Sedat Laciner Sedat Laciner printable version send your friend

Tuesday, 22 December 2009

It is possible to disagree with a person because of his political or economic views or even because of any personal reasons. Yet, if you counter someone, a group or a country just because of his/her/their colour, or gender or religion, then it is called discrimination, it is called racism, it is called religious extremism. All these are banned in any fair state since it is illegal.

If we look at the reactions against Turkey’s EU membership, it is easy to see that there are a considerable number of people reacting with a discriminatory, racist, and religionist view. For example, in the 2004 meeting of the European Council, the new President of the EU and the previous Prime Minister of Belgium, Herman Van Rompuy, said, “Turkey is not a part of Europe and it will never be a part of it.” Rompuy showed Christian values to be the core values of Europe and indicated that Turkey’s membership to the EU would undermine these values. He said in his speech that “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.” This is an indication of real discrimination. Even though these speeches were made when he was at the opposition camp, his views on some specific topics have not shifted over time or with a difference in professional position.

In the same way, on September 26, 2007, French President Sarkozy stated, "I do not think that Turkey has a place in Europe." Mr. Sarkozy also made a speech in 2006 when he was French Interior Minister in which he said, “Israel and Lebanon have more European values than Turkey…I’m not against the Turks or Muslims, but I’m not for the EU membership of an Asian state…I don’t want to see the Kurdish, Hizbullah and Palestine problems become European problems. I don’t want a Europe which will be neighboring Iraq or Iran.” And he restated the same ideas in 2008.
Lots of European leaders sharing the same logic with Sarkozy and Rompuy. All these anti-Turkish politicians say, “Turkey may have reached a certain level in economics, human rights, and democratization in politics but European civilization is based on Christian and Jewish values. Turkey cannot join the EU as a full member. Turkey should ally with Arabs.” They all indicate that Turkey cannot be a member of the EU because of its religion, culture and civilization.

I do not know how aware the Europeans are of it, but all these things they said to Turkey are called religious extremism, religionist radicalism and/or racism. Note that Turkey’s economic performance is not related to why it has not been accepted to the EU. It is not because of the problems in its efforts on democratization or on human rights issues. Turkey is not accepted to the EU because of its culture and religion.

Some groups’ concern in the EU is solely Muslims; they do not want the existence of any Muslims in their country even as immigrants. Frankly speaking, they do not want anyone different from them in their own countries and it is an illness that we have been familiar with for years.
When we talk about religious extremism, we usually take Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda examples into consideration. We only mention that the radical Islamists are religious extremists. But, I cannot see any difference between the views of Sarkozy, and the new EU President Van Rompuy and the view of Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden also supports that Christians and Muslims cannot live in the same family, that coexistence between them is impossible. The referendum held in Switzerland also indicates the same. These are not totally different things. Actually, Turkey is in the middle of two religious groups, and Turkey does not belong to either of them. Turkey is the product of a formula of coexistence and it cannot exist in another environment. The new president of the EU, Sarkozy, former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, some other leaders of European countries and especially politicians from the European Christian Democrat parties all declare that Turkey cannot be accepted to the EU because it is a Muslim country with a big population; it does not belong to Europe and the like. These are all the indicators that they do not want Turkey because of its culture, civilization and religion.

We can obviously call it racism, religious extremism and discrimination. That is, there is no difference between saying to Obama, “You cannot be the president of the U.S. because of the color of your skin,” and showing Turkish society’s religion as a reason not to accept Turkey to the EU. Unless all these are seen as racism, discrimination or religious extremism, we cannot pave the way to a solution. The problem is that if the issue is seen as the delay of Turkey’s EU membership, then the ignorance of the religious extremism dimension of the issue can lead Europe to return to its old illness. No matter how modern it seems, the stance of Switzerland, France, Germany and so many other EU member countries is the Christian version of Al Qaeda’s stance. This is the appearance of religious Islamists in Europe in another religion.
In other words, Turkey remains in between two fundamentalist understandings it has to cope with both.

