Faisal Sanai, faisalsanai@hotmail.com
When European Union leaders inked their constitution in October last year, they were certainly anticipating problems. The potential for such though, was expected from prevailing euroskeptics like Denmark and Britain.
As a result there was a general foreboding and, to some extent contingency plans of possible expulsion, for such naysayers. But when French voters delivered a ‘non’, and that too with an unexpected 55 percent of the vote, and the Dutch followed up with a withering 62 percent ‘nee’, there is now a gathering panic within the hallways of the European Parliament.
Ever since the Treaty of European Union in 1992, the ideological goal of the federalists has been one of political union along the lines of the American superstate. The European constitution was to be the crowning pinnacle of this process by consolidating economic gains with political integration. The legalities of the constitution dictate that all 25 member states should ratify it before it comes into effect. As is now obvious this process has run into increasingly challenging obstacles.
France is one of the founding members of the EU and has long been classed as a “uniter” rather than a skeptic. Such was the importance of the constitutional treaty that it was recently described as being the launchpad for France’s ultimate political creation. The resoluteness of the French ‘no’ then will have far-reaching implications for any further European integration. Solutions will be sought. The document drawn up last year was a carefully crafted compromise between differing positions of the member states. At present the available options are only two — a second vote that offers revisions to the original charter or outright expulsion for the dissenters. Although, the Netherlands has been a founding member of this process, it is still possible to envisage an EU without this small, low profile country. The same cannot be said for France. The newly elected European Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, described France as one of Europe’s “indispensable” countries. It is far too much of a political heavyweight, more so than Britain, and too strategically located to be left out of the Union. A second vote there must be and this would only transpire if some (if not most) of the concerns have been redressed.
Much of the struggle between rival positions in the lead-up to the French and Dutch referendums straddled along the question of Turkey’s membership. Despite the 10 percent Muslim population in France and the 6 percent in the Netherlands, there is a lingering xenophobia that plagues these countries. The European Union has been regularly projected as a threat to French nationhood and this ultimately devolved into a racist, anti-Islamic campaign against Turkey’s admission into the EU. A poll published in March in the French daily, Le Figaro revealed that 56 percent of the voters aligned with the ‘no’ bloc were doing so primarily out of anxiety over Turkey’s eventual membership.
However, there was a greater measure to the ‘no’ campaign. This involved popular fears about the effects of “free market” economic policies embodied within the constitution. Also, the matter of handing over French foreign policy control to a centralized superstate is scorned by nationalistic voters of this country. Loss of sovereignty and national identity are issues that most Europeans are as yet unwilling to compromise on.
Member nations are already looking at various solutions to neutralize French and Dutch misgivings in one compromise offer. Basic amendments to the core of the charter are unlikely as this would open a Pandora’s Box of egoistic agendas by different countries. Therefore, only those concessions can be made that do not offend the political or economic treatise of the constitution. The easiest compromise would be to isolate the least common multiple among the issues that impede the integration process. This, unfortunately, seems to be Turkey’s membership bid.
The decision to open negotiations with Turkey this October was a difficult one for the European leaders. Concerns lingered over the country’s economic status, poor human rights record and the slow pace of reforms. In reality though, Turkey’s overwhelming Muslim populations dwarfing that of most existing members, housed greater undercurrents against the bid than what was apparent on the diplomatic surface. As such, European leaders are likely to follow the path of least resistance leading all the way up to Ankara’s doorstep. There are again fresh rumors of European unhappiness over the momentum of Turkey’s reforms. It seems that the stage is being set for a sacrificial lamb. One assumes that when European leaders meet on June 16 a freeze of membership talks with Ankara, or more likely a deliberate protraction, will be the atonement offered in place of other constraints that they must yet abide by.
Moreover, for the unfortunate Turks there are winds of change within Europe that are not exactly blowing to their advantage. The newly announced French Cabinet fields Nicolas Sarkozy, a determined opponent of Turkish entry into the EU. Worse still, the popular Sarkozy with his unfavorable Muslim views is a strong contender for the French leadership.
Other aspects are also emerging, this time on the German political scene. The recent loss of regional electoral seats by Chancellor Schroeder’s ruling party indicates that the opposition Christian Democrats will likely take power in this autumn’s general elections.
Last December, the arguments favoring this Muslim country’s entry into the EU looked just too strong. Despite sustained opposition from the likes of Cyprus, Austria and the Netherlands during the December summit there was eventual agreement into allowing this Muslim nation into what has been referred to as a Christian club. It has been a struggle for Turkey to reach this stage of membership proceedings. While it was made plain that the negotiation process was open-ended, usually lasting 10 to 15 years, the impatient Turks are unlikely to accept any further delays beyond the accepted norm.
History is still on the side of the Turks. No country that has begun membership talks has ever been rejected by the EU before. But can Ankara derive comfort from past sureties while dealing with the travails of an uncertain future? Back home, the Turks themselves seem to have sensed the change in the equation. Prime Minister Recep Erdogan tried to placate his people by saying that “the [French] vote is not about Turkey”. Whether the vote was about it or not, it seems likely that Turkey could become an unfortunate victim of the French referendum.