Turkey was finally given the green light for negotiations to enter the EU, despite strong Austrian opposition, and general popular doubt throughout the EU.
BBC News : EU opens Turkey membership talks
For a more detailed analysis, read : The Economist : Better late than never
-----
In my opinion, there is no reason for Turkey not to join the EU. Religion is hardly an issue if we consider than Albania, Bulgaria or Bosnia all have Muslim population like Turkey. Turkey is a secular state, where most people are not much more religious than the average Europeans.
Turkey's detractors claim that Turkey is not in Europe, but Cyprus is not more in Europe. Eastern Thrace and Istanbul (the historic and economic capital and by far most populous city, with about 20% of the country's population) are indisputably in Europe. Western Turkey was part of Ancient Greece, then the Roman and Byzantine Empires, that were all ethnically, culturally and politically European.
After the Turks/Ottomans took over Turkey, most of the population remained of European descent (esp. in the densely populated West). The ethnical argument is therefore not valid. Their language and religion changed, but not so much their genetical and historical heritage. If that is a matter of non-European language, then Hungarian, Estonian and Finnish are also Central Asian languages, in fact (distantly) related to Turkish. So the linguistic argument is not valid.
Politically, even during Ottoman times, the Turkish elite has always been European. The 19th and early 20th century Ottoman high society spoke French (!), and French words are now as common in the Turkish language as English words in Japanese as a result. Turkish people thank each others by saying "merci", go to the "coiffeur" or buy an "abonnement" (the spelling is different, but the pronuciation almost identical). Religion is not taught at school, and Turkish people now write in Roman characters, not Arabic ones as they used to. The state has banned the religious symbol of the fez, and in fact, very few people wear Muslim clothes. In cities like Istanbul, Bursa or Izmir, people wear more typically Western clothes than in neighbouring Greece !
I think that the Europeans that still have doubts about whether Turkey is European or not, are mostly people who haven't been to Turkey and are prey to false stereotypes. Just looking at the reactions on the BBC's website, I was shocked to see that so many people thought that the Turks were Arabs or not ethnically European.
I also think that the stereotypes of the poor Muslim country is due to Turkish immigrants in Europe. Out of about 3 million Turks immigrants in Europe, over 1 million are in fact Kurdish (see stats on Wikipedia). The Kurds are indeed much poorer, more religious and less ethnically European than the Turks of Western Turkey. It's only natural that the poor and opprosed Kurdish community be the first to leave to country to seek a better life in Europe (mostly in Germany). But they also gave a false image of "Turkey" to many West Europeans.
I was myself surprised when I first went to Turkey this year how much more European the Turks looked in Turkey than the immigrants I had come across in Kebab restaurants in Western Europe. I didn't think that Turks could have blond hair (as even Greeks, Hispanics or Southern Italians rarely do), but in cities like Bursa or Bergama on the Aegean coast, up to 1/3 of the people had fair hair (light brown or blond) and/or blue eyes. I checked a bit on the history and found out that the Celts (Galitians) and Germanic tribes (the Goths) both invaded what is now North-Western Turkey. This is still very visible in people's features today, and is at least one clear proof of Europeanness (as Greek or Latin blood is more difficult to distinguish among Mediteraneans).
Economically, Turkey is as rich and growing faster than Bulgaria or Romania, which will join the EU in 2007. Turkey is also richer than ex-Yugoslavia's countries. If we take only Western Turkey, the average salary and prices are much higher than in many Eastern European countries (closer to Spain's). If Turkey joins only in 10 years or more, as is planned, its GDP per capita at accession will be higher than any Eastern European countries at the time they joined. So, discarding Turkey as too poor for the EU is not a valid argument.
The only reason I would slow down or refuse Turkey's admission to the EU are political. Turkey must recognise Cyprus, give more autonomy to the Kurds and improve its human rights record.
BBC News : EU opens Turkey membership talks
BBC said:Mr Straw, who led what he called "a pretty gruelling 30 hours of negotiations", called it a "truly historic day for Europe and the whole of the international community".
He warned it would be a "long road ahead", with negotiations expected to take about 10 years, but added, "I have no doubt that if bringing Turkey in is the prize, it is worth fighting."
...
There is deep popular opposition in Austria and other European countries to Turkey's accession to the EU, with sceptics citing Turkey's size, poverty, and main religion - Islam - as reasons to keep it at a distance.
For a more detailed analysis, read : The Economist : Better late than never
-----
In my opinion, there is no reason for Turkey not to join the EU. Religion is hardly an issue if we consider than Albania, Bulgaria or Bosnia all have Muslim population like Turkey. Turkey is a secular state, where most people are not much more religious than the average Europeans.
Turkey's detractors claim that Turkey is not in Europe, but Cyprus is not more in Europe. Eastern Thrace and Istanbul (the historic and economic capital and by far most populous city, with about 20% of the country's population) are indisputably in Europe. Western Turkey was part of Ancient Greece, then the Roman and Byzantine Empires, that were all ethnically, culturally and politically European.
After the Turks/Ottomans took over Turkey, most of the population remained of European descent (esp. in the densely populated West). The ethnical argument is therefore not valid. Their language and religion changed, but not so much their genetical and historical heritage. If that is a matter of non-European language, then Hungarian, Estonian and Finnish are also Central Asian languages, in fact (distantly) related to Turkish. So the linguistic argument is not valid.
Politically, even during Ottoman times, the Turkish elite has always been European. The 19th and early 20th century Ottoman high society spoke French (!), and French words are now as common in the Turkish language as English words in Japanese as a result. Turkish people thank each others by saying "merci", go to the "coiffeur" or buy an "abonnement" (the spelling is different, but the pronuciation almost identical). Religion is not taught at school, and Turkish people now write in Roman characters, not Arabic ones as they used to. The state has banned the religious symbol of the fez, and in fact, very few people wear Muslim clothes. In cities like Istanbul, Bursa or Izmir, people wear more typically Western clothes than in neighbouring Greece !
I think that the Europeans that still have doubts about whether Turkey is European or not, are mostly people who haven't been to Turkey and are prey to false stereotypes. Just looking at the reactions on the BBC's website, I was shocked to see that so many people thought that the Turks were Arabs or not ethnically European.
I also think that the stereotypes of the poor Muslim country is due to Turkish immigrants in Europe. Out of about 3 million Turks immigrants in Europe, over 1 million are in fact Kurdish (see stats on Wikipedia). The Kurds are indeed much poorer, more religious and less ethnically European than the Turks of Western Turkey. It's only natural that the poor and opprosed Kurdish community be the first to leave to country to seek a better life in Europe (mostly in Germany). But they also gave a false image of "Turkey" to many West Europeans.
I was myself surprised when I first went to Turkey this year how much more European the Turks looked in Turkey than the immigrants I had come across in Kebab restaurants in Western Europe. I didn't think that Turks could have blond hair (as even Greeks, Hispanics or Southern Italians rarely do), but in cities like Bursa or Bergama on the Aegean coast, up to 1/3 of the people had fair hair (light brown or blond) and/or blue eyes. I checked a bit on the history and found out that the Celts (Galitians) and Germanic tribes (the Goths) both invaded what is now North-Western Turkey. This is still very visible in people's features today, and is at least one clear proof of Europeanness (as Greek or Latin blood is more difficult to distinguish among Mediteraneans).
Economically, Turkey is as rich and growing faster than Bulgaria or Romania, which will join the EU in 2007. Turkey is also richer than ex-Yugoslavia's countries. If we take only Western Turkey, the average salary and prices are much higher than in many Eastern European countries (closer to Spain's). If Turkey joins only in 10 years or more, as is planned, its GDP per capita at accession will be higher than any Eastern European countries at the time they joined. So, discarding Turkey as too poor for the EU is not a valid argument.
The only reason I would slow down or refuse Turkey's admission to the EU are political. Turkey must recognise Cyprus, give more autonomy to the Kurds and improve its human rights record.