Turkey's Concern over the First European Union President

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

As soon as he was appointed as the European Union's first President, Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy became the target of Turkish media and politicians, given his negative comments on Turkey's membership in the EU. For many, the Union's choice of Rompuy instead of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was due to one reason: "to block Turkey's way".

Suat Kiniklioglu, deputy chairman for external affairs of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), said that France and Germany had championed Rompuy to harm Turkey's European aspirations:

We are concerned. This man has made it very clear that he doesn't want to see Turkey in the European Union. What is even sadder is that he is making that argument on the basis of the supposed Christian values of the union. That's not the type of union we envisage. The values we envisage are of democracy, transparency, human rights and the rule of law.

His appointment is really evidence that the Franco-German axis in the union is gaining increased strength. I would not be surprised that his views on Turkey have played a role in that choice.

In 2004, Rompuy stated in the Belgian Parliament, "Turkey is not a part of Europe and will never be part of Europe. An expansion of the EU to include Turkey cannot be considered as just another expansion as in the past. The universal values which are in force in Europe, and which are also fundamental values of Christianity, will lose vigour with the entry of a large Islamic country such as Turkey."

Comments

[Catherine]

Although this may be a factor, it's not the main one. Blair's candidacy was rejected because of his complete support for/participation in the US-led invasion of Iraq. Even the bland and uncontroversial Dutch prime minister Balkenende was rejected because of some Iraq "taints". They were looking for someone without a blemish on his record in the majority EU view. I would assume these 2004 comments - although probably a plus in the eyes of the "Franco-German axis" - were not seen by the other member states as equivalent black marks to Iraq or Srebrenica for example.

[Nichol Brummer]

Turkey just has to be persistent, and still has a way to go anyway, to adapt to the 'criteria'.

The EU is suffering from indigestion, after consuming a large number of new states, some of which are quite far away from what 'EU culture' would like to be.

These same growth-problems have also frustrated the consitutional adaptation of the EU. Brakes were applied, but there is still movement.

Catherine: I'd be surprised if the Srebrenica would really be blamed on the dutch, let alone the prime minister. That dutch batallion were left in the lurch without any support from UK, US, France. Some dutch heroism might have saved lives.. but who wants to rely on military heroism as a strategy is clearly not realistic. That was a failure of international response, even more than in Rwanda, where the problem was much larger, a solution more difficult.

[Dave]

I think Sarkozy and Merkel were afraid that Blair would overshadow them on the European and international political stage.

[Vincent]

Blair was totally not suitable for the top EU job . Europe's modern values are derived and based on Christianity . Turkey has no place in Europe. England has supported this country's joining because of its own ambiguous attitude towards the continent and desire to dilute and disintegrate the continent. Just like they wanted the EURO demise and were claiming it would not last a year ... Well it is the pound that collapsed finally not the euro... Turkey will never be part of Europe.

[pessimist]

There have been a lot of comments about this presidency, before and after. I haven't paid a lot of attention but I mainly heard things like this choice was so as to keep strong individual nations. As for Turkey, I remember discussing with someone who was very against, a few years ago, and I said that it would be a big carrot to modernize the country. They have apparently done alot, but just by reading here (visit of Erdogan) how they consider Iranian regime their 'brothers', makes my blood curdle.

I think that they should have a priviledged partnership, and be in this vague Mediterranean projet that Sarkozy is aiming for. I'm not sure how that is progressing..

I also think that there is getting an awful lot of tension in some european countries with the wave of immigrants after the last countries joined and so many from around the world. With the economic crisis, this is getting really nasty, you just need to read comments after articles that touch on any aspect of these subjects.

The very idea that our parliaments have to debate on whether to allow women to wear burkas in public shows how far it has gone. They hum and haw, not knowing whether to appease the muslim communities or the rest of the public who hate it ! I think that with all the other economic and social problems, this is causing or going to cause people to veer towards the extreme right again. It seems its happening in Britain, in other countries too ?

There are already many turks in europe, especially Germany but here too in France, and for a long time. Obviously alot are perfectly capable of integration, and not religous at all, but take for example a recent event that I was told of in my small town. An animal support association told me how they had to intervene in a turkish family where they were torturing kittens, or rather their kids .. The parents didn't find it wrong ! I don't know if it's religious or cultural or both, but the fact is the attitude of muslims (many ? most ? a few ?), towards animals and even life or death is not the same.

As for certain leaders or people wanting to 'lable' the EU as Christian based, (germany wanted it included in the new constitution), I'm very much against.

>The universal values which are in force in Europe, and which are also fundamental values of Christianity, (Rompuy)

I think that it's sufficient today to base values on universal human rights charter, and leave out any mention of any religion. Otherwise this leads to endless arguments over the real influences in history of europe that obviously also included muslim.. and not so glorious christian..

[Catherine]

@ Nichol
Sorry, I tossed out Srebrenica without couching it in "black marks of the same magnitude as Iraq, or Srebrenica for example". The current Dutch prime minister had nothing to do with this debacle and you're right that it wasn't held against him by EU reps when making their choice. Curiously, two well-known politicians - David Millibrand and Peter Mandelson - were offered the foreign minister spot, but they turned it down, bringing in another relative unknown, Catherine Ashton, as EU foreign affairs chief.

@ Dave and Vincent re Blair.
Exactly - the position of European Union President is meant to be more like a chairman than an executive. Many were afraid that Blair would turn it into the latter, so they voted for a relative unknown who is widely respected amongst EU insiders but hadn't yet had the time in his current office (prime minister of Belgium) to screw up. They were also looking for someone from a smaller country who is used to compromising in order to get things done.

[Bill Davit]

As harsh as the statment by Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy is it does echo sentiments across the EU. The reality is no other demographic group among the immigrant populations is causing as much difficulty for their societies than those from the Islamic community. I don't think it was anything planned just a reality that Islamic culture/religion/politics don't mix well with others. You have to also take into account the duplicity Turkey practices such as:

1) They can harp on about Israel and yet have occupied half of Cyprus since 1974
2) They preach tolerance but in almost every EU country they have made demands to import their own teachers and Imans for the local Turkish population. Erdogan was famously was quoted as saying Turkish assimilation into German society is "a crime against humanity." Ironcially a German mp called him out on this and said we should then be allowed to have German teachers imported to Turkey--the answer was no way!
3) They say their is a genocide in Palestine yet say no such thing exists in Darfur despite 2 million deaths since the early 90's. Least of all lets not forget they still deny the Armenian genocide.

Make no doubt about it that the Erdogan regime is Islamist. His statemetns supporting Iran and Sudan along with his detachement form Israel clearly indicate this. The EU states have a right to be concerned. Turkey was the home to orthodox Christianity and is now 99.9% Muslim. How did it happen--forced expulsions, pograms, and open persecution of Christians over time. How can you trully trust a regime when it's ancestors killed over 1.5 million of your Christian coreligionists and still denys it? How can you trust a regime that champions the anti free speech legislation at the UN called "Defamation of Religions" sponsored by the who's who of the worst human rights abusers in the world? These human rights abusers are the states that still have laws on the book making it illegal for Christians to to be citizens, stating it takes 4 Christians to equal the testimony of one male Muslims, and it is a crime to practice any other faith other than Islam. I don't know about you but yeah I would not let Turkey into the EU.

[pessimist]

<Defamation of Religions

This is (among many of the other points you state) a particularly sinister and insidious efforts of the islamist countries to force this into legislation. And nobody is aware of it !