Last week I discussed that while Europeans might be deliberately unaware of the developments in Turkey that support for European Union membership was dwindling, I was still optimistic about Turkey’s future with the EU. The reasons for Turkish skepticism, as was argued, were the EU’s reluctance to engage Turkey in an honest fashion and some members’ demands that had nothing to do with standard membership negotiations. The French parliament’s vote last week that makes the denial of the Armenian “Genocide” illegal and Dutch political parties’ exertion of pressure on candidates of Turkish origins to accept Armenian allegations as facts or face expulsion from electoral lists has given me more than sufficient proof to speak out against my country’s ill-fated EU venture.

What is Europe Trying to Do? What Should Turkey Do?

Last week’s vote in the French parliament is indicative that the EU is perfectly comfortable and compatible with the curbing of freedom of expression and throwing anyone to jail for non-conformism. The Netherlands, which until recently prided itself for being one of the most liberal countries in the world, is now forcing candidates of Turkish origins to take what can only be parallel to the “loyalty oaths” of the McCarthy era in the United States in the 1950s.

To give some context, the McCarthy era denotes that part of American political history when Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin declared in February 1950 that he had a list of Communists who worked in the U.S. government. With concern over Communist “gains” in Eastern Europe, China, Korea, and Southeast Asia growing in the United States, McCarthy began investigations in Congress where he bullied and psychologically tortured people on flimsy evidence for being Communists. Many lives were shattered while the investigations snowballed without recourse to even the basic tenets of law. The craze went on for nearly three years until the Senate realized that what was at stake was not Communist infiltration but the destruction of the basics of American democracy.

Today, France and the Netherlands are doing exactly the same thing. By giving credence to Armenian allegations and shutting out all legitimate avenues for a discussion, Europe is destroying freedom of expression, supposedly one of its founding principles.

It is perfectly possible that our Armenian friends might be right and we Turks might be wrong, although I believe that this is not the case. We can talk about mutual responsibility on the part of both Turks and Armenians, but an Armenian genocide is too far fetched a claim. On the other hand, by barring meaningful discussion over the events at the turn of the twentieth century, Europeans are essentially weakening Armenian claims because only lies need coercive persuasion. The truth is always strong enough to stand the challenge.

Some might argue that the EU is an organization of twenty-five countries and that French and Dutch inelegance does not represent the European project. This is superficially an acceptable statement yet does not comport with the lessons of the past and the prospects of the future. For quite a while, Turkey has been reprimanded in EU circles like a petulant child: “Recognize Greek Cyprus, solve the Cyprus conflict, recognize Armenian arguments, lower your self-esteem.” Unfortunately, whenever Turkey tries to defend its position and to at least reach some common ground with the EU, its attempts have been rebuffed: The EU’s budget to manage the aid to be given to Turkey during the accession negotiations is still not in existence; none of the promised financial aid has been sent to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus since the referendum on the UN plan in 2004; and Turkey’s overtures for reviving the process to resolve the Cyprus question have been met with European countries’ indifference.

Turkey does not need to lower its expectations from the future for this hypocrisy. Its way of handling bad novelists on untenable charges is already causing the country needless headaches while paving the way for those untalented novelists to get international acclaim and to even become Nobel laureates (I am seriously considering to write a novel that is also totally unreadable in Turkish yet gives a very “nostalgic” taste of “the East” in foreign languages). What Turkey needs to do is exactly the opposite of what it is doing now: lift the limits on freedom of expression (especially the “elastic” clauses of article 301 of the penal code) in the widest possible sense and withdraw from the accession negotiations if not from candidacy.

The Need to Continue Domestic Reforms More Robustly in Turkey

It might appear as if Turkey’s withdrawal from negotiating with the EU might cause domestic reforms to come to a standstill. In reality, what would happen from withdrawal is the exact opposite of this speculation. Until recently, integration with Europe was one of the conducive elements for domestic reform in Turkey. Many unacceptable programs were swallowed by the Turkish people for EU membership. EU membership meant a better future.

But that was the time when support for membership was quite high. That is not the case anymore. With Turkish people becoming increasingly more hostile with the EU’s ambivalence and lack of sincerity, it is probably sensible to give up on the EU bid for the sake of greater levels of democratization and prosperity. Any reform attempts from now on that are initiated to ensure the continuation of Turkey’s candidacy will run into stiff popular opposition in Turkey. Insisting on such a course can only be a recipe for failure.

Turkish people would be more willing to accept the tough choices ahead of them only if they are not made under the coercion of the EU. Just yesterday, the president of the EU Commission, Mr. Jose Manuel Barroso, declared that he was worried over Turkey because “the rhythm of the reforms” had slowed down.[i] What Mr. Barroso fails to admit is that the precise reason for Turkish reluctance in pushing further reforms is the lack of genuine engagement on the part of the EU. Without inducement, any meaningful reform attempt would fail. Counterintuitively, it is more sensible to hold back reforms while waiting for an EU impetus or completely disregarding the EU and vigorously pushing for more reforms.

“Getting Angry with the Infidel, Breaking the Fast During Ramadan”

A Turkish proverb advises one not to “get angry with the infidel” and prematurely break one’s fast during Ramadan. Turkey must be prudent to follow this advice. Last week’s circus in France and the Netherlands was accompanied by the appearance of strange bills in the Turkish parliament that would make it a crime to deny that the French committed genocide in Algeria in the 1950s. Precisely to have the moral upper hand over the French, the Turkish parliament should take this opportunity to resoundingly defeat the bill and hence demonstrate that freedom of expression, even when defending a lie that the French proudly brought “civilization” to Algeria and not death and destruction, must be allowed. Only lies need dictation. The truth is always strong enough to stand the challenge.

Another important thing to point out is that commercial boycotting of French firms, especially those that are already invested in Turkey, is a bad idea. The liberal market economy has a logic of its own that is more or less independent from political considerations. While French firms that bid in Turkish defense contracts can be easily – and should be – shut out, those companies such as Renault, Danone, and Carrefour that provide employment to Turkish workers and pay taxes to the Turkish government must not be punished. Punishing them would be punishing Turkish labor. All French firms that want to invest in Turkey should be welcomed; that would set an even better example to attract direct foreign investments from elsewhere.

Arrogance or Realism?

Withdrawing from the EU should not mean adapting a hostile stance against Europe. On the contrary, Turkey can really be Europeanized by staying out of the EU. At the moment, the EU’s mistreatment of Turkey is causing a lot of resentment among the Turkish people, potentially scuttling any further reform attempts and perhaps the modernization project as a whole. Profound structural reform in Turkey can only be realized when it is not forced down Turkey’s throat by the EU. In order to do that, Turkey and the EU need to part company.

This is, without a doubt, a thin line to tread. For the last decade or so, Turkey’s democratization has come about with the hope of joining the EU. For better or worse, the changes that were adapted to increase freedom and prosperity were equated with the prospects of joining the EU. If that connection is lost, and it might be lost very soon, then Turkish people might give up on their hopes for a better future. Turks are already resentful against the EU. In order to curb that resentment, it is most prudent to back away from the root cause of the distrust and place Turkish people’s well-being – not EU’s never-ending demands – to the center of policy-making. That would be better for both Turkey and the EU.

+++

Barın Kayaoğlu is a Ph.D. student in history at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia and a regular contributor to the Journal of Turkish Weekly.

E-mail: kayaoglu@virginia.edu

16 October 2006