In the past, religionist people in the EU used the problems with Greece in order to prevent Turkey’s membership to the EU. Afterwards they recognized the Greek Cypriots as the only justified representatives of the whole island, and they forgot their promises to the Turkish Cypriots and accepted the Greek Cypriot’s membership to the EU. And they still keep on holding the Cyprus issue against Turkey’s membership. They abused Turkey’s problems and said “Turkey’s economy is far behind”, “Turkey has an agricultural economy,” but they are wrong now. When Turkey applied for a membership in 1959, it was a real underdeveloped agricultural country, and it was also economically underdeveloped. European Economic Community (EEC) was also aware of it and it promised to help and aid Turkey in this respect.

The same was promised to Greece when it applied for membership as well. The Ankara Treaty, the Additional Protocol, and all the other written documents were signed on the basis of a full membership perspective. As time passed, Turkey improved its economy and structure considerably. Today Turkey is not an agricultural country. More than 90 % of its exports include industrial products. Agriculture now comes after the industrial and service sectors in Turkey. Turkey’s economy is more developed than lots of European countries, like Bulgaria and Romania, when we take a look at the figures of tourism, banking, and the like. In short, Turkey has moved forward since 1959. Maybe the EEC (EU) did not keep its promises to Turkey, but Turkey has partly reached the EU level and it achieved it even without the EU aid and protection that was given to Greece and Spain. Turkey reached its economic achievements without the EU and even sometimes despite the EU.

It is so clear that economic reasons are not preventing Turkey’s EU membership. The real reasons are obviously religious and cultural. It was not admitted in the past, but after the 9/11 attacks, it began to be expressed as if it were something normal. The reason Turkey has not been accepted to the EU is neither the quality of democracy nor the human rights issues; the 2005 Summit decision of all members of the EU confirmed that Turkey had reached the EU’s economic, democratic and human rights standards. I do not want to be misunderstood; I am not saying that Turkey has reached a perfect standard of democracy. We all know that it is not perfect. However, in 2005, the EU decided that Turkey could enter the EU with its already existing standards, and afterwards the little details could be corrected and legislation would be harmonized. This is the meaning of full membership negotiations. That is to say, the EU already affirmed Turkey had improved its standards, and as I mentioned before, Turkey is at a better level than some of the new EU members.

* EU: A Christian Union?

The EU has to prove that it is not a Christian Union. We experience much discrimination against Turkey before the EU. Although Turkey is a country negotiating for full membership for example, European Union countries have not lifted their visa requirements. Visa requirements were lifted even for countries that are not negotiating for full membership, like Serbia. The EU provided this convenience to the countries that have not even applied for membership, but they still have not applied this for Turkey, Bosnia, Kosovo or Albania. What is the common point of all these countries? They are all Muslim. Even one Muslim country could not enter the EU till now. Let’s say it’s because Turkey is so big – then what is wrong with Bosnia, Albania, Azerbaijan, Northern Cyprus, and Kosovo? Are they in a bad condition that cannot be bettered and developed? We did not realize it in the past and it was not so obvious in the Cold War era, but there is a strong religionist stance in the EU. They were bringing forward economic reasons, and we were accepting it by thinking Turkey was not a developed country and our economy was not like the German economy. The issues of Greece, human rights, and coups were brought forward against Turkey. However, the same problems were faced by Greece and Spain, yet they were accepted to the membership. But, Turkey has changed and developed. When all these reasons were abolished, the real intentions of the EU were revealed with the 9/11 attacks.

* Minarets in Switzerland

Switzerland is a country that defines itself as one of the countries at the core of civilization, liberalism, and freedom. They held a referendum and banned the construction of minarets of mosques, and then they said that this is an effort against fundamentalism. Mosques are worshipping places. If you start to interfere in a worshipping place of a Jew, Christian or Muslim worshipping in an ordinary way, then the rise of radicalization inevitable there. You push these people to terror and violence with these kinds of behaviors, and this Swiss action is totally racism, discrimination and religious extremism. Some of the EU countries condemned this behavior of Switzerland, but they were not sincere while doing it. In my opinion, the only thing different about Switzerland is that it was sincere in its religious view and religious prejudices. For example, such a ban exists in practice in Germany, too. If you want to build a mosque in Germany, you have to face lots of difficulties there but all these are justified in another way. They say that mosque does not fit into the city plan or if you build a relatively higher mosque near a church then they say there is a harmony issue, the mosque should be shortened. That is, the thing accepted and announced with Swiss referendum is already being done and well-camouflaged by Germany and some other EU countries. It is possible to see the same in France and even in the more liberalized U.K. You cannot build a mosque wherever you want and it is not possible to see so big high minarets.

Why is Switzerland guilty here? Because it was open and sincere in its bad behavior. It does not matter if it is secret or open; racism and religious extremism cannot be justified by anything. What is done is a big offense. You know that there are discussions about if Turkey is changing its direction in its policy towards the East and West. As a matter of fact that the one who is changing its direction is not Turkey but the EU, Europe and Western Civilization. With the inauguration of Obama, maybe there seemed to be a relative restoration in this shift, yet the EU rapidly and obviously heads towards racism and religious extremism.

More than 50 % supported the minaret ban in the Switzerland referendum. This also means that nearly 50 % of people were against the ban. But, if they came to the level of voting for a fundamental right then it is a real big danger. Alarm bells ring if a country reaches a point where it believes that some people can be treated badly and unfairly and their rights can be violated just because of their color, religion, or culture, and the rest do not or cannot stop it. It is an indicator of the beginning of a process like what happened during the Nazi period, and it will spread to all the rest. That is, the situation in Britain or Spain could be fine for now, but such a thing might affect them as well. Today you vote on minarets, tomorrow you start voting on mosques, and another day you begin to vote on Muslims, and then you will start to consider whether to burn Muslims or to deport them. You will first start with immigrants, and then you will also start contending with the Muslim citizens of your country.

Today’s situation is not different from that of the era of the Second World War. People are so optimistic as if Second World War took place centuries ago. But it was not so long ago, just 50-60 years. At those times, people in Europe killed people due to their different religion or different colour of skin; they burnt, tortured and killed them. We even do not know how many people were killed and massacred. Thus, we talk about the people capable of doing it. Europe has the potential to do such things. That is, being at its peak level of civilization should not hide the reality that it reached its peak level of violence and cruelty as well. European nations massacred more people than those of the rest of the world killed. It is also a place where racism is clearly witnessed. Thus the danger is not totally eliminated; in fact it always exists wherever human beings exist. And now, Europe is moving in the wrong direction there is a radical shift in its direction. And here, Turkey is the only country that can prevent this dangerous shift to the old Europe, the Europe of the Middle Ages, and the Europe of the Second World War. Turkey is able to prevent both the Islamic religious extremism in the East and the Christian religious extremism in the West. At this point, Turkey’s membership to the EU may help to stop all these movements by becoming the true member of the family. It will be the best example of the coexistence of Christians and Muslims.

Actually, there are so many Muslims in Europe right now. Even if we do not count Turkey, there are nearly 30 million Muslims in Europe, including Bosnia, Albania, Bulgaria (including 1 million Turkish people), Germany, France (5-6 million), Azerbaijan, Cyprus, and England (more than 1 million). Yet, there are no platforms for the representation of these people in the EU. On the other hand, the Queen of England is also the head of the Anglican Church. Chancellor of Germany, Merkel always heeds the Pope and is always in connection with the religious associations. She recognizes Christianity as the basis of civilization of Germany and Europe and applies it to politics. Tony Blair was also clearly indicating that religion and politics would not be separated from each other, and he applied the sayings of the Bible. When you look at the Muslim population of 20-30 million people, the question of “what is the representation platform of these people” comes to mind. For example, this platform is the Department of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) in Turkey. But such a platform does not exist in the EU, and there are no Muslim countries in the Union. Therefore, there is a big representation gap in the EU. And now this representation problem is shifting to an existence issue. When you ban the minarets then disturbances against Muslims are provoked as happened before the referendum was held with the attacks on Muslim graveyards. People draw fascist graffiti on the walls of Muslim institutions. In brief minaret referendum caused many racist attacks.

