No to Turkey in the European Union

I have read in the French Newspaper "Le Monde" that Turkey is getting tired of being at the center of the European elections, which take place this coming sunday in France and tomorrow in the Netherlands. I can understand that this hyperactivity is not really good for Turkey's entry into the EU in the coming years: the more we talk about it, the more people will understand what is at stake. Turkey should understand that it has become a problem for us, not merely a religious one or a geographical one, but mostly a philosophical one, i.e. what do we, Europeans, want the EU to become?

A few numbers first: the population of the European Union (491,018,683) currently exceeds that of the USA and Russia together. That of Turkey is 71,892,808 (as of July 2008: sources: cia.gov), which is already larger than that of France, the UK, Italy, Spain or Poland...but still smaller than that of Germany. With a yearly population growth rate of about a percent, this leaves Turkey with a population of approximately 85 million people in 2020 (which could be a reasonable date for a possible entry of Turkey in the EU).

What do those numbers mean? simply that Turkey would become the largest country in the European Union, with the largest numbers of representatives at the European Parliament in Strasbourg. What else do they mean? the end of all hopes of ever building a politically independent and federal Europe. With already so many countries willing to keep Europe as a mere economic open market (UK, Poland, the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Denmark, Sweden), it would be even more difficult to develop any embryo of political union, having Turkey as a full EU member.
Last but not least, I have heard many voices (including Mr Obama's one) claiming that the EU should embrace Turkey's membership as a unique opportunity of building a strong link between the Western world and the muslim world. Also I do not deny the effect, I strongly object to the argumentation. Put in other words, this would mean: "Let Turkey enter the EU because, otherwise, it will turn into one of those muslim theocratic states". Well, it already has become one, as far as I am concerned: although Turkey claims it is a secular state, the veil has returned in the universities (even Mr Erdogan's wife wore one at the NATO's summmit last month in France). Other voices claim that the EU will turn into a museum without Turkey. Should we agree with this statement, then the EU has no other choices than integrating Israel, Russia, Algeria, Morocco and, eventually, the USA...

Turkey is a great country with great people and there is no insult in telling them that they do not belong to the European Family. For geographical reasons, for religious reasons and for the reason that like every house has walls, the European Union should have borders!!! Turkey is not welcome in Europe. Every European who truly believes in a federal and politically independent European Union cannot honestly support Turkey's entry for the mere reason that those objectives are incompatible.

The EU has no obligation to fulfill towards Turkey, contrary to what you might read here and there. Although negotiations have started with Turkey in 2005, there is nothing which prevents the European Union from telling Turkey: "No". It is not difficult to say "NO". It takes political courage and good ears: 67% of all Europeans are against Turkey's entry into the EU (the poll can be found here ).

Discover your position in the political landscape for the 2009 European Parliamentary Elections

Visit EU profiler
I've just finished the test... I will vote Mouvement Démocrate in France....unsurprisingly...!!!

European Parliamentary Elections are ahead of us

From June 4th to June 7th, citizens of Europe will vote for those who will represent them at the European Parliament in Strasbourg and Brussels. Although Europhobia is trendy among Europeans (nationalism and sovereignty being very popular words nowadays), Europe slowly reaches the front pages of our newspapers...Instead of explaining what Europe has done for us in the last 5 years, and instead of explaining the role of the European Parliament, those newspapers prefer to focus on the weaknesses of the current system. Although I strongly object to the way those elections are organized, I must admit that the EU as it is today is not performing that badly. Of course, election of an EU president, more transparency, clearer policies, more harmony would not harm...Nobody however ever claimed the system would be perfect.

For those of you who are interested in the European project, whether supporting it or criticizing it, fulfill your duty and vote. Get info about the political parties near you and browse the web to inquire about the different programs. Show you're a responsible citizen!

Vote and don't let somebody else make the wrong choices for you and your family! Democracy is like playing chess...you only progress by practicing

France should stay out of NATO

I can hear my friends from here....there comes Jerome again with his European fanatism, his recurrent arguments about the US-EU relationships....Well...sorry for not disappointing you once more.

Nicolas Sarkozy, our beloved, but small, French president, decided (unilaterally) this week that France should reintegrate NATO's command, after General de Gaulle pulled France out of it about 40 years ago in 1966. His reasons are numerous and all of them are not completely irrelevant. To sum up, the world has changed, the dangers have evolved, the communist threat disappeared, France should actively participate to the NATO decision-making process instead of following it from the side. Furthermore, France belongