The EU, whose 25 members represent around 456 million citizens, is the biggest and boldest experiment in multilateral governance ever undertaken. Built from the ashes of war, our union is a force for peace and cooperation in a world of growing insecurity and polarity. Now the European Commission has embraced the boldest test yet, by judging Turkey to be ready to start EU accession negotiations.
Having successfully integrated ten new members in May, including eight less-developed former communist countries, some argue that the EU should stop there. But drawing a line under the enlargement process would be both a missed opportunity for the EU and a cruel blow for those countries in the Balkans and elsewhere, for whom the prospect of membership is an important incentive for reform and renewal.
Indeed, the new postcommunist members have shown that EU membership enables countries to overcome conflicts and to make a smoother, faster transition to stable democracy and a market economy. We ought to feel proud, not threatened, that countries aspire to join our community of values. The EU's new borders must not create new dividing lines separating rich from poor, democracy from dictatorship, and stability from conflict.
Greece knows this very well. It was our belief in Europe as a catalyst for peace and prosperity that led us to reconciliation with Turkey and our support for its EU aspirations. When the Greek government launched its policy of Greek-Turkish rapprochement during my tenure as foreign minister, our political opponents attacked us for "compromising" national interests. Many people were suspicious of mending ties with an old enemy. Changing entrenched attitudes could not happen overnight: it required a step-by-step process of confidence-building measures, from the grassroots level to the heights of political power.
Five years on, the results speak for themselves. Greece and Turkey have signed dozens of mutually beneficial agreements in areas ranging from trade and energy to environmental protection and the fight against organized crime. There is no denying that strong bilateral ties are good for Greece's economy and security. But our proactive policy of rapprochement was not designed simply to serve national interests. It was part of a regional vision to promote stability in our neighborhood, from the Balkans to the Middle East.
As a result, Greece and Turkey cooperated in humanitarian efforts in Kosovo and undertook a joint mission to defuse the crisis in Israel and Palestine. The strategic alliance between Greece and Turkey helped prevent violence in Iraq from spilling over into neighboring countries, and created the framework for closer relations between Turkey and the EU.
The domestic reforms that have been implemented as a result of Turkey's enhanced "accession partnership" with the EU have been remarkably swift and far-reaching. But there is still a long way to go, and the start of accession negotiations is only the beginning of a political process that will take years.
Turkey's record on human and minority rights and the inordinate power of the military are the biggest obstacles to membership. Clear benchmarks and targets set by the EU will encourage Turkey to press ahead with reforms in these areas. That is why Greece advocated real, not "virtual," candidacy for Turkey, with full rights but also with full responsibilities.
It is now up to Turkey's governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) to fulfill those responsibilities. The AKP was elected on a pro-European platform, reflecting the public's demand for modernization and democratization. But Turks are all too aware of the passions that their country's candidacy stokes in Europe. Several EU leaders have claimed that Turkish membership would spark a wave of migration and strain the European economy. Others simply see no place for a Muslim country in Europe.
Neither of these objections is persuasive. Turkey and the EU have a long track record of addressing common issues of concern and reaching mutually beneficial solutions. If properly managed, migration can enhance Europe's cultural wealth and meet its labor market needs, as fertility rates in the EU fall and its population ages. Immigrants come to Europe in large measure because Europe needs them.
At the same time, to deny Turkey a European future on religious grounds is to deny our union's existing diversity. Democracy is a universal value, not the property of specific religions. As a Greek who has known both dictatorship and democracy in my life, I know that this is not only racist, but invalid.
Welcoming a country that shares our democratic values, respect for human rights, and commitment to the rule of law, irrespective of its ethnic or religious background, will send a positive signal to the Muslim world. It will allay the growing tensions between Christianity and Islam fueled by international terrorism and knee-jerk nationalism.
It is a great shame that 15 years after the artificial barriers of the Cold War crumbled across Europe, a "Berlin Wall" still divides the Cypriot capital, Nicosia, separating the island's Christian and Muslim communities. But the European model of integration has proven its effectiveness in overcoming such festering problems. While the division of Cyprus would set a disastrous precedent for regional cooperation, a united Cyprus will reinforce regional stability.
With Turkey receiving the green light to begin accession talks with the EU, the region's potential problems are likely to be far easier to address. Unlike the "war on terrorism," European integration can serve as a model for resolving the underlying crises of the Middle East and addressing the roots of violence in the wider region.
As negotiations proceed in the years ahead, it is in the international community's interest to continue to support Turkey's European future, while making a constructive contribution to surmount the division of Cyprus. From religious and ethnic conflict, Europe can once again forge a model of peaceful cooperation, this time by creating an integrated zone of stability in the eastern Mediterranean.
George Papandreou was Greece's foreign minister from 1999 until earlier this year.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS