| Turkish Accession
|
|
Mr. MacShane: I do not want to get into a historical debate, but clearly European countries' historical experiences in relation to Turkey differ. For Austria, it was only 1683 when the Turks were at the gates of Vienna. People might snort, but some of us can go through detailed descriptions of the politics of the battle of Boyne in the same decade, which even today have an impact on the politics of the British Isles. It is regrettable to mix legitimate concerns about the state of human rights in Turkey or appropriate questions Column Number: 10 about whether Turkey is defined as part of Europe or of Asia with an undercurrent of anti-Islamic or Islamophobic expression.Last week, I read an interview with a prominent southern German bishop in a German magazine. It was couched entirely in terms of, ''Turkey is a Muslim nation and the European Union is a Christian organisation, therefore the Turks should have a different relationship.'' The phrases ''privileged partnership'' or ''associate membership'' were used. Our Government fundamentally reject that view, as do a number of other Governments of left and right—there is no left-right split. We will have to work patiently, as I seek to do. I referred to my meeting with President Giscard d'Estaing in slightly shorthand terms, but it was a serious political debate: he stated his position, I stated mine and we disagreed. That is how we should debate Europe—on the basis of facts and genuine arguments, not from at times dangerous anti-Islamic positions, which I find unacceptable in modern European discourse. Mr. Walter: First, let me reassure the Minister that I know of a number of members of my party who have engaged with our centre-right colleagues in Europe on the subject of Turkish membership. I have put the case forcibly myself. Let me take the Minister on to a specific matter. This month, the EU has taken over from NATO responsibility for security in Bosnia. Turkey is supplying part of EUFOR—the EU force—but it has no locus within EU structures. Does the Minister think that at the Council meeting on 17 December we should try to give Turkey some sort of locus within the structure, perhaps using the interim stage of making it a full member of the Western European Union, which, for the time being, still represents the EU members of NATO? Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The Turkish army has contributed greatly to helping with security in other parts of the Balkans and we welcome its participation. There are Swiss army units with KFOR in Kosovo, even though Switzerland is nowhere near to NATO or EU membership. I do not want to suggest that the United Kingdom add to the agenda for discussion on 17 December in Brussels the matter of Turkey being associated in a formal way with EU military operations. The co-operation that we have at present via the structures through NATO is very good; it is practical and it works on the ground. I hope that in due course those arrangements will allow Turkish soldiers to be even more involved with European defence initiatives. The December Council meeting will not take decisions on that, but Turkey's full EU membership when it happens will offer endless opportunities for enhanced defence and security co-operation between EU member states and Turkey. Mr. Johnson: The Minister mentioned the possibility of Ukraine's accession to the European Union, unless I mistook what he was saying. What the opponents of Turkish membership will say in the next few months and years is that only a tiny proportion of Column Number: 11 Turkey is technically in Europe, while the bulk of its land mass is technically in Asia. What are the logical implications of accepting into the European Union a country that geographers have conventionally—and I think wrongly—defined as part of the Asian continent? What does the Minister for Europe think is the ultimate size and constituency of the European Union?Mr. MacShane: That is a very good question, although it is perhaps more for a seminar than for a parliamentary Committee. I consider the battle of Troy the first great battle in European history, and it took place, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, in what is today Turkey. The bulk of the Turkish coastline is on the Aegean sea; it has a Mediterranean coastline. Cyprus, an EU member state, lies to the east of most of Turkey. I argue constantly that in terms of the bulk of Turkey's population and where its economic energies lie, it is contiguous to what we have always considered historically as Europe—Black sea Europe, Bosphorus Europe, Mediterranean Europe. I am happy to debate the final outlines of Europe. General de Gaulle talked about a Europe stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals, which would comfortably encompass Turkey. He did not define a north and south, although we have the Mediterranean sea—mare nostrum, as I was taught to call it. Are all the Mediterranean littoral states connected to Europe directly through the sea? Many would argue that they are not and that they are part of the continent of Africa. General de Gaulle also talked about Ukraine, and I welcome the fact that there has again been a clear demonstration by a huge population in Europe in favour of their country getting closer to Europe and the European Union. Through the interventions of Javier Solana and President Kwasniewski, we have seen the enormous contribution made by a united Europe to a peaceful, democratic outcome in what is happening in Ukraine. There is no better advertisement for a strong European Union with a coherent common foreign policy than the events in Ukraine in the past few weeks. We are taking things one step at a time, and developing coherent policies to deal with countries around the new periphery of Europe. Clearly, that will include Ukraine, if we see an election outcome that makes it clear that a Ukrainian Government want to take Ukraine in a more westward European direction. I would not tangle things up with Turkey. I am nervous when people want to link country A with country B and country C. Turkey's membership bid stands on its own merits, which I think are extraordinary. I repeat that, having first visited Turkey 30 years ago, I believe that its progress over the past three or four years has been quite extraordinary. We should build on that and continue to help every Turkish friend to take their country further in the direction of meeting all the criteria, conditions, values and norms that are written into the existing treaty and will be written into the forthcoming treaty governing our relations in Europe. Column Number: 12 Mr. Hopkins: May I change the subject somewhat, and ask my hon. Friend to comment on the paragraph on page 8 relating to agriculture? It includes this comment:
Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, but I think that he slightly muddles two issues. I cannot comment on the impact that Turkey joining the EU at some future and as yet undefined date would have on existing CAP regimes. As hon. Members know, the share of the EU budget that the CAP payments take up is progressing downward to 2013. It is not for me to say that Turkey will not be in the EU before 2013, but for the sake of argument, let us assume that that is likely. We would have to devise serious new ways of handling agriculture after that year, and whether the right way would be full repatriation is a perfectly good subject for debate. To adopt such an approach at the moment we would need the consent of 24 other countries. If we did so unilaterally, as I believe the Liberal Democrats argue we should in their publication ''The Orange Book'', we would of course be in unilateral breach of a solemn treaty, and we would expose ourselves either to huge European Court of Justice fines or to taking the full consequences of quitting the EU. The advancing of such a policy by the Liberal Democrats, who are absent, shows the height of their irresponsible approach to Europe. No other sane or sensible party would dare to make such foolish or reckless suggestions. David Cairns: The SNP does. Mr. MacShane: Ah, the Scottish National party. Well, I did refer to sane, intelligent or sensible parties. We will have, if I may be permitted a bit of EU jargon, one full financial perspective—a lengthy seven-year budget—to go through before there will be any question of working out how we could integrate Turkey into EU spending. At present, that is all that I can say to the Committee about that matter. Hon. Members have made serious and fair points, but I again respectfully suggest that we should not use the Turkey debate to instrumentalise other current problems and discussions that we are having in Europe. I gave the Conservative spokesman on Europe my solemn assurance that I would not say in this debate that the Turks want in and that the Tories want out, because it is inappropriate to make such remarks in a civilised and friendly debate. If we focus on how we can help Turkey, that will guide us all through the next few weeks and, in due course, the next few years. Column Number: 13 Mr. Brady: Will the Minister elaborate on the extent to which he believes that economic convergence between Turkey and the existing EU member states is important in the process? Does he believe that there is a measurable, identifiable criterion that might usefully be employed to see the point at which the economy of Turkey would become a reasonable fit for the EU? That criterion could perhaps be a percentage of the average gross domestic product or some other measure that he might have in mind.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 7 December 2004 |
