactly what here? A different approach by the Commission towards different countries? (I think, the Commission Regular Reports don't give a hint for such.)
0 Replies
georgeob1
1
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 01:54 pm
I made no reference to the documents produced by the Commission's bureaucracy. I haven't read them and don't know their contents. I'm willing to assume that, like most products of competent bureaucracies, their work product will be formally self-consistent and plausable, hiding contradictions and inconsistencies under self-serving definitions and formalisms.
Instead I was referring to the as yet incomplete public political process of EU expansion - in far eastern Europe, the Balkans and Anatolia. There the opportunities for politically-motivated inconsistencies and compromises are numerous, very real, and already the subject of public debate.
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 02:01 pm
The Commission Regular Reports list that - for all member candidates.
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Mon 27 Nov, 2006 03:10 pm
Today, at first Finland - the current EU president - said EU-Turkey talks on the Cyprus dispute had reached deadlock.
Later: "Negotiations will not be stopped or frozen, they will continue more slowly," said EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn.
Turkey's EU accession talks are set to slow down following Ankara's failure to open up Turkish ports to traffic from Cyprus, the EU has signalled.
0 Replies
au1929
1
Mon 27 Nov, 2006 03:41 pm
Turks protest against pontiff
ISTANBUL - Tens of thousands of protesters chanted "No to the Pope!" and waved anti-Vatican banners yesterday in a show of the Islamic anger that awaits the pontiff on his first papal trip to a mostly Muslim nation.
Waving signs and chanting slogans, about 25,000 people filled a square in a working-class district of Istanbul. The rally was organized by an Islamist political party whose leaders have denounced Pope Benedict's remarks in September that linked violence and Islam.
"The Pope is not wanted here," said Kubra Yigitoglu, a 20-year-old protester in a head scarf, ankle-length coat and cowboy boots who called Turkey "an Islamic republic."
The demonstration highlighted the deep strains in Turkey ahead of the Pope's four-day visit beginning tomorrow.
Turkish officials hope to use the visit to promote their ambitions of joining the European Union and to showcase Turkey's secular political system. But pro-Islamic groups - which have been gaining strength for years - perceive Benedict as a symbol of Western intolerance and injustices against Muslims.
The Pope plans to first meet with political and Muslim religious leaders in the capital, Ankara, including Turkey's president and the Islamic cleric who oversees Turkey's religious affairs. Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is scheduled to attend a NATO meeting in Latvia during the papal visit but could briefly greet the pontiff at the airport.
Benedict later heads to Istanbul - the ancient Christian capital Constantinople - to be hosted by the spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. The Pope strongly backs efforts to close the nearly 1,000-year divide between the Vatican and the Orthodox churches.
The Pope also is expected to continue the Vatican's efforts to heal rifts with Muslims.
At the Vatican yesterday, Benedict expressed his "feelings of esteem and of sincere friendship" for Turks and their leaders.
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Mon 27 Nov, 2006 04:14 pm
au1929 wrote:
Turks protest against pontiff
Yes, they did.
But the Holy See is no EU-member :wink:
0 Replies
au1929
1
Mon 27 Nov, 2006 04:45 pm
Quote
Turkish officials hope to use the visit to promote their ambitions of joining the European Union and to showcase Turkey's secular political system. But pro-Islamic groups - which have been gaining strength for years - perceive Benedict as a symbol of Western intolerance and injustices against Muslims.
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Thu 30 Nov, 2006 01:33 am
Quote:
Turkey and the European Union were last night set on a collision course after Brussels took the unprecedented step of calling for a partial suspension of Ankara's EU membership talks.
To the fury of Turkey, which denounced the move as "unacceptable", the European commission recommended that eight of Ankara's 35 negotiating "chapters" should be suspended.
The announcement surprised Turkey and its EU allies, led by Britain, which had hoped for a milder punishment after Ankara refused to open up its ports and airports to Greek Cypriot shipping. Britain had been pressing for the closure of just three chapters directly linked to Cyprus.
Foolowing this dispute, I sometimes got the impression that the EU wanted to join Turkey ...
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Wed 13 Dec, 2006 02:56 am
Quote:
13 December 2006 'New Europe' threatens space centre veto
By Stephen Castle in Brussels
Published: 13 December 2006
Divisions between old and new Europe were reignited yesterday as the Czech Republic went into battle against western European countries over the site of an EU space agency.
The dispute, which threatens to derail a summit of European leaders tomorrow, has echoes of previous bitter arguments over the allocation of EU bodies - which bring prestige as well as millions in revenue.
This time the authorities in Prague have threatened to veto any decision which hands the new authority supervising Galileo, the EU's satellite navigation project, to an old EU country.
Cardiff is a front-runner from old Europe - one of 11 potential sites including Barcelona and Munich.
The horse-trading that surrounds the siting of European agencies is legendary and has provoked spectacular bust-ups.
On one occasion the former Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, blocked Finland from gaining a European food safety agency, claiming "Finns don't even know what prosciutto is".
After deadlock over the site for the Galileo supervisory authority at a meeting yesterday, Prague accused old EU countries of reneging on a deal under which the new, mainly former Communist, nations were promised priority over future decisions.
The Czech Prime Minister, Mirek Topolanek, plans to raise Prague's candidacy for the agency at tomorrow's meeting of the European Council, where all 25 EU heads of government will gather. He points to a pledge made by EU heads of government in 2003, when they agreed to carve up sites of a host of agencies among themselves, shortly before the 10 new member states joined the union.
At the time, the EU leaders said that as far as future decisions were concerned, they would "agree to give priority to acceding states".
The Czech Transport minister, Ales Rebicek, said yesterday the deal had been called into question by "all of the countries that are candidates" and by "a group of old member countries". Jana Reinisova, the deputy ambassador of the Czech Republic to the EU, said that in "some way it will be raised at the [European] council".
Two other new member states have put forward potential sites for the authority: Slovenia, which proposed Ljubljana, and Malta, which bid for Valletta. Jan Kohout, the Czech ambassador to the EU, said Cardiff's bid was the strongest from old Europe.
The Czechs are angry that some old member states have raised the issue of security for the agency. Galileo is the rival to the US global satellite navigation system and the inference is that the new member states might allow America access to secret information.
Finland, which holds the EU presidency, said it would try to avoid making Galileo a summit issue. It knows that debate could degenerate into an angry dispute.
Susanna Huovinen, Finland's Transport minister, said the 2003 decision to prioritise the new nations should apply unless EU heads of government overturned it. "The matter will not be on the agenda of this week's summit," she said.
Though the presidency can control the agenda, it cannot prevent a head of government raising any issue he or she wants.
Despite the chorus of pious hope, Turkey is not going to join the EU
There will be no place at the table for Ankara in any foreseeable future, and the most profound reason is geographical
Geoffrey Wheatcroft
Monday December 18, 2006
The Guardian
Of all the temptations of journalism, prediction is the most dangerous. Soothsayers in our trade are usually made to look foolish by events. The best answer was given by the fabled correspondent in some distant spot who, asked by an importunate foreign desk (in the days of abbreviated cablese) to file "soonest,fullest,whatnext happens", responded succinctly: "Myballs uncrystal."
After that, let me say something simply and confidently: Turkey is not going to join the EU. "Not" does not mean "never" but in any foreseeable future, although you wouldn't know that from Tony Blair. He visited Turkey last Friday at the beginning of his latest forlorn, not to say fantastical, mission to bring peace to the Middle East, intoning the words: "It is important that we continue the process of accession with Turkey."
Nor would you know it from other exalted Euro-personages. Chancellor Angela Merkel has just joined the Social Democrats, her German coalition partners, in saying that full membership "would be worthwhile", one fine day. Erkki Tuomioja, the Finnish foreign minister, whose country's EU presidency is just coming to an end, says that "the door is still open", while Carl Bildt, the foreign minister, continues ardently to favour Turkish membership.
All these pious hopes are expressed at the very moment negotiations between Turkey and the EU have just hit one more pothole, with Brussels suspending talks as a punishment for Ankara's refusal to open its ports and airports to Greek Cyprus. This suspension was a "serious mistake", Blair says, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister calls it "unacceptable".
By now the Turks should have learned that there is much they must accept whether they like it or not, and they have come to feel, not without reason, that when one obstacle is surmounted Europe will always find another. Turkey became an associate member of the EEC or Common Market as long ago as 1963, and in 1987 Ankara applied for full membership of the EU.
During the lengthy interlude came the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and in 1983 the creation of a Turkish Cypriot state, which no one but Ankara recognises. Turkey has a much better case over Cyprus than in other matters, and the despicable behaviour of the Greek Cypriot government - and electorate, when they voted against the reunification of the island once EU membership could not be revoked - has made Cyprus the least loved member state of the EU.
More serious objections are the patchy Turkish record (to put it mildly) on human rights. Turkey still does not enjoy what European countries consider a true rule of law or freedom of speech, and has not come to terms with its history, notably the fate of the Armenians.
Even then, the continual European hesitancy and changing of the tune might suggest bad faith. But that is not really so, and a better way of seeing it is as a kind of social embarrassment. Far from having embarked on an elaborate deception, Europe said something with good intentions but without really thinking it through, only to recognise slowly how grave the practical difficulties are. As a result, Turkey waits for church bells that never ring, while Europe, as one French diplomat puts it, is like a man with a mistress he doesn't want to lose, but doesn't want to marry, either. The trouble is that a moment passes, after which it's no longer easy or even possible to say this thing can work without causing pain.
For their part, the worst mistake the Turks have made is invoking US support. During yet another crisis between Ankara and Brussels a little more than a year ago, Erdogan rang Condoleezza Rice and asked for her help, to which the secretary of state duly responded by expressing yet again Washington's ardent support for Turkish admission to the EU - and thereby further enraging the Europeans.
As usual Blair takes the American line, arguing for Turkish admission on strategic grounds: it "has an importance not just in respect to Turkey but with wider relationships between the west and the Muslim world". Shutting the door will alienate Muslims everywhere, letting Turkey in will build a bridge between the west and the Islamic world.
But another way of putting it is that Europe is being asked to make a huge sacrifice to gratify American strategic interests. Whatever Blair may think, this doesn't meet with universal favour. As the former European commissioner Chris Patten has sarcastically said, it is very good of the Americans to keep offering Turkey admission to the EU, but this is a question on which Europeans might want to have some say themselves.
Neither Blair nor his American friends have noticed that there has scarcely been a less propitious moment for Turkish admission in these 40 years. Turkish sensitivity about being excluded from a "Christian club" is quite misplaced: Europe today isn't a Christian anything, and even fear of radical Islamism is not the main factor. More important is the hangover from previous EU expansion - and the Turkish question also illustrates the gulf between "the soi-disant elites", as that contrarian French politician Jean-Pierre Chevènement calls them, personified by Blair, Tuomioja and Bildt, and the actual peoples of Europe.
In May 2004, eastern European countries that had been sundered from their neighbours by 60 years of war and cold war were admitted to "our common European home" and very moving it was. After the elation, Europe woke up to realise that its 10 new member states now comprised a quarter of its population while providing a 20th of its economic product, and that's before Romania and Bulgaria join in the new year, let alone Turkey, with a per-capita income one-tenth of the British, and a child mortality rate 10 times the French.
A year later, the French and Dutch referendums, which turned down the new EU constitution, were a hostile response to that expansion, and by implication to Turkish admission. For all Blair's high-sounding platitudes, that new mood has been caught by other European politicians. Nicolas Sarkozy, the French interior minister who is almost certain to be the conservative candidate - and favourite - in May's presidential elections, is an open opponent of Turkish membership, and is "happy to see that these ideas are gaining ground". As he might say, building bridges between the west and Islam, and sapping the roots of terrorism, are doubtless worthy objectives, but since when did they become the purpose of the EU?
In the end, the problem is less cultural or economic or religious than simply geographical. This is something we have only slowly woken up to, but it explains why Turkey will not join for a very long time, if ever. Bildt says, solemnly and dubiously, that "there is no doubt that Turkey is a part of Europe", but a French politician has put it another way: can we really have a Europe that extends to the borders of Iraq? Many ordinary Europeans seem to know the answer to that better than their rulers.
A Kosovo government official and a party colleague have been arrested after a joint house raid by police and NATO peacekeepers uncovered the largest weapons cache discovered in Kosovo since the 1998-99 war. The haul included a 75mm recoilless gun, 116 antitank mines and artillery grenades, military uniforms and 2,500 rounds of ammunition.
The find sharpened fears of unrest in the province, which has already braced for possible violence now that the Western powers and Russia let slip a year-end deadline to decide its fate. Groups of armed men have appeared over the past year, and rioters last month lobbed stones and bottles at the U.N. headquarters in Pristina.
0 Replies
georgeob1
1
Thu 4 Jan, 2007 07:14 pm
I get a real kick out of the self centered moralizing of many Europeans as evidenced in the Guardian piece Walter posted above.
I was gratified to read the honest assessment of the Cyprus issue and the recognition of the "despicable" role of the Greek government in the matter of Turkey's admission in the editorial. Beyond that, however, there was much to deplore.
Poor Europe, asked to sacrifice so much to satisfy purely American interests !!! -- such as serious reconsideration of the obvious racial and cultural factors that are the real European motives behind the various (mostly trivial) issues raised up to prevent Turkish admission to the EU. The fact is that, in view of the growing confrontation between the Moslem world and the West and of the failure of most Moslem states to develop modern, tolerant democratic governments, Europe has an overwhelming strategic self-interest in both bridging this gap and aligning itself with the most successful such government in the Moslem world, and one with which it has a close formal association going back now for about 25 years. This is particularly relevant in view of the close proximity of their Moslem neighbors, and of the persistent difficulties faced by many European governments in assimilating the Moslem immigrants they often require to run their economies (and others who come anyway).
Moreover this confrontation with the Moslem world has its origins and main driving factors in European misbehavior and folly. Our critics would have us believe that Moslem intransigence and rage are purely the result of American support for Israel - something going back to the late 1940s. The historical facts, prominently including the real dates of the beginnings of Islamist political organizations tell a different tale. Its roots go back to French and then British colonization, starting in the 1830s and continuing through the British theft of the Suez canal through a stock swindle, and the monumental folly of the utterly unprovoked Anglo, French, Russian destruction of the Ottoman Empire during WWI. Follow that up with a little German persecution of European Jews ( augmented by the sometimes not-so-passive assistance of allied and occupied nations), and general indifference to the fate of "displaced" survivors, and the reenergized Zionist movement it created in Palestine, and you get more than enough for the Moslem world to be a bit annoyed about.
On top of all this the Guardian writer can blandly fault the Turks for failing to come to terms with their own history (with respect to the Armenians). A truly amazing bit of hypocrisy coming from the Europe that tolerated the massacre of Bosnians, in their very midst just a decade or so ago, and, more to the point, created the Xenophobia and paranoia towards potentially dissident groups among Turks who were in 1914 and 1915 beset on all sides by French, British and Russian attacks and overt attempts to create revolution among these same peoples. I agree some "coming to terms with history" is required. However the European powers require as much or more of that than do the Turks.
0 Replies
old europe
1
Thu 4 Jan, 2007 08:37 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Poor Europe, asked to sacrifice so much to satisfy purely American interests !!! -- such as serious reconsideration of the obvious racial and cultural factors that are the real European motives behind the various (mostly trivial) issues raised up to prevent Turkish admission to the EU. The fact is that, in view of the growing confrontation between the Moslem world and the West and of the failure of most Moslem states to develop modern, tolerant democratic governments, Europe has an overwhelming strategic self-interest in both bridging this gap and aligning itself with the most successful such government in the Moslem world, and one with which it has a close formal association going back now for about 25 years. This is particularly relevant in view of the close proximity of their Moslem neighbors, and of the persistent difficulties faced by many European governments in assimilating the Moslem immigrants they often require to run their exonomies.
That's all nice and lovely, George, talking about "bridging a gap" and about "aligning" with Turkey.
But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about EU membership of a country with a population of 70 million people. That's almost like saying the US should "bridge the gap" with the Central American countries by admitting Mexico into the Union.
It's not something you would simply shrug off and accept, not even for perceived strategic advantages.
Of course you are right about the proximity of the EU's Moslem neighbours, and about the difficulties in assimilating immigrants to the European Union, but I don't think the latter is something entirely unique to the EU.
The same goes for your remark about Moslem immigrants European countries require to run their economies. Undeniably some truth in that, but not really meaningful in context. That's like saying the US should allow Mexico in already, because the US economy would long have collapsed without Mexican immigrants.
And while your grasp of European history is remarkable and your particular view of the same is very interesting, I think you focus too much on the past. Of course the undeniable mistakes British or French colonial policy in 1830 have a meaning for today's EU27, but at the same time I think you fail to see how much the EU has changed within even the last decade.
In comparison, the United States of today are pretty much the United States of 1997. Not so the European Union.
(Oh, and I'd like to see you guess on what I think about Turkish EU membership...)
0 Replies
georgeob1
1
Thu 4 Jan, 2007 10:01 pm
old europe,
I can sympathize with the points you make, but I don't agree with them - in the main, at least.
I certainly can't claim to know your view with respect to Turkey's admission, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that you favor it. (My impression is that this question also gets a more favorable response in Germany than (say) in France or Greece.)
Germany's population of about 84 million is the only one in the current EU greater than Turkey's 70 million. Current demographic trends may even yield the first place to Turkey within a decade or two. (However as we have repeatedly seen, the modernity and economic development associated with the EU are among the world's most effective forms of birth control - extrapolations from current data may well prove to be inaccurate.) With 60+ million each and higher fertility (than Germany) , the UK and France certainly are comparable to Turkey's population. I agree with you the accession of a country as large as Turkey is not a trivial matter. However in view of (1) Turkey's long-standing second-tier association with the EU and predecessor organizations, and (2) the enormous total population already added in the states of the former Soviet Empire (which posed integration challenges at least as great as the prospect of Turkey's); this late-in-the-day reluctance seems hypocritical and ill-justified to me.
A second factor is that, as a direct result of the already 25 year association with the European community organizations, continued delay of Turkey's candidacy will properly be seen as a rejection by Europe - something that, in view of their common history, I believe would be decidedly unfortunate for the world.
I don't buy your references to Mexico (a country I know well ). In the first place the Mexicans have no desire to be or be seen to be an associate part of of the United States (we already took a big enough piece). They are proud and a bit prickly on this point. We have (mostly) good relationships, government-to government (better than with Canada during thee past 15 years), and the people of our two countries get on even better. (Despite all the talk and jokes about "Gringos" , Mexicans appear to like Americans and things American ('tho they resent our monopolization of that word). The same factors exist here. American culture has already borrowed a great deal from Mexico, and the hard work and energy of the many immigrants who have come here earns them increasing levels of respect and admiration, particularly in areas of the country that until recently have had little contact with them.
I am not one who wants to build a fence on our common border. We have only ourselves to blame for not enforcing our immigration laws, or creating an efficient guest worker program for those who want it. In the main what I have seen of Central American immigrants here is reminiscent of my own youthful observations in a largely Irish, Polish, Jewish, and Italian ethnic stew in Detroit (lots of Germans too, but they got here earlier and were by then thoroughly assimilated). They are the salt of the earth, and we need as many as will come. They also keep our society and economy competitive - and young.
I don't think that we can reliably detect lasting political or social changes on the scale of a decade. I would be interested to know your impressions of the great changes that have occurred in the EU (are you referring to the very bureaucratic governing apparatus, or to the societies themselves?) since 1997, and conversely what adverse static or resistant to change processes have gone on here in that period. I just don't see it.
I acknowledge what may appear to you as an excessive preoccupation with the distant past on my part. However, I see in the attitudes of many Europeans, an equally remarkable forgetfulness of their own pasts, and an odd belief that somehow their history was restarted in 1950. Youthful new beginnings are a good thing. However Europe is neither youthful nor newly begun. The artifacts of Europe's history are all around, and I perceive a dangerous inclination on the part of Europeans to ignore them.
Finally it irritates me to encounter the criticisms of Europeans for faults on our part that are generally benign compared to theirs when they had the ability to make them. There is a difference between virtue and the absence of temptation for sin.
May I also add here that I enjoy and value your points and criticisms - even when I don't agree. Makes me think some more.
0 Replies
old europe
1
Thu 4 Jan, 2007 10:56 pm
I agree to an extent with your observations about Mexico. I've been to Mexico many times, and I especially enjoy coming into Mexico via the US border. It's true, Mexicans in general (gosh, that sounds awful) don't want to be part of the US. Nevertheless, there exists that kind of affiliation that both sides profit from (a fact which both rather deny than admit). And then there's a common heritage, a common history, the Mexican past of the US border states, etc. etc.
That's nothing negative, and I can't see why a relationship of that kind would be particularly negative for Turkey and the European Union.
I think it would be a mistake to assume that the entire Turkish population desperately wishes for a membership in the EU. And even the part that is strictly in favour of a membership has rather the economic advantages in mind than the challenges that the European Union will face in the future.
After all the European Union is more than just a free trade zone with a population of 500 million. It is an admittedly rather bureaucratic entity - but that's just the nature of the beast. The current form and shape of the "institution" EU is but a means of transforming 27 independant nation-states into a union with a common currency, a common policy, a common army, and hopefully in the not so distant future a common constitution.
Which takes a lot of commitment and sacrifices from the participating nations, for sure. Some countries were quite willing to fulfill these conditions (think, for example, Estonia, Lithuania or Latvia), but Turkey seems to be quite reluctant. And often enough, cultural "differences" are being cited (for example on the issue of equal right for Christian churches in Turkey).
Well, sure, but that works both ways.
Apart from an outright revolution, I find it a bit difficult to imagine any other sort of "transformation". The EU is an experiment of sorts, and a reasonably successful one so for. Not to mention somewhat of a historical first.
The changes I have noticed during the last 10 years or so are mostly an acceptance of the new "facts" of life within a Union of nations rather than loosely affiliated countries. Today's younger generation speaks several languages fluently, spends semesters abroad and goes searching for internships and jobs across all the European countries. They feel far more European than German or Italian or Spanish or Polish. Yes, that varies between countries, but still...
It's hard not to note the difference between now and 10 or maybe 15 years ago. Back then, this kind of mobility with all the possibilities it offers and the challenges, this kind of migration within a coherent union of states was seen as something more or less unique to the United States (at least West of the Iron Curtain - can't really speak for the Soviet satellite states).
I'm surprised every time I talk to people (well, teens) who don't even consciously remember the money we had before the Euro, not to mention the time when the European Union still was the European Community, or the time before the Schengen Agreement, when you had to have your passport ready at three different borders for a 5 hour trip (okay, that's 20 years, but whatever).
I think your perception of the European Union as a sclerotic, bureaucratic monstrosity simply doesn't take all that into account. Yes, this part of the EU exists, somewhere, but hey, that's an accurate description of Washington as well. There's a lot happening outside that political level - it's not as visible, but it's the reality Europeans are living in.
0 Replies
georgeob1
1
Thu 4 Jan, 2007 11:33 pm
Very good and thought-provoking points.
From my vantage the bureaucratic structures of the EU governance are merely easier to see than the transformation of day-to-day life (and the rapid assimilation of them by the young) that you described. I have an Irish/EU passport, but don't often use it when travelling, so I don't see much of the difference. I acknowledge the changes to which you refer. However, I note that there is no analogous process in the U.S. (nor is there a need for one). Overall, even despite a formidable Washington bureaucracy (but still a bit small by European standards) the U,S, remains a somewhat more creative and adaptive social and economic entity than Europe. That could well change, in the ferment of European integration, but, given the prevailing demographic facts, and the slow pace of competitive reform, I doubt that it will do so soon.
Interesting observations about an analogous (to U.S. - Mexico) 'association' between the EU and Turkey. It would indeed be a good alternative outcome. I am more inclined to see (or fear) the danger of a basic realignment of Turkish domestic and foreign policy orientations in response to a rejection by the EU. After truly outrageous treatment during and after WWI by Britain & France, Turkey rather amazingly worked hard to transform itself into an approximation of an European state. (It is more than ironic to note that this was led by the same Mustafa Kemal who beat the pants off the British and French at Gallipoli.) I am concerned that all of that might unravel in the wake of a rejection, and it seems to me that Europe should be concerned about that as well (for its own sake, not ours). I'm not close enough to the situation to assess it accurately though.
I do believe there is a distinction to be made between the admittedly remarkable tranforming changes that have occurred within Europe during the last few decades, and the relatively more lasting external reactions to the past outrages of European history. While we may delight in the former, we are most certainly still dealing with the latter.
The dramatic changes in contemporary European life and perspective do not protect it from the consequences of past mistakes. The sometimes inept U.S. efforts to deal with this legacy should not be confused with root causes. Criticizing this external world, and focusing on the internal transformation, will not protect Europe from external challenges.
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Fri 5 Jan, 2007 12:37 am
georgeob1 wrote:
The dramatic changes in contemporary European life and perspective do not protect it from the consequences of past mistakes. The sometimes inept U.S. efforts to deal with this legacy should not be confused with root causes. Criticizing this external world, and focusing on the internal transformation, will not protect Europe from external challenges.
Well, I might agree here.
But how can - do you think - change our attitudes towards this, the handling of consequences of 27 independent country's history?
(I'm not sure of the Turkish question gets so favourable responses like you suggest - in my opinion it's e.g. at least the same here and in France).
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Fri 5 Jan, 2007 12:38 am
Do you vote in EU-elections, btw, George?
0 Replies
georgeob1
1
Fri 5 Jan, 2007 01:04 am
Good questions, Walter, and, as you will likely agree, I can't claim to know the answers.
However, let's assume the EU, as currently constituted, manages to get through the difficult adjustment of absorbing the relatively poorer countries of eastern Europe and dealing with the anti-competitive forces built in to the relatively richer economies of the West, and merely has to worry about external challenges in the long run. This seems a likely outcome to me, but the question is, just what are those external challenges? I haven't given this a lot of thought, but for starters consider the following ranked list;
1. The challenge of a resentful - and nearby - Moslem world, still struggling with its own internal contradictions, and still unable to create successful modern ststes with a degree of tolerance and democratic process. Also slow economic development apart from the petroleum sector, very high birth rates and the pressures of young, rapidly growing populations. This presents both external and internal challenges to Europe -- state to state as well as the problem of assimilating immigrants.
2 Uncertainty in the future political orientation of Russia and former Soviet states still in its orbit, coupled with significant long-term European dependence on it as a source of energy & fuel.
3. The challenges (and opportunities) of the new global economy which will increasingly force well-developed nations to adapt to the effects of lower foreign labor costs in an increasingly larger set of industries and services.
4. The strains these external forces can produce on the unity of an EU of 27 states and 400 million people, still with some fairly significant variations in the levels of current development.
My impression is that Europe has been preoccupied (understandably) with its internal affairs, but unfortunately that won't solve the problem of the external challenges. While a great deal of attention has been given to the economic effects of globalization, relatively less has been given to the other, and I believe, more important, external issues. Europe must face these issues, regardless of what the United States does or doesn't do, or indeed regardless of what the 27 states of Europe are, or are not, able to agree on.
