Originally Posted by Poor Student
Quote
We have to allow Turkey entry - morally, economically, for security reasons, on humanitarian grounds, etc etc. Vincent Browne wrote a very good piece in the Business Post. It's no coincidence that it's the far right in France, Austria and Germany who are against Turkish entry.
KOH
http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/s...499-qqqx=1.asp
Turkey must be allowed to enter Europe
02 October 2005 By Vincent Browne
As of now, the chances of success are slim. The consequences of failure are serious, serious for relations between the west and the Islamic world and serious for the European Union itself. The suggestion that Turkey is not really part of Europe is disingenuous. It has suited the west to regard Turkey as part of Europe until now, and it would be hypocritical to do an about face.
Turkey became a member of the North American-European military alliance, NATO, in 1952. It has been a member of the Council of Europe since its foundation in 1949. It has been an associate member of the Western European Union since 1992. In September 1963, an agreement was signed to take Turkey into a Customs Union with the EEC (as it was then), and eventual membership of the European Community. Turkey applied for full EU membership in 1987, and the European Commission endorsed its eligibility for membership in 1989. In December 1999, in Helsinki, the EU Council voted to accord Turkey candidate status with the EU.
Since then, Turkey has jumped through countless hoops constructed by the EU to qualify it for EU membership. In September 2001, the Turkish parliament a d o p t e d 3 0 amendments to the country's constitution to meet the criteria for membership. In August 2002, it passed sweeping reforms to meet the demands on human rights fronts. In January 2004, it banned the death penalty. On 1 July last a new penal code came into effect to enable Turkey to meet further EU demands.
So any claim now that Turkey is not really eligible for EU membership because it is not European and fails to meet human rights criteria won't wash. It was sufficiently European for it to be part of a European mi l itary al l iance, sufficiently European to be a member of the Council of Europe, sufficiently European to be required to meet the quite reasonable conditions for membership of the European Union.
The objections to Turkish membership are summed up in the racist slogan: “too big, too poor, too Muslim'‘. At present, Turkey has a population of around 72 million. Within the EU, only Germany has a larger population. But by the projected accession date for Turkey, 2015, its population is projected to be 82 million, while Germany's population will be around 80 million. On the poverty front, Turkey is racing ahead economically and while it is currently by far the poorest region in what would constitute a further enlarged Europe, its per capita income by 2015 is projected to equal what will be the average per capita income of the 10 most recent accession states.
As for the religion element, the argument is that the incorporation of a huge Muslim population into ‘Christian' Europe would change the ethos of the EU profoundly. But Europe already has a significant Muslim population, the claim that modern Europe is “profoundly'‘ Christian is farfetched - and anyway, so what? Islam was a hugely civilising force in Spain when the Moors dominated a large part of Spain from the 8th century to 1492.TheMuslim influence in Spain helped enlighten Europe and rescue it from the dark ages. It was a vibrant, culturally rich and tolerant civilisation, quite unlike the barbaric Christian “civilisations'‘ that followed.
Islam is nowadays regarded as violent, intolerant, and regressive. That is the manifestation of a sectarian element of the Islamic world but not at all representative of the core of Islam. An influence of Islamic culture into the heart of Europe again might perhaps civilize the crassness of much of the new Europe (by which I do not mean the Donald Rumsfeld-approved “new Europe'‘).
But there are problems, and they primarily centre around the bigotry, intolerance and racism of much of modern Europe.
The French, Danes, Dutch and Austrians have been promised referenda on the issue of Turkish accession to the European Union. Such promises were never made previously during the accession of any other states, and are a concession to fascist elements in those states. If even one of the states votes against Turkish entry, that is that.
Although any such referenda may be years away, the drift of sentiment in Europe is such as to suggest that there is little hope that Turkey can join. At present, three-quarters of the French are against Turkish entry, 53 per cent of the Dutch are also against it, and 80 per cent of the Austrians oppose it.
The worst of all possible outcomes - and the outcome now most probable - is that negotiations will be successful, Turkey will meet all the criteria for entry, including resolution of the Cyprus problem, full compliance with human rights and democratic demands, agreement on transition arrangements for the free movement of Turks throughout the EU and all that, to be followed by rejection in one or more of the four referenda.
What message will that send to the Islamic world generally? What message will it give to the Islamic populations within the European Union already, in Britain, France, Germany a n d Au s t r i a i n particular? And do the bigots in Europe care a jot? You've guessed it.
And for the European Union itself, what will be the consequences? A major breach on the most crucial issue to come before it in its history. So tomorrow there begins perhaps the most critical phase not just in the EU's lifetime, but in modern Western Islamic relations. We have the means of realising the clash of civilisations, or the means of defusing it - and the signs, for now, are that we will ignite it.
I haven't forgiven them for inspiring the Sound of Music 
Bookmarks