EU-Turkey, Unending debate

Turkey’s "engagement" to the European Union will make the two families next of kin. No doubt there will be family members on both sides who don’t want an eventual "marriage."

Will this opposition abort the event or lead to unsavory consequences for both sides? This question must be addressed seriously, and the likelihood of derailment must be reckoned with objectively rather than emotionally, as things are viewed today.

While there is an obvious emotionality in some European countries like France, Austria and Greek Cyprus, there is growing resentment on the Turkish side towards efforts such as giving special status to Turkey rather than full and equal membership. The French are even proposing an unmatched practice particular only to Turkey like putting the issue up for a public vote.

Furthermore, while the EU report adopted in Helsinki two years ago clearly declared that Turkey would be treated equally in the membership process, the most recent report promises only an open-ended negotiation process, not membership when and if the negotiations end positively. No such thing was foreseen for other former or prospective members. Such unfairness and hypocrisy definitely offends the Turks and strengthens the hand of the "rejectionists." Then the question to be asked to both sides is, Who will benefit from the rage of Turkey’s disgruntled and dispossessed masses who would force the political boundaries of Europe if Turkey falls into disarray? Will Europe feel more secure? If not, will it turn itself into a maximum-security zone (you can read this as a police state)? Look how drastically legal practices changed and basic freedoms were limited in the United States following 9/11, after one attack on the homeland.

A stable, democratic and prosperous Turkey that has caught up with European standards can be best and most quickly built with European support. This will not only enhance and expand Western/European values and institutions, it will also protect them. So Europe must not be ambivalent and hypocritical if it really wants to protect its interests and integrity in the long run.

What about the Turks? Surely they cannot only rely on the support and benevolence of the Europeans to transform their ossified institutions and authoritarian mentality, which put an inefficient and unresponsive state apparatus at the center of politics and in charge of public affairs. Within a matter of few years a lot of things have been telescoped in order to meet the Copenhagen political criteria. Yet there is still a lot to be done. Only early this month the police authorities in Malatya warned the local TV and radio stations to stop broadcasting in Kurdish "or else" (Radikal, Oct. 14).

The distance that Turkey has to cover in terms of the Maastricht economic criteria is even greater. The journey has not even started. This is not a pessimistic statement that foreshadows the evident economic improvements of recent years; however, Turkey has to turn these improvements into lasting or sustainable structural gains. If Turkey really takes its homework seriously, allocates its available resources without squandering them any more, mobilizes its brainpower in a systematic way and does not waver politically, it will be a different country in a decade and half. However, everything depends on the human quality that will manage this colossal intended change and the human product the change puts into motion.

The awe-inspiring task of completing the Turkish revolution that began in 1923 with the declaration of the republic but was later halted, has been shouldered by the most shortsighted and parochial political party around. Yet the Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) visionary efforts have surprised us all. Will this party prove to be the long-awaited visionary vanguard or prove to be doing what it is doing out of sheer survival instinct because EU membership both legitimizes its governance and unites diverse groups under a national umbrella? If the latter is true, the long and arduous journey may run into difficulties due to a lack of enduring and consistent leadership. Hence a pool of high-quality manpower (or better human power) is necessary. This means education in general and high-quality education in particular.

A good education produces good technicians and professionals. A quality education produces innovators and visionaries. Such an education turns out independent individuals who question, criticize and propose alternatives. They serve but do not become servants. They exercise authority but are not authoritarian. They are appointed by governments, but their allegiance is to the wider public. They are bound by rules, but they uphold rule of law. Turkish "national education," as we call it, or the educational system is far from producing such individuals. It is the product of the nation-building phase of republican history, and it is driven by two principles: 1) A citizen is an obedient follower of the state; 2) A citizen is a Turk and is the standard-bearer of Turkish nationalism. All the other human qualities are secondary to Turkish citizenship. That is why it has been hard to distinguish nationalism and state worship in the Turkish context or political culture. Similarly, it has been very difficult for the ordinary Turk to accept that there are others living in her/his motherland that call themselves different. All of this historical-educational baggage has to be left behind, and the new educational system must aim at producing citizens who bear allegiance to the nation, not to the state, and value human rights rather that nationalism that exalts the nation over the others.

If the new educational system is put into effect with the dynamism necessitated by preparation for EU membership, then Turkey may enjoy having a young population comprising both good professionals as well as citizens who are bound together with equal constitutional rights and responsibilities rather than militant nationalism. For nationalism in a multi-ethnic or multicultural society bears more than one nationalism and creates rifts rather than unity, as it did to the dismay of all of us. Now is the right time to change all this, when history calls on us. This is both a matter of visionary consciousness as well as a well-targeted investment into the future. When we look at Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) figures for 2003, Turkey has invested 2.4 percent of its gross national product (GNP) to secondary education and 1 percent to higher education, while, for example, these figures are 4.2 percent and 1.6 percent for Denmark; 4.1 percent and 1.1 percent respectively for Portugal. The figures drift further apart when investment per student is concerned at both levels (combined) of education: Austria spends $8,430 per student from the first year of primary education until the end of university. Belgium spends $6,544, Denmark spends $8,302, Italy spends $6,928 and Greece spends $2,956, while Turkey spends $ 1,073 (again 2003 OECD figures).

Given these figures, we can measure the gap that we have to close. But how will we reverse the sour feelings of the elite youth of Turkey, namely the university students, who in every poll taken in the past decade have expressed the desire to live elsewhere rather than in their own country? A country that loses its youth has no future. If we want a bright future in or beside Europe, we have to win our youth in the first place. Then, they will find a way to live together and build a common future with their European counterparts.