Turkey, EU, Cyprus . . .Beyond prejudices.

The critical issue is Turkey. In the Copenhagen Summit scheduled for December 12, besides acknowledging the future membership of twelve candidate countries, the EU will decide on the "opening of negotiations for the membership of Turkey," the 13th candidate for inclusion in the European body. Though "opening negotiations" with Turkey is only a preliminary stage to EU membership, it is considered to be a crucial decision, both for Turkey and for the EU: If its bid is successful, Turkey will become definitively anchored to the EU, bringing about positive strategic and economic results; as for the EU, Turkey offers an historical, cultural, and economic link to Eastern horizons.

Another implication of the upcoming EU decision will be its indirect effect on some critical international concerns: The present discussion in Brussels has centered on the question of whether Turkey, as a Muslim country, is ineligible for membership in a largely "Christian organization." This causes resentment in Turkey and in the Muslim world, and is the last thing we need in a world traumatized by 9/11 and still dealing with its consequences. Many believe that a rejection of Turkey by the EU will have an effect on Turkish attitudes toward American intervention in Iraq.

It seems that the moment of truth has arrived for the EU. Western European countries should use this opportunity to put antiquated prejudices behind them. So far, though, it does not look too hopeful. Giscard d’Estaing, former president of France, recently declared that Turkey doesn’t have a place in the EU. Turkey, he said, has "a different culture, a different approach, a different way of life"; for these reasons, he said, admitting Turkey to the EU "would be the end of the European Union." This stirred a big debate in Europe, especially in Germany and France. Unfortunately, this view is echoed by much of the European political establishment.

Many Europeans, including the Turks, are grateful to Giscard d’Estaing: He at least got to the crux of the matter, speaking the minds of others honestly and bluntly. The maneuvering ground has narrowed for all. On December 12, Brussels will either act according to its engagements and precedents, and initiate membership negotiations with Turkey, or it will define itself as a monolithic organization.

Turkey has already fulfilled the EU criteria for human rights and democracy as well as any other candidate initiating membership negotiations in the past, with only minor deficiencies. At least ten member-countries’ officials have recently declared Turkey’s eligibility. The reason for rejection by the EU would be the ethnic and religious nature of Turkey, though very few will admit this openly.

The EU’s decision will be more about its own identity and its own future than the eligibility of Turkey. It will decide whether it will face the challenges of an emerging new world; whether it is capable of seizing the vast opportunities of new economic, historical, and cultural horizons; whether it can contribute to the harmonization of civilizations rather than the expected "clash" of civilizations; whether it will confine itself to a limited strategic vision; whether it exists as an introverted organization; and whether it will emerge as a governing body that actually takes up the responsibility to create a better world for itself and for all.

Furthermore, the EU decision will either facilitate or hinder a compromise in Cyprus: The U.N. has recently presented a document to the parties and has demanded a prompt final agreement. Though there is no legal or conventional linkage between Turkey’s accession to the EU and an agreement in Cyprus, the two issues are intertwined politically. The EU is actually trying to make ample usage of this linkage by making Turkey’s opening of negotiations with Brussels conditional on progress in Cyprus.

Instead of abiding by legal and moral obligations and providing a date for the opening of negotiations for membership with Turkey, Brussels seems to prefer a tactical approach: Giving a "date for a date." This is to say, for example, "…it will be decided in June 2004 if a date is to be given to Turkey for the opening of negotiations; pending on its implementation of passed reform bills," as the German chancellor recently suggested. This, in reality, would mean "…pending [conditioned on] Turkey’s attitude in Cyprus negotiations." This is wrong, legally and morally. The rational approach would be to do the opposite: If the EU declares the date for the opening of negotiations with Turkey, the ensuing positive political atmosphere will certainly have a beneficial impact on Cyprus.

The other way around would be like putting the cart before the horse.

— Ismail Cem is Turkey’s former minister of foreign affairs.