Objections to our membership

European Parliament deputy Toubon, despite all his efforts, failed to make anything tangible out of privileged partnership. On the matter of trade, Turkey’s participation in negotiations on tariffs is an article of the Ankara Treaty that is already applicable. The organization set for the inspection regime maritime traffic through the straits will be a step backwards from the (Convention of Montreux). Financial assistance instead of membership, the resolution of the Cyprus problem (in favor of the Greek Cypriots), becoming a security bridge between NATO and the EU and a unified initiative on border patrol to keep the migrants out are all empty, impossible to implement and forced suggestions.

D’Estaing on the other hand, repeats his usual opinions. It was repeatedly explained that Turkey could not be compared to Russia or Morocco. Despite that, he continues to define Europe’s geographic extent with the help of a high-school atlas. Why should a movement originated from history and a culture based on religion be concerned with having borders with Syria and Iraq? Why did the crusaders come here? Just to take a walk. Wouldn’t Algiers have become a part of the EU, if it had remained a part of France? Doesn’t France have overseas territories, just like Britain’s Falkland Islands? Isn’t Turkey’s Thrace region, which is in Europe, larger than many European countries in terms of land mass and population? Aren’t there Turks in Bulgaria and Greece, in addition to Turks who live in the rest of Europe?

He claims that when the European Economic Community signed the Ankara Agreement with Turkey in 1963 it was a common market, but later on moved towards political integration, and because of the change in circumstances, old promises, he argues, can no longer be applicable. When they signed the Treaty of Rome in 1957, didn’t the six countries, including France, aim at political integration?

Turkey being a huge country and its low economic development level will definitely create some problems. But, one soon realizes that the actual problem lies somewhere else. The confusion on the matter of religion shows what the true obstacle is. If we add the fact that our language and culture is not Indo-European (Are the languages of Finish, Hungarian and Estonian Indo-European?) the problem becomes even more complicated. The real question is this: If the Turks were Christian, would D’Estaing have objected to our membership?
Europe’s identity is at the root of the problem. The author says that this is based on the Greek, Roman (as separate from Eastern Roman), Renaissance, religious heritage (without mentioning it), the Enlightenment and rational and scientific thinking. He leaves Turkey out from the European identity, because it failed to pass through these phases. Isn’t D’Estaing aware of the fact that these extraordinary cultural contributions, which are the basis of Western civilization, failed to prevent both world wars and the Holocaust and that’s why the EU was established? How can it now utilize this irrational mechanism of exclusion, similar to anti-Semitism, on Turkey?

Just take a look at the Kitab-i Tevhid, written by Türk Maturidi, Türk Farabi’s compatriot, 1,100 years ago. I wonder which westerner knows more about Aristotle or Plato today.

The claim made by both authors that it is impossible for Turks and Europeans to live side by side is based on cultural relativism. The theory that members of different cultures can only live in separate countries is defined by the United Nations human rights department as neo-racism.

It is certain that our membership will benefit the EU greatly. But first, they need to realize this fact. We cannot force the benefits we bring onto the EU. If they first reject our membership application, they may come to understand their own facts and our importance and eventually change their decision.
Ever since I‘ve started writing columns, I noted that our EU adventure may be stopped by Europeans who make us their “other” through historical prejudices akin to racism. The liberal columnists, who glorify Europe slavishly and lack any knowledge on racism, objected to my argument. I hope they will forgive me when I say: “Do you get what I mean, now?”