Mixed messages for Turkey on EU membership

July 29, 2010 3:49pm
by Quentin Peel RedditLinkedInFacebookdeliciousMixxPropellerYahoo! BuzzstumbleuponTwitter', Assanka.$(this).parents('.falconpostactions'), '', 'Share', 530)" href="javascript:void(0)">Share
Poor old Turkey has been getting mixed messages from European governments again, after visits by Britain’s David Cameron and Germany’s foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, this week.
The UK prime minister was very outspoken in his support for Turkish membership of the European Union. “I will remain your strongest possible advocate for EU membership,” he said. “Together I want us to pave the road from Ankara to Brussels.”
It was familiar British policy, but spelt out with unusual passion, and very few cautionary words. Praising Turkey’s contributions as a Nato ally (no mention of Ankara’s tiresome blocking of Nato-EU co-operation on security issues), Mr Cameron declared: “It’s just wrong to say Turkey can guard the camp but not be allowed to sit inside the tent.”
Turkish media seized on some of the most flattering comments from Mr Cameron. “Our golden age” was the headline in the top-selling newspaper Hurriyet, while the Sabah daily blazoned its front page with “The EU would be poor without Turkey”.
Mr Westerwelle is also a strong supporter of Turkey’s EU membership, but he was much more cautious. He got into trouble with his coalition partners in Berlin in January, after he “gave his word” as foreign minister that Germany was not going to do anything to block Turkish accession. “I want to encourage you to carry on,” he said.
This time he changed the emphasis. Negotiations would still be fair and open, he insisted, but the outcome would not necessarily result in full membership. He talked of Germany’s great interest in having “such a strategically important partner … orientated on Europe”. In interviews before he left Berlin he talked of Turkey being “not ready” for membership, and of the EU being equally unprepared for Turkey.
In terms of realistic European politics, Mr Westerwelle was closer to the mark than Mr Cameron. He hammered home the message that Turkey still has much to do in terms of judicial reform and guaranteeing minority rights to qualify for EU membership. It is not a comfortable message, but it is necessary. Mr Westerwelle’s remarks got much less Turkish media attention than Mr Cameron’s.
Mr Cameron’s desire to please his hosts is in danger of arousing unrealistic expectations. Even in Britain, full Turkish membership of the EU cannot be taken for granted. The reality is that both in Turkey and across the EU, attitudes have cooled. Accession is a long-term prospect, not an early option.
The British prime minister has promised Conservative eurosceptics that any future treaty change in Europe affecting national sovereignty would be put to a national referendum. Turkish membership would inevitably fall into that category. Given the unpredictability of such popular votes, can Mr Cameron really be so confident of getting a Yes to Ankara’s accession from the British?
Both Mr Cameron and Mr Westerwelle are right that Turkey should be encouraged to join the EU। It would be of great strategic benefit to both. That does not mean it can be done. Europe’s politicians are going to have to do a huge sales job to persuade their own public opinion that it is a good idea. Making nice noises in Ankara won’t help. The real test will be with voters at home.

http://blogs।ft.com/brusselsblog/2010/07/mixed-messages-for-turkey-on-eu-membership/