| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| France: Painted into Its Own EU Corner? |
| 2004-07-02 |
| French President Jacques Chirac slammed the Bush administration June 28 for intervening in European foreign policy after Bush said that Turkey should be allowed into the European Union. France has painted itself into a corner, and Chirac’s reaction illustrates its fear of losing influence within the EU. While in Istanbul on June 27, U.S. President George W. Bush supported a long-term goal of his Turkish hosts, saying, "I will remind the people of this good country that you ought to be given a date by the EU for your eventual acceptance into the EU." The next day, French President Jacques Chirac sharply criticized the Bush statement, saying the U.S. president had "ventured into territory that was not his concern ... and it would be like me telling the United States how to run its affairs with Mexico." It is not difficult to understand the French reaction. France sees the European Union as a platform upon which it can stand and hold onto a global role much more powerful than it would otherwise possess. Unfortunately for Paris, that has not been the way things have worked out recently. Most of the rest of Europe -- Germany and Belgium excepted -- views French power with even more trepidation than they do U.S. power. After all, the United States is Europe’s security guarantor, and U.S. bullying does not affect them much at all at home. French control, in contrast, deeply affects every national decision they make. France is a founding member of the European Union; the United States does not belong to the EU -- and it is in a different hemisphere. The states of Central Europe -- only 15 years out of the Soviet bloc -- are doubly concerned about another country’s calling the shots for them. Seven of these states joined the EU on May 1, and all have sided with countries such as Denmark and the United Kingdom against France on issues of how strong or -- in their minds -- how weak the European Union’s central institutions should be. Turkey is in a similar situation. Like the Central European states, Turkey wants access to the EU for economic purposes. Most of its trade is with Europe, and it would much rather link its infrastructure (and its future) to Europe than to the former Soviet Union or the Middle East. This does not, however, mean that Turkey wants to be swallowed up by a European entity that speaks for the French and not for the Turks. In fact, much to Turkey’s glee -- and that of several EU members -- this battle has already been won. In the draft constitution agreed to in June, the Europeans went with the least restrictive language possible, ensuring national sovereignty and adopting a voting structure that would allow the rest of Europe to easily overrule French ambitions. Add the fact that Turkey already has about 10 million more people than France and three times France’s population growth rate -- and that Europe’s new decision-making process is loosely based on population -- and it is no surprise that Chirac’s Union for a Popular Movement party strongly opposes Turkish entry into the EU. A Turkey in Europe would further upset decades of Paris’ well-laid plans. Consequently, the EU is shaping up to be a massive -- if sophisticated -- free-trade zone, not a superstate. This has already shown up in EU "foreign policy." In 2003, the Iraqi war split the EU down the middle with most members and prospective members lining up to oppose French attempts to make EU war policy its own. With Turkey in the European club, the French would have an even harder time achieving what is fast becoming an unattainable goal: a Europe for the French. For France this means not only the end of a dream, but also the beginning of a nightmare. France has failed to make the rest of the European states its partners -- with the possible exception of Belgium and Germany -- and it is now bound into an arrangement that will impinge upon its own movement. The United States has noticed, and the United States and France know full well that adding Turkey to the mix would only compound Paris’s newfound problem. All of this meshes perfectly with Washington’s geopolitics. A Europe that is a massive economic power is one whose interests are broadly aligned with those of the United States. A Europe that has strong respect for national sovereignty is one that can never become a unified political entity capable of challenging the United States regionally -- much less globally. All the more reason for the Bush administration to push formally for Turkish acceptance. And all the more reason for Chirac to hate -- and fear -- the idea. |
| Posted by:Gromky |
| #40 I think Bush is shrewd enough to take advantage of the internal friction between Turkey, the EU countries and the expatriot Turk population especially in Germany. He makes what looks like a reasonble demand, but which in reality cannot be given - sort of like the demands of France and Germany on the US for a firm date for the withdrawal of US troops. Both will happen when their respective situations are stable enough. Funny thing is that the French are whining loudly when they are put in the same spot, and yet they are not held to the same accountability as the Bush administration. Goes to show the 2-faced press - and the lack of consistency in French foreign policy. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-07-02 9:59:46 PM |
| #39 Frank G> Tell me, do you think that Bush hates Turkey and that's why he wants it be part of such an abomination? Wouldn't that be a backstabbing duplicitous betrayal and stuff? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-02 7:48:53 PM |
| #38 SgtDT , Ouch! LH - I don't know why you always qualify your criticism of teh EU to placate Aris. I'll say upfront I think the EU is an abomination, a Hillary-Care on the National level. Wait til they start having things cut "for the common good" as established by an arrogant unelected bureaucracy. Maybe I can make some money in a couple years selling hanging rope |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-02 7:35:48 PM |
| #37 Did someone say the symbol of France was a Crowing Cock? I thought it was a limp one. |
| Posted by: Sgt.DT 2004-07-02 6:46:10 PM |
| #36 I read Hackett too at the time (wasn't the book called "The Final Decade"?), but disagreed with his "optimistic" view that after the explosion of a a few nukes WW3 would have stopped. The automatism of nuclear escalation would probably not have allowed this: Send one missile, send all missiles (and die second). Re Turkey: George Bush is certainly entitled to his opinion but he should be careful here as this is really an European issue (not because Chirac says so but because it is). And it's really premature to talk about Turkey's admission to the EU: they have a long way to go. The EU badly needs a consolidating period: the 2007 admissions of Romania and Bulgaria will be difficult enough. This is not a religious issue, it's an issue about where Europe ends. Turkey is not an European country despite having 10 percent of its territory on the European continent (if there is such a thing). Ukraine or Bielorussia have more claims to be admitted than Turkey and Russia is, by history and culture, certainly more "European" despite having the largest part of its territory in Asia. Where on earth do we want to stop? Georgia, Armenia anyone? The USA might have an interest in an uncontrolled enlargement of the EU: It would simply overstretch Europe and weaken it politically and economically, because nearly all new members have weaker economies than EU average. Look what the German reunification did to the economic powerhouse of Europe. But maybe you should not wish for it anyway, because this move could indeed lead to "Eurabia". Once you have Turkey, why not go further? EU plus the oil? Americans might not like it too much. I'm in favor of not shutting the doors in the face of the Turks. Priorities may change, Europe may change, Turkey may change over the next 10 or 15 years and we need to reassess the issue all the time. But the "stabilization" of Turkey can't take priority over the stability of the EU. And I'm afraid Aris is right about the fact that this is not about "giving Turkey a date for eventual acceptance". Of course opening talks does send a message, too. Btw the country most affected by all this is not France but Germany. As for Bush: This is just scoring some points with the Turks that don't cost him a dime. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-07-02 6:44:41 PM |
| #35 Yep - that warning was about Africa and how in the absence of "Superwpoer" involvement it would devolve into tribalism and mass conflict. Sort like now in Sudan, Nigeria, Rwanda, .... But what I was thinking of (maybe faulty memory) there were 3 different types of citizenship: national, local and working. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-07-02 6:19:57 PM |
| #34 OldSpook it was a fine read. I recall a warning about the bazillion dollars worth of cheap and now surplus weapons.... |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-07-02 6:08:40 PM |
| #33 Trying to steer this back on topic... Anyone read General Sir John Hackett's book "The Third World War"? (FYI he commanded the 4th Paras at Arnhem in Market Garden in WW2). Its pretty dated, now that the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pactare dead and Communism is on the ash-heap of history. (Was a great read in its time - and a warning thankfully heeded by Reagan and Thatcher). But the *END* of the book about the reconstruction and reintegration of Europe - thats the good part - look at the structure he proposed for Europe, politically and economically. Doesnt that look *very* prescient in light of where the EU seems to be evolving? |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-07-02 5:51:39 PM |
| #32 a PC anti-Islam/anti-non-Western European culture mindset that was blowing Turkey's entry? A *non*-PC anti-Islam culture mindset I think you mean. Isn't A mindset obviously non-PC when the society in question isn't willing to call it as it is? The way 5089 described it? And though there doesn't exist one only reason for denying entry to Turkey, there certainly exist worries about Islam in Europe. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-02 5:37:45 PM |
| #31 Yes, I think that most of the non-expressed concerns about Turkey are islam-related, with some reason, I might add. I must confess I am quite uneasy about Turkey, and in my uninformed, biased view, it should never enter the UE. What's even more frightening is that some circles (the influential Ifri think tank, or the french socialist Strauss Khan) envisage an UE expansion to the south, with Maghreb countries. |
| Posted by: Anonymous5089 2004-07-02 4:36:23 PM |
| #30 So, 5089, President Bush was right, eh, when he said it was a PC anti-Islam/anti-non-Western European culture mindset that was blowing Turkey's entry? And if as you say, it's not PC to talk about it in the national conversation of EU countries, it never got discussed in meaningful terms in the past. I love President Bush! |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-07-02 4:09:49 PM |
| #29 As a sidenote, Turkey entry into the EU was one of the few points that were actually debated here in France during the european elections campaign, in a very vivid way; as it was speculated by pundits, this was due to the fact that a debate on "french" islam is verboten because of PC (you're labelled an islamophobe), and thus speaking about the place of Turkey (islam) in Europe was a concealed way of speaking about the place of islam in France. Popular sentiment here is overally against its admission. Interesting fact: if the presidential party, the UMP is opposed to turkey entry, Chirac is personally *for* it (he said it at various occasion, before turning his coat for fear of alenating public opinion), which make his GWB rebuke even more weasily. |
| Posted by: Anonymous5089 2004-07-02 3:49:18 PM |
| #28 Barbara - Aris didnt start a flame war. He posted an opinion - one that we may disagree with, but it was relevant to the topic at hand. Someone else then launched an ad hominen in him. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-02 3:38:22 PM |
| #27 If you two are going to have a flame war, kindly fork over some extra loot to Fred for bandwidth. Back on topic, I'm with Steve White; Turkey is welcome to join NAFTA. Britain should join us also, and leave the Tranzis to ruin the Continent. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-07-02 3:33:49 PM |
| #26 yawn |
| Posted by: boredbytheharpi 2004-07-02 3:08:53 PM |
| #25 Jen> This article says that Turkey's entry into the EU is going to happen, despite *your* protestations. LOL! Do you have any idea how much of a moron you sound like? You don't even know what membership requires and you say that it's "going to happen"? Oh, *sure* it's gonna happen. Sure. It's just not going to happen any time this decade. It's just not going to happen as long as Cyprus remains divided, or as long as the constitution isn't ratified, or as long as Turkey has human rights issues. When all the above occurs, I won't have any "protestations". I will support Turkey's entry wholeheartedly. And even after (and *if*) all that is over, there's the issue of French/German/whatever objections. Absolute unanimity is required for membership, Jen-Bitch. And when President Bush speaks, people listen. And in this case they listened that he was an idiot and felt embarrassed on his behalf, since at the very most EU will give a date for beginning of negotiations, not a date for eventual acceptance into the Union. Unlike what he said. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-02 2:29:45 PM |
| #24 Sure, whatever, Katsy. This article says that Turkey's entry into the EU is going to happen, despite *your* protestations. And when President Bush speaks, people listen. So, suck it up and try not to restart the Pelopenesian Wars. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-07-02 2:14:38 PM |
| #23 It's clear that the English isn't your real problem, it's that habit you have of getting blasted on ouzo then standing out in the noonday sun. Actually I've not even tasted ouzo. Not once in my life. I've not fucked any goats either, for that matter. But that's where your stereotypes get you: A sad little girl that hijacks threads to insult people and make no contribution whatsoever and then is furious that other people would name her first in a list of flame-war participants, as if she *gasp* is actually to blame for any of them. Oh no. Never she. I *mind-forced* her to come into this thread and insult me, the same way that the EU has mind-forced all those unhappy European peoples and nations to enter it. Btw Jen, you are a bit disconnected with the content of this thread -- in this thread it's *me* who says that EU shouldn't mind-control Turkey to enter it, and others who claim that this poor unhappy and unwilling nation should be made to become a part of us. no matter how many European nations and EU citizens are unhappy with it. Checking out the referendums and polls that's "one". Nation, that is. But you'll believe what you believe. It's clear that I'm not your real problem, reality is your real problem. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-02 2:03:27 PM |
| #22 Yeah, it's cool, Aris. It's clear that the English isn't your real problem, it's that habit you have of getting blasted on ouzo then standing out in the noonday sun. And if you're on a thread, the subject of hijacking it now becomes moot, particularly on an EU thread where you will invariably babble about how a unified, federalist and Franco-centric EU is beneficent (to Greece) and mandatory to you as a person, no matter how many European nations and EU citizens are unhappy with it. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-07-02 1:52:47 PM |
| #21 Its cool Aris - i get real confused to understand Greek documents :) Just kidding - I know the Greek alphabet, kinda, sorta, but dont know the language other than the occasional root thats important in English. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-02 1:41:11 PM |
| #20 LOL at #18 |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-02 1:38:22 PM |
| #19 So if Turkey has three time the population growth of France and France has a negative population growth rate, does that mean Turkey's population is shrinking three times more quickly? Sorry. I just always get hung up over that algebra thing... |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-07-02 1:33:17 PM |
| #18 Who's trying to hijack the thread now, Miss Bitch? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-02 1:31:42 PM |
| #17 "I made the mistake of falling into the habit of only downloading the English versions, and it seems there occasionally were words I thought I understood but in reality I didn't." This pretty much sums up your entire body of work here, doesn't it, Mr. Asterisk? |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-07-02 1:27:26 PM |
| #16 Last post was in response to #12. In response to #13: Yeah, that was my mistake -- I had treated "municipal" as identical to "local", and thus thought that, in the context of the EU, this had meant national elections. My bad. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-02 1:26:40 PM |
| #15 Nah, I'm pretty sure you are correct. I made the mistake of falling into the habit of only downloading the English versions, and it seems there occasionally were words I thought I understood but in reality I didn't. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-02 1:23:37 PM |
| #14 France has failed to make the rest of the European states its partners... Subordinates is misspelled. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-07-02 1:22:57 PM |
| #13 oops - i meant LOCAL could mean national in an EU context. Municipal couldnt. Municipal in English is alway a reference to city, county, district governments NOT national govt. The Brits tend to say "local authorities" while we Yanks say Municipal or City or local govt - i think thats a heritage of victorian times, when UK tended to have diverse local bodies dealing with different matters, but no effective general local body, while US fairly early had Mayor run general local govts in major cities. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-02 1:20:54 PM |
| #12 In the US it normally does, but I suppose in the EU context it COULD mean national expert. EU Constitutional text interpretation is pretty low on my list of expertises:) |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-02 1:11:17 PM |
| #11 Ah, municipal means local, as opposed to national? I had misunderstood that word then. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-02 1:06:16 PM |
| #10 b) the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence under the same conditions as nationals of that State; Local and EP, but not national elections, then. As for vetoes, i shouldnt have gotten started on that, as the EU governance thing is complex, and i dont think anyone is calling for retaining the status quo. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-02 12:58:46 PM |
| #9 Re Turks in Germany - IIUC they couldnt vote, just as a Greek who moves to the UK cant vote. I think that it's with the new constitution that this happens. Article I-8 As for the national vetoes, they were an acceptable thing in a union of 6, perhaps even 10. At 12 it became more tricky, 15 even trickier, 25 extremely hard, and at 33 it will be impossible. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-02 12:55:23 PM |
| #8 aris IIRC, when germany pushed for entry of eastern europeans, France wanted more focus on the med in general, and even on North Africa - not that any one state was ready, but to focus energy on getting them into position. Once again, Im not an EU basher. The EU does do some good. There may be a contradiction others here have, but I do not. OTOH, while I see the EU doing good, I do think that there are elements in the govt of France that see it as a counterweight to the US, and i do see that as a negative trend. From the US point of view I think its best to have the UK IN the EU, allied with the Eastern Europeans to keep the EU doing what it should be doing. I also would like to see the EU remain primarily an economic entity, with nations retaining their individual foreign policies. And I dont see that the benefits of integrating Turkey into the EU are harmed by the existence of national vetoes. The EU did a good thing in integrating Spain, Portugal and yes, Greece into europe - national vetoes existed when that happened. Re Turks in Germany - IIUC they couldnt vote, just as a Greek who moves to the UK cant vote. But a Turk could move freely for a job, just as Greeks, Spanish, etc have done so. And as Poles, Slovaks etc will soon be able to do so (there are some temporary limits, but that could be applied to Turkey as well) |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-02 12:36:48 PM |
| #7 Yank> I believe that, if Turkey enters the EU, there won't be much of a meaningful difference between a Turk living permanently in Germany, and a German citizen. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-02 12:26:03 PM |
| #6 Question, If Turkey were admitted to the EU, would that mean European businesses building manufacturing in Turkey to take advantage of cheap labor? Would that mean Turks moving from Germany back to Turkey? Or would the Turks stay in Germany because despite being unable to become citizens they like the benefits and lifestyle in Germany? |
| Posted by: Yank 2004-07-02 12:12:32 PM |
| #5 I agree with Aris: Turkey should not join the EU. It should join NAFTA. Heh. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-07-02 11:43:25 AM |
| #4 Liberalhawk> I've never heard of France asking Tunisia (or any other Arabic nation) to be admitted into the EU. turkey needs entry to the EU because stabilizing Turkey and pushing economic growth into that region is of importance to GLOBAL security But I thought that the EU has neither done nor can do anything good for the world? I thought that EU expansion isn't actually helping do anything in favour of the strengthening of democracy and freedom in the region? I thought that the EU was *useless*?? Oh, my. Yeah, Turkey's entry into the EU will help all these stuff you mentioned. But Turkey is not ready for the EU, and the EU is not ready for Turkey, therefore that question is unfortunately *moot*. If you want all these stuff that Turkish entry into the EU will bring for Global Security, then people ought to support the kind of things that would make such entry feasible. Things which, among others, include e.g. the ratification of the European constitution, and the letting go of the national vetoes. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-02 10:31:06 AM |
| #3 aris, since im one of the people who doesnt bash muslims, can i be excused from the flexible memory group? turkey needs entry to the EU because stabilizing Turkey and pushing economic growth into that region is of importance to GLOBAL security. As for Turkish cultural issues, why do I think that were it a matter of a French ally, like Tunisia, France wouldnt have the same issues? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-02 10:18:07 AM |
| #2 Turkey should be made part of the EU quickly just for the economic stabilization effects. That's a reason for Turkey to *want* to be part of the EU, but not a sufficient reason for EU to make it such. Do you even *begin* to understand what membership entails? --- As a sidenote I'm amazed at how often people notice all the articles indicating Turkey as still not sufficiently advanced to be considered fully a part of secular democratic Europe.... (for example a recent article about marriages offered to rapists as an option, only now getting outlawed in Turkey) ...and then people go ahead and nonetheless say that it should be given such treatment, as if it was a fully democratic and modern secular nation. Usually such articles are remembered whenever people want to bash all Muslims, then prompty forgotten whenever people want to bash the EU. It's convenient to have such a flexible memory as that. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-02 10:11:35 AM |
| #1 Chirac acts like acting student doing a bad impersonation of Maurice Chevalier. It's no wonder that the emblem of France is a crowing cock. In any event, Turkey should be made part of the EU quickly just for the economic stabilization effects. Chirac's objection is probably rooted in the size of the requisite bribe. If Erdogan puts a few more euros in Jacques' Swiss account then the deal will go through. |
| Posted by: Random thoughts 2004-07-02 9:57:10 AM |