Find Insurance Online

On his first visit to the Turkish capital since becoming prime minister in May, 2010, David Cameron of the EU state of Britain likened the state of France’s opposition to Turkey’s bid join the EU to the French veto of Britain’s bid to become part of the EEC in the 1960s. I contend that his is a faulty comparison. Britian and Turkey do not occupy the same situs with respect to Europe. Notwithstanding the claim by some that not being on the contenent renders the British non-Europeans, Britain is in Europe. British culture is European. In contrast, only ten percent of Turkey is on the continent, and the Turkish culture is dissimilar to that in Europe.

Cameron also pointed to Turkey’s role in NATO, particularly with respect to the alliance's role in Afghanistan.  However, Turkey made it clear that it will not join EU sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. Turkey does not have the same interests as do the states in Europe. For European leaders to essentially use Turkey as a state in order to have more influence in the Arab world is problematic. First, the Turks would not necessarily be welcomed by the Arabs as intermediaries, given the history and perceptions between the two groups. Secondly, the accession could force the EU to take an active role in resolving the Kurd issue in eastern Turkey (and northern Iraq). Rather than giving the Europeans more influence in the Middle East, having Turkey as a state could put the EU in a mire it can ill-afford, given its own challences within the current EU. In short, European strategic over-reaching could compromise what has been accomplished thus far in terms of European integration.


To add a very large Middle Eastern state to a union of European states would compromise, and perhaps buckle, the EU.  Already, the EU has struggled to make changes internally to accommodate its expansion to the east.  Turkey’s very different culture and interests could render the EU impotent, given the amount of power still being exercised by the governments of its states. Rather than use the EU to gain leverage in the Middle East, I recommend that Europeans solidify their “ever closer union” so it will be able to withstand the inevitable political storms in Europe.

As Britain is one of the more “euroskeptic” states in the EU, it is possible that Cameron made his statements in the hope that expanding the EU beyond Europe would effectively relegate the union into an international organization. As the EU stands now, it has an executive branch, a legislature (a Parliament and a Senate, or Council), and a supreme court (the ECJ).  From a euroskeptic standpoint, the EU’s government simply does not exist.  Admitting Turkey (and other non-European states) would make the EU more international and less of a federal union of governance. That is to say, the move would undo the EU.

To be sure, Britain is just one of 27 states in the EU. With regard to Turkey’s accession as the 28th state, 35 “chapter,” or subject areas, would need to be agreed on. As of July, 2010, only 13 had been opened and only one — research and development — had been provisionally concluded. Most of the rest were blocked — five by France — leaving the realistic prospect that only a further three could still be opened.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/world/europe/28iht-britain.html?_r=1&hp

Should the EU allow Turkey to join as a new state?  That Turkey is overwhelmingly not in Europe and does not have a European culture are cited by those arguing against it.   Of course, not every state of the European Union has to be in Europe.  The USA has Hawaii even though the islands are far from America.  However, Hawaii has a westernized culture and is a small state in the American Union, whereas Turkey is Islamic and Middle Eastern and is huge in comparison with most EU states.   100 million people  is more than Deutschland (80 million)…so turkey would be the largest state peoplewise.  I don’t think it would be very wise to have a non-European state/culture being your largest state. it would be a sort of hypertrophy.  (good word to look up)  It is the EUROPEAN Union, afterall.  To compromise the European Union as a means to gaining leverage in the middle east is in my view rather short-sighted and not really in the Europeans’ interest.
As I see it, the primary reason for both the US and EU is to forestall war between the states within and to provide a defense against foreign threats.  I know the economic threats (and power) is though to be primary in the case of the EU, but I would go back to the speeches in the early 1950s by Jean Monnet and even Churchill on the primary need to avoid another world war sourced in Europe.  The early iron and coal cooperative between six states was geared to preventing Germany from re-militarizing primarily…economics being secondary.  The EEC was built onto this High Authority and the economic has been thought to be the dominant rationale.  Not to discount the benefits of a common market; the US has def benefited from one.  But I would argue that the EU’s mission is not primarily economic, but rather to prevent war within Europe.  This is why I think still more power should go to the EU, but not so much that it consolidates like another union that  I won’t mention.