It is also necessary to underline that French President Sarkozy was one of the few leaders who supported the referendum, justifying it as Switzerland’s preservation of its cultural appearance. These excuses are all camouflaging racism and religious extremism. If we look at the issue from this point of view, then you should also destroy the churches in Muslim countries. Then this intolerance will lead to a shift towards extreme lines like deporting or even killing the women in chador or turban and men with beards because they cause visual pollution. This kind of a mentality is impossible to accept.

Some columnists question whether Christians in Muslim countries are living in good conditions in order to justify the Swiss wrongs. In fact, it is not a wrong judgment at all. In reality, there are problems in realizing the religious freedom and freedom expression of the Christians in Muslim countries too; there are also problems with the democratization processes in these countries. But this does not only apply for the Christians but also to the Muslims in those countries. That is, in Saudi Arabia or in Egypt or Iran, Muslim citizens are also having problems concerning their freedoms and rights. It should be kept in mind that a faulty behavior cannot justify another faulty one.

Secondly, is Switzerland the same with Egypt in socioeconomic, economic, and social terms?

Is Switzerland near Palestine or at the heart of the Middle East? What excuse does Switzerland make for its behavior? There can be lots of reasons for an Afghan person to make a mistake, like illiteracy, poverty, armed conflicts, and the like. But Switzerland does not have an excuse to behave like this. It is in a stable region where there has not been an Islamist attack. And even if there were an attack, it would not require a ban on mosques, just as a Christian attack would not require retaliation by closing a church. What is more, if a model region for the entire world acts like this, then what can the rest do? While saying this, I am not ignoring the democratization and human rights issues of the Muslim countries. These are big mistakes, and they cannot be justified by anything. I just indicate that there are reasons for such mistakes in those countries. And Switzerland’s reasoning is far from economics. It is a matter of racism.

* Turkey in Between

Turkey is the most vulnerable country to any kind of polarization between Christians and Muslims in Europe because Turkey has always had a moderate Islamic stance from the Seljuki and Ottoman times to the Turkish Republic. Generally, the Turkish lifestyle has been a relatively secular one, and accordingly, its interpretation of Islam has been a soft, moderate one. As can be deduced from the Ottoman example, Turkey has been an ‘area of coexistence’. Thus, any attacks on coexistence by any country like France or Switzerland will have the effect of attacking Turkey’s understanding of living while promoting radicalism. It will put moderates in a difficult situation, and it will be hard for that country to explain its own policies in such an atmosphere.

Secondly, the majority of the Muslim population in the EU countries consists of Turks, as nearly 6 million Turks live in those countries. And they are a group of people who has fewer or no participation to any terrorist actions. They are so peaceful in terms of integration and harmonization. Yes, it is true that they are not assimilated in the German society and preserved their Turkish identity while not causing any problems in Germany. In my opinion, disturbing such a peaceful society is a huge mistake and it may put Turkey in a difficult situation too. We witnessed such attacks before in the 1990 Solingen events of burning a Turkish family alive by Germans just because of their belonging to a different religion, race and just because of their appearance. This means that this danger still lives there. These kinds of incidents can take place in Germany. Therefore, Merkel and Sarkozy should realize that the reflections of their views and sayings are the burning of people in the street. On purpose or not, they establish the roots of the infrastructure of racist violence.
The politicians play with fire. If something starts the fire then it may be impossible to stop it. Because if the fire starts and keeps going out of control then it may require a much more demanding effort to put it out.

* Turkey’s EU Bid

Turkey wants to be a full member of the EU. There are countries that support it, like United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, and Italy. I do not know how sincere they are. For example, UK made enormous efforts during the Tony Blair period. But today, there seems to be a decline in these efforts. It is obvious that the EU treats Turkey unfairly on purpose. For instance, some chapters are not opened yet because of technical reasons but to gain some time. No one can make Turks believe that the chapters are not opened because of the Greek Cypriots, who are only 700-800 people, or technical reasons. France does not even open the chapters in which Turkey is doing well on purpose. These are the efforts to keep Turkey out, it is so clear. But, Turkey does its best. The only thing Turkey should do is to stick to the process. That is, the process should not be delayed because of Turkey. Democratization, economic development and the like are also for Turkey’s advantage. Yet in the end, Turkey may not become an EU member. But, Turkey is a European country and it should act like a European country.

The EU process for Turkey cannot be open-ended. The open-ended expression is totally a sign of malicious intentions. Till now, none of the EU negotiations remained inconclusive. This process is for the candidate country’s provision of what is necessary. In this process, the EU should provide any political, economic, technical assistance for all the negotiating countries while guiding and enabling the country to make reforms. It is a preparation period and it cannot take 20 years, 40 years, 50 years. If it takes that long then it cannot be called a full membership process. The full membership process of Turkey should be completed in 5 or 10 years at the most, if it takes longer than that then it becomes meaningless. Even now, more than Turkey’s population has become a member of the EU, and even countries much more difficult than Turkey have gained membership. In addition, the EU deals with lots of issues. Making the period longer and determining meaningless dates for the negotiations mean rejecting Turkey as a member.

Turkey should aim to reach such high standards that it will not need the EU. And Turkey is so close to reaching those political and economic standards domestically. It has become the 17th largest economy in the world. It should become one of the best democracies of the world as well. Turkey should aim at being the 7th or even 1st democracy of the world rather than being 17th. Turkey should reach the EU standards and it has to surpass them in some aspects. After that time, whether Turkey wants to be a member of the EU will be determined by the Turkish people as well as the EU. That is, if it is not an advantage for Turkey, then it will not enter the EU; this is the natural right of Turkey. Neither Switzerland nor Norway is a member of the EU. Maybe Turkey will become a developed country and will not see membership of the EU to its advantage, but whether Turkey becomes an EU member or not, Turkey is a European country and a member of European system.

The EU cannot be the one who will decide the Europeanness of Turkey. Just as fundamental rights cannot be a subject of a referendum, and as it is illogical and wrong to ban minarets with a referendum, no countries or groups can decide the Europeanness of any country in the European continent. Even if Turkey remains as the only country that is not a member of the EU, Turkey is European. Turkey administered one third of Europe for 400 years. There is a saying in Turkish: if you stay somewhere more than three days then you are not a guest there anymore. Therefore, you cannot be a guest somewhere you stayed for 400 years. Then some say “The Turks came from the Central Asia, they settled in Europe later.” The Turks came to Anatolia later as well. Where will we go then? Will we get out of Anatolia as well? We will leave Europe. We will leave Anatolia. The Turks came to Caucasia later, too. We will leave there as well. Where will we go? With this logic, no countries may exist in peace. Turkey is European. Turkey is also Eastern. It is Mediterranean as well. It has various identities.

Turkey had an identity crisis till recent times, but Turkey overcame this crisis. Turkey has different identities and is a blend of these identities. There is a perfect beautiful blend of these identities. Turkey has an identity that would be imperfect if part of it were left out. Here, it is Europe’s turn to have a crisis of identity and it is already in such a crisis. For the world’s good, Europe should positively overcome this crisis. European values for the global good or old dark European values?

Europe should not move backward. It has been a continent that always moves forward. We do not need a Europe of narrow minded leaders like Sarkozy, but a Europe of people who understand the European values well; we need a Europe that can contribute to the global civilization and move it one step forward. Here, the US and Europe’s partner who can make significant contributions will be Turkey.

 December 2009

slaciner@gmail.com