Michel Rocard is a former French Prime Minister and member of the EU Independent Commission on Turkey. He was speaking to Georgi Gotev.
To read a shortened version of this interview, please click here.
You have signed a report, along with several eminent personalities under the leadership of the Nobel Peace Prize winner Martti Ahtisaari, which will in some respects go against the views of certain European capitals – such as Paris – in recommending to continue EU accession negotiations with Turkey. What are your arguments?
This is the second European Commission report on Turkey. Since the first report [published in 2004], the situation has deteriorated markedly, European enthusiasm has next to disappeared in the Council of Ministers and in certain countries in Europe, notably France, Germany and Austria, who count for a lot. In the same fashion, pro-European opinion has fallen below 50% in Turkey. That is serious, because Europe doesn’t live in a peaceful neighbourhood.
The drive behind the evolution of reform in Turkey has been largely the EU perspective given to the country. The European perspective opened up space for an influx of foreign direct investment in Turkey, which strengthen the country’s pro-European position; now that phenomenon has faded. On the other hand, there is the view that Turkey’s traditions are changing, that because Turkey has not known democracy for long, as it is not a tradition for them, you cannot blame them, as this is a 2000 year-long history. But from the shifting attitudes on the Kurdish Problem, to being fair in the dispute with Cyprus, to leaving history to decide what happened in 1915 with the Armenians, it all needed strong European pressure, because such an evolution shocks the Turkish community.
For the French public the problem is similar to the difficulties that France had in recognizing the Vichy government for what it was. De Gaulle had the attitude that the Vichy government was made up of Martians, that they were not French, but some kind of outsiders. And all of France has sheltered behind this denial for a long time since we invented it. It took until President Chirac – even Mitterrand did not dare – to reconcile ourselves with the truth of history.
The problem is a bit similar in Turkey. What is at stake is the country’s military tradition, its legal tradition, its journalistic tradition, and its university tradition, it’s a lot to change. That’s why they proceed step by step. And now the pro-European movement is slightly blocked, there’s a risk of deterioration; above all inside Turkey, and the idea that Turkish accession contributes to the stability and recognition of young Turkish democracy has lost ground. The country could close itself off again with a stronger Muslim identity, tougher and less concerned with democracy. That is very alarming.
Are issues of energy security something to be considered in all this?
Effectively, there is such an aspect, we are approaching a terrible period when the production of oil with be at its maximum, when the oil price risks rising in a extraordinary way due to the shortage of resources, at consequently security of energy supply during this whole period becomes key to stability in the world. It’s evident that Turkey, the pathway for pipelines coming from Iraq, Iran and the Middle East, so much oil and gas, is vital to European energy dependence. Now, if that doesn’t work out, it will oblige us to move closer to the Russians, who are definitely less reliable. Not dealing with the problem now will damage growth in the future.
What would you say to Mr. Sarkozy, to make him change his position?
I hope that his services, his ministers, his staff, his cabinet, reflect on the situation. They should be open enough in all cases to take into account the observable facts, and our report says that there is an urgency growing to resume the accession process.
Is the French position going to evolve in the coming months?
The current French position is the position of the President of the Republic. Because everyone knows full well that a number of members of the current government were much in favour of the accession of Turkey. And in these particular conditions, the official line is certainly respected, but there isn’t a French sabotage in everyday work. But you will be struck by the positions of syndicates, they are much more favourable, because they understood that the Turkish pursuit of development is a condition of stopping immigration into Europe. So it’s a prudent measure. And the views of economists, for example those of the CNPE (National Committee of Political Economy), follow in the same vein. I think that Mr. Sarkozy can realise that things will get worse, and it is better to continue the process.
Do you think that there will be a referendum in France on Turkish accession?
I truly hope not. A referendum is an opportunity for the media to manipulate symbols. That’s absolutely not democracy; it’s the rule of the mighty, it’s intimidation on issues which are taboo. Before posing questions like that, one has to be sure that the facts are well understood; the differences, the quirks, it’s about replacing the "I don’t know it so I don’t trust it" attitude, with better information. But the true question will be posed in about 10 years, in any case.
