EU must encourage Turkey's accession - The doubled edge

In less than four weeks, the European Union (EU) will expand from an exclusively Western European group of 10 to an increasingly more diverse collection of 25. Among the most prominent of these new states are the former-Communist nations. 60 years after Churchill's "percentages agreement" consigned them to a fate under the Russians, these nations are finally being reintegrated into the West. Two more, Romania and Bulgaria, are slated to join in the coming years.

But even as these countries prepare for membership, one major Cold War player remains conspicuously absent from near-term accession -- Turkey. Despite its history with the EU, beginning with an Association Agreement in 1963 followed by an application for membership in 1987, other nations have leaped passed Turkey and become members with even more belated applications. And while making some progress, only recently it received assurances that its application for full membership will finally be considered in 2004.

Until now, the EU has cited various obstacles to accession, mainly listing areas in which Turkey has not met the Copenhagen Criteria that define the expectations for applicants to have fulfilled before negotiations can begin. Among the prominent concerns are Turkey's treatment of the Kurdish minority, its use of the death penalty and its continued conflict over the divided island of Cyprus -- one of the 10 nations set to enter on May 1.

For its part, Turkey has attempted to shift its policy in line with EU norms. It has worked toward peace with the Kurds, abolished the death penalty and is now, finally, working with the Greek Cypriots to negotiate an end to the stalemate ahead of that country's accession. Nonetheless, as Danish press attach?? Samuel Magid said, "I think that everyone agrees, including Turkey, they have a long way to go before this."

But for Turkey, the seemingly endless delays are not a question of adopting the acquis communautaire, buta product of veiled racism. Certainly, current member states are aware that with 61 million people, the accession of Turkey would place it as the second-largest member in the union. Additionally, this would allow the free movement of Turkish labor as part of the common market. With already two million Turks working in the EU and with an income average only around one third that of the EU, more might be expected to emigrate west. Already finding it difficult to deal with existing Muslim populations in their countries, as France's recent headscarf ban reveals, a new influx would threaten to further divide West European nations.

All this puts Europeans in a difficult spot. Admittedly, they hope to have a more prominent and influential presence in foreign affairs. Yet it's a hypocritical, and ultimately self-defeating, policy for them to have withheld support for our democracy building project in Iraq because of the method but also not be more openly favorable of a peaceful means toward the same end in Turkey.

It seems reasonable that if the EU truly wants to be a player in global politics, it should focus on continuing to help Turkey's accession as well as rewarding the country for the strides they have already made. If Europe is serious about building stability, what could be better than to embrace an Arab country, devoted to democracy, into the family of Western nations? Indeed, it has been the position of the United States to encourage a speedy accession through formal support.

Echoing their recent frustration with America's foreign policy, however, Magid claims that the United States' desire to hasten the accession of Turkey shows a "surprising ignorance or willingness to ignore circumstances or care." And while he is right that the point of such a lengthy accession process is that the new countries are meant to harmonize with the others, a more encouraging stance by the Union would strengthen its own position on the global scene while sending a strong message to the only Arab democracy in the Middle East that there are tangible benefits to pursuing a policy of peace and freedom over one of terror and autocracy.

But like the requirements of inter-operability in NATO, it's not just a question of having the right hardware, but a broader expectation that accession countries share a well-defined set of values, including a commitment to democracy, protecting human and minority rights and others. Less tangibly, these are also issues of history, culture and goals.

The success with the former-Communist nations demonstrates, however, that the EU is not just a free-trade zone but a democracy-building project as well. Turkey's application offers a distinctive chance to reinforce this notion.

To withhold Turkey from this opportunity would be passing up a unique chance to buttress our fledgling democratic experiment in the Middle East and to bolster the EU's claim that it can be a major player in foreign policy.

David Leiman's column appears every two weeks.