Preface

The Power of Enlightenment

In the field of foreign policy interests are often more important than arguments for or against. There is in fact much to be said for the idea that one day Turkey may become a member of the European Union. But that is not very popular. And who wants to champion a cause which is bound to alienate voters instead of gaining their support? One man is actually prepared to go down this road. What Ruprecht Polenz has to say in this paper goes against public opinion and the basic tenets of his own party. A Christian Democrat and chairman of the German Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, he does a good service to democracy by adhering to Article 38 of the Basic Law, which states that members of parliament are “responsible only to their conscience.” Democracy is posited on an epistemological kind of dialogue, and this is at variance with the dictates of the party whip. If political parties determine in advance the line they intend to follow on a particular issue, this will merely lead to a clash of opposing views and not to a fruitful interchange of arguments. But the latter is absolutely essential if public opinion is to grow and develop instead of standing still. And that was the whole point of the Enlightenment.

Polenz places his trust in Enlightenment, for he believes that its immanent power will enable Turkey and the EU to make the right kind of progress. “When Turkey joins the EU, it will be a different country.” In the course of the protracted accession process, it will become living proof that Islam, democracy and the rule of law are not incompatible. Yet the process also presents the European Union with an opportunity, and this is “to develop an enlightened understanding of its identity.” After overcoming numerous ingrained prejudices, the Union, in the words of the EU Treaty, will at last be open to all European states which respect its values and are committed to promoting them together. The author interprets this as follows. “In the 21st century these values should be defined and construed in terms of their universal validity, as indeed they were by the Enlightenment and the French Revolution.”

In this essay Ruprecht Polenz models his thinking on the best French and Cartesian traditions of reason, and in a calm, sober and systematic manner he refutes one argument against Turkish membership after another. However, this book contains more than a mere list of pros and cons. Thus the author’s message and procedure are based on a forward-looking understanding of politics. It is the task of Europe in general and of Germany in particular to make a very specific contribution to the global society of the 21st century. “If Turkey were to become a member of the EU, it would make it clear to all the world that Europe does not want ‘a clash of civilizations.’”

Roger de Weck
Editor of the series “Standpunkte”

Better for Both of Them

There are people who are opposed to Turkish membership of the EU on principle. This plea for Turkish accession to the European Union is directed to them on the assumption that there is total compliance with the Copenhagen accession criteria, not only in theory, but in palpable practice.

I think there are two main reasons why some people are fundamentally opposed to the whole idea. First, whether one likes it or not, they will say, there is a cultural and above all a religious distinction, and this means that Turkey, when it is compared to “us,” the Europeans, is simply “different.” Secondly, they believe that after the accession of a country as large as Turkey the EU as a political union will no longer be in a position to take meaningful action.

And for those who consider Turkey to be “different” in an immutable and irreconcilable kind of way, the issue of EU membership tends to have something to do with their desire to keep Islam at arm’s length, since that is what they are really frightened of. Those who are against Turkish EU membership on principle and under all circumstances will certainly not be convinced by the progress that is being made to comply with the Copenhagen criteria.

The ensuing remarks are based on these fundamental objections, which are adduced in the form of “knock-out criteria,” and the auxiliary arguments which underpin them. They are followed by a glance at the state of the reforms in Turkey and the question of the extent to which they already fulfil the accession criteria.

The arguments against adherence to the goal of membership which are currently being rolled out in the course of the accession negotiations have shaken the reliability and credibility of the EU. In view of an accession history that reaches back a number of decades and the agreements that already form a link between the EU and Turkey, they are not enough to prompt the EU to depart from the basic principle of “pacta sunt servanda.”

There can be no doubt about the fact that the EU process is very advantageous for Turkey. It has had a stabilizing effect on the development of its democratic institutions and the rule of law, has strengthened its economy and enhanced its regional influence. And it is imparting meaning and direction to the reforms that are still required.

But a successful accession process also means that there will be significant opportunities as far as the EU is concerned. Turkish membership of the EU would lead to improved energy supply security and a greater ability on the part of the EU to exert its influence on neighbouring areas such as the Middle East, the Caucasus and the Black Sea region which are so important for our security. In addition to this the European economy would profit from a young and growing market. And above all EU membership for Turkey would demonstrate that the European model of the rule of law and democracy is also a distinct possibility as far as quite a few other countries with a Muslim population are concerned.

It is unclear whether Turkey will actually manage to get into the EU. And no one can predict how much time is still needed. Both depend primarily on Turkey itself. At the end of the day Turkey will be a different country. We should support and encourage it as it grapples with difficult reforms. Ultimately it is in our own interests to do so.

The Turkish Peril. A Historical Trauma

In the middle of Graz, which was the European capital of culture in 2003, stands the cathedral church of Saint Aegidius (St Giles). On its southern outer wall a fresco dating from 1485 depicts in a telling contemporary way “the three divine plagues:” locusts, the pest and the Turks.

The Turks as a “divine plague.” Probably not even the most bitter opponents of EU membership would go that far. But the historical trauma of the “Turkish peril” continues to resonate to this day.2 And the argument it leads to is as follows. The Ottoman Empire, which was Muslim, waged war unremittingly for about 450 years against Christian Europe. This, so the thinking goes, is deeply embedded in the collective memory of the European nations, and also in that of Turkey. Thus, as the historian Hans-Ulrich Wehler put it rather harshly almost ten years ago, there was “no reason why such an incarnation of enmity should be allowed to join the EU.”3

The fact that countless streets in Austrian and German towns are named after Prince Eugene of Savoy is a reminder of the historical battles against the Turks. It is probably not embedded in our collective memory that in 1683, at the siege of Vienna under Grand Vizier Kara Mustapha, Protestant Hungarians fought on the side of Turkish Muslims because there was greater tolerance under Islamic rule than under the Catholic Habsburgs.4 They were the “Kruzitürken” or Christian Turks, a term which continues to be an expletive in Alpine countries to this day.

When, more than three hundred years ago, the Ottoman Turks tried for a second time to conquer Vienna, the fear of the aggressor was understandable. From the 15th to the 17th centuries the Ottoman Empire had extended its grip on the Balkans right up to the borders of (modern) Austria. Its methods of government involved a certain amount of brutality, and the reports were adorned with numerous gory details, not infrequently for propaganda reasons and in order to mobilize resistance. Fear of the Turks always went hand in hand with fear of Islam, which, it was said, was spread with “fire and the sword.” Thus Turkish Muslims were considered to be devilish precursors of the Antichrist, who not only threatened the physical existence of Christians, but also their salvation, since they belonged to a wrong religion.5

Nowadays we are not quite as ignorant as that. Whilst it is true that Christians did not have the same rights as Muslims under the Ottoman Turks, they were able to practice their faith freely and enjoyed a kind of legal security that clearly surpassed what was available to Muslim and Jewish minorities in Christian Europe. The kind of tolerance which transcends the Islamic respect for other “religions of the book” and outstrips Islam in terms of religious freedom first came into being in western Europe in and after the 18th century.6 It emanated from the spirit of the Enlightenment in the shape of a secular kind of tolerance which was willing to concede the same degree of freedom to every faith. This pluralism had to overcome resistance from the churches and claims by certain Christian denominations that they were in possession of the absolute truth.

In the 16th century the Ottoman Empire became a permanent element in the European system of coalitions. For example, François I, the most Christian King, allied himself with the Turkish Sultan against the Holy Roman Emperor. On the other hand, during these 450 years the countries of “Christian Europe” were more or less continually at war with one another. Yet no one thinks that this constitutes an insurmountable obstacle for the creation of a common Europe.

Some people may still be willing to talk about “an incarnation of enmity,” but what does this tell us about modern Turkey’s EU membership prospects? After all, the essence of the European idea is to overcome old enmities and to create a permanent peaceful order in Europe. Even if debates about Turkey continue to be imbued with the memory of a historical trauma that subtly colours the judgment of prestigious historians, this is not something from which it is possible to derive a rational argument against allowing Turkey to join the EU.

But Turkey, people tend to say, is very different to Europe in cultural terms. A political union that bridges “cultural boundaries” has never been a success.7 Those who are of this opinion are unintentionally predicting a rather uncertain future for the EU as it is today, for there are in fact considerable cultural differences between Sweden and Bulgaria, and between Germany and Po-land.

Nowadays more than two dozen languages are spoken in the EU. So there can be no objection in principle against Turkish as yet another EU language. And incidentally, it is precisely the enormous cultural diversity which defines the wealth of Europe. It is due to the numerous European societal patterns and traditions, to the profusion of Europe’s customs and cuisines, and its different fashions, art forms and lifestyles. One does not have to be afraid of them. On the other hand, the notion of “cultural boundaries” suggests three things. First, that there is a large degree of homogeneity within cultural spaces. Second, that, for whatever reason, the various cultural spaces are very different. And, thirdly, that the differences cannot be overcome. Samuel Huntington thought that something of this kind was the reason for the “clash of civilizations.” His ideas clearly need to be criticized in the present context.

People who pigeonhole the global population on the basis of civilization or religion, as Indian Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen so convincingly demonstrates,8 arrive at a “solitaristic” interpretation of human identity, which tells us that people belong to one and only to one group. In the past nationality or class membership served as identity stamps of a similar kind.

This is a very dangerous way of looking at the facts. Those who assume that one can judge people or nations exclusively on the basis of their religion or civilization believe in the power of a single category which governs everything else. This way of thinking can turn the world into a powder keg. The idea that human identity is determined by membership of a class propagates class struggle just as much as undue emphasis on ethnic membership encourages racism. Inflated nationalism was and is often the reason for wars.

People who think that membership of a religion moulds a person’s identity in an exclusive and comprehensive manner are in the final analysis preparing the ground for confrontational thinking. As history tells us again and again, this simply exacerbates the conflicts which can emanate from the various faiths, notwithstanding the message of peace that the great global religions have always proclaimed. A culturalist approach always runs the danger of excluding people and of defining one’s own individual or collective identity primarily at the expense of “the other,” whose identity is perceived to be irreconcilable with one’s own. However, one’s identity as a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim is not necessarily of paramount importance, nor does it have to determine to the exclusion of all else how a person sees himself or wants to be seen.

Identity is not something that is fixed and immutable.9 Age, gender, stratum membership, nationality, religion, marital status, and profession are only some of the factors which can have an influence on our identities. And we are partly responsible for the extent to which they mould and shape us. Similarly, it is also up to us and our ability to engage in self-reflection to determine the extent to which we decide to adopt a pro-active approach to religious attitudes and habits, or whether we merely absorb the tenets of a religion in a passive manner. People develop within their religious mentalities and identities as a result of what they experience in daily life, or through conscious strife.10 “The hope for concord in the modern world,” says Amartya Sen, “rests to a large extent on a clearer understanding of our human identities and the realization that these overlap and thus contradict the notion of precise delimitation based on a single and insurmountable defining criterion.”11 We are different in a whole variety of ways.

The individual member states of the EU are not homogeneous in cultural terms, if indeed they ever were, and the EU as a whole with its 27 member states is certainly nothing of the sort. Our civilizations are acquiring more and more hybrid traits. Culture is not a homogeneous phenomenon. What some people consider to be a “unitary” culture turns out on closer inspection to possess a striking diversity. One notices dissenting voices which often come from within and not from without.12