Giscard d'Estaing and Turkey

/ ethnography / 101 /
In an article published today in eight newspapers across Europe, veteran French statesman Giscard D'Estaing, suggests that Turkey should not be accepted (for the forseeable future) in the EU, but instead should develop a (rather permanent) "special relationship" with the Union ... The English version is published in the FT, while the French version in Le Figaro... I'm posting both versions since the FT article seems like an edited version of the French (and Greek BTW) article. Whether that is due to FT editing, web editing, the author's choice, or other considerations I do not know... What I do know is that one of the missing sentences is a rather obvious howler:

Les Turcs disposent d'une langue et d'une culture propres. La langue ne fait pas partie de la grande famille des langues indo-européennes.

Which translates as "The Turks have their own language and culture. The language does not belong in the great indo-european language family..."

Which is true, but then neither does, Basque, Hungarian, Finnish and Estonian... That seems neither here nor there as far as Turkey's place in Europe is concerned.

Note also another rather misleading sentence:

"Turkey has a short border with its two European neighbours, Greece and Bulgaria; a very long border with Syria and Iraq..."

The land border with Greece might be short but the maritime border is rather long, something quite important since one can, relatively easily, swim to Turkey from a number of Greek islands.

Despite the rather poor geographic and linguistic competences of the author, one must admit that d'Estaing is refreshingly sincere: What he basically says is that Turkey should not be part of the European Union because: a. none of the "rich" EU countries, can afford to bankroll a Turkish accession, (nor the other poor countries to lose the funds that would be diverted to Turkey in such a scenario, one could add); and b. because it's politically undesirable, since then the newest and poorest member would have a disproportinate weight in decision making due to its large population.

D'Estaing also makes a point about the limits to European expansion, which he thinks has gone far enough already:

The current uncertainty and scepticism about the European project is due to lack of clarity. Progressive enlargement has led to increasing unease. Europeans need to strengthen their identity. No "European patriotism" can exist until European citizens realise they belong to a single entity...

...Turkey's accession would change the nature of the European project... First, it could not be an isolated case. There is already a queue forming to the east and west. Morocco would probably be tempted to follow Turkey's example. This could result in a process of permanent enlargement, destabilising the operations of the European system and removing its original rationale.

From my perspective, this is one of the few politically sound arguments against Turkey's accession to the EU. This would apply however to all interested countries, and indeed should have been considered before the recent enlargment. If you don't develop some sort of functioning EU base (and IMHO this can only be democratically achieved on a Federal/Confederate basis), you're building a dilluted EU, an "EFTA" (as in NAFTA) zone, with little sense of purpose or mission. You also allow for the continuing use of the EU as the "superior force alibi" to which governments turn to when they have to pass an (economic usually) measure that would otherwise be solidly rejected by their societies. However one could argue that, after the recent enlargement, the (Right and Left) Federalist agenda has been defeated anyway- and it remains to be seen whether some countries will opt to form a "Federal Core" of the Union, as recent developments might suggest.

Anyway since I didn't hear d'Estaing complaining about Poland's accession, I think his argument loses some of its persuasive power. Interestingly the question of the limits of EU expansion is being opened again through the Ukrainian elections' issues. If Turkey is accepted, then why not Ukraine? And if Ukraine, why not Russia?