Charlemagne: How terrorism trumped federalism

Why Europe became serious about Turkey

THE suspense is mounting. Next week the European Commission will issue its opinion on Turkey's fitness to join the European Union. That opinion will be debated at a European summit in December; the summit could, in turn, decide to open membership talks a few months later. If the negotiations go really well - why, it could take a mere decade before something actually happens in the real world, and Turkey joins the EU.

It is easy to mock. In fact, for all the painstaking nature of the process, the EU's decisions in the coming weeks about Turkey will alter the future of the continent. Partisans of Turkish membership believe passionately that saying yes to a large Muslim state that longs to join is critical to avoiding a “clash of civilisations” between Islam and the West. Opponents believe just as strongly that it would be a profound error, which could destroy the EU and even feed political extremism in western Europe.

The EU's tried and trusted method is to drain the drama from such decisions by proceeding through a series of small steps, making it almost impossible to know when the line has actually been crossed. Some argue that Turkey's ultimate membership was decided as long ago as 1963, when the prospect of joining was first dangled before the Turks. Others say the critical moment came in 1999, when an EU summit proclaimed that Turkey was “destined to join the Union”. Still others think that the line has not yet been crossed, but that it will be once the commission recommends that membership talks should begin. No country that has begun negotiations has ever failed to complete them (though Norway's voters later rejected entry). But those seeking to calm anxieties about such a large, poor and Muslim country joining the EU assert that no final decisions are being taken this year. And some - including two senior French ministers only this week - are suggesting that France, and perhaps others, may hold referendums on whether to admit Turkey.

This step-by-step approach to dealing with such a sensitive matter as Turkish membership can make it seem as though Europe's leaders are avoiding considering the big issues by hiding behind a bureaucratic process. But that would be unfair. If, as expected, European leaders do press ahead with Turkey's application, their decision will reflect a profound reappraisal by leading politicians of the very purpose of their Union. That reappraisal is above all a reaction to September 11th.

The change in thinking of Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, is particularly significant. Until recently Mr Fischer was the hero of European federalists. In a speech in Berlin in 2000, he laid out a vision of political union for Europe, led by an “avant-garde” of countries committed to federalism. But earlier this year, Mr Fischer signalled that he had rethought, and now felt that enlarging the EU to include Turkey was a higher priority than building a highly integrated “core Europe”. As he told the Berliner Zeitung, “I was previously one of those people who were 51% in favour of Turkey's accession and 49% beset by doubts. I have fundamentally changed my position following the attacks of September 11th. Since then it has become ever clearer that European integration also has a strategic dimension.”

Speaking to journalists in Berlin recently, Otto Schily, Germany's interior minister, spelled out this argument, saying that admitting Turkey to the European Union would “show the world that it is possible for Muslims and the West to live together on the basis of the values of the enlightenment and the UN charter of human rights.” On the other hand, rebuffing Turkey could destabilise the country, with potentially dire consequences: “maybe Turkey would become an Islamist state, like Iran.”

Many traditional federalists are horrified by this shift in thinking in Germany. They fear that, as Sylvie Goulard, a professor at Sciences-Po in Paris puts it, admitting Turkey into the EU will mean abandoning the dream of political union and turning the EU into a “kind of regional UN”. Some suspect that Tony Blair or, worse still, George Bush are pushing Turkish membership precisely because they want the EU to revert to being little more than a glorified free-trade area.

The immigration card

For many Europeans the debate about Turkey does not ultimately revolve around federalism, but rather around the even trickier subject of immigration. Citizens of the EU enjoy freedom to move from one country to another. In Turkey's case that freedom would be delayed through the imposition of a transition period, but it could not be denied forever. The most heated opposition to Turkish membership is coming from countries like Austria, France and the Netherlands, which already have substantial Muslim populations and also far-right and populist parties that have surged on the back of opposition to immigration. The two European commissioners leading the fight against a positive opinion on Turkey are Dutch and Austrian. Frits Bolkestein, the Dutch commissioner, has argued that uncontrolled Muslim immigration into Europe could mean that the defeat of the Turks at the gates of Vienna in 1683 was in vain. In France, the ruling UMP party has come out against Turkish membership, putting itself at odds with President Jacques Chirac himself.

Might all this be enough to stop Turkey's membership talks? Probably not. The combination of a positive opinion from the commission, plus support from the leaders of Britain, France, Germany and Italy, is a powerful one. But the assumption that a decision to open negotiations makes the eventual admission of Turkey inevitable may be wrong. That was how things worked in the past. But a new and unpredictable element has entered the politics of Europe: a growing tendency to submit fundamental decisions to referendums. The Turkish accession train will roll forward next week, and probably next year too. But the chances of voters somewhere eventually pulling the emergency brake are increasing.

Commentary feature.

• Primary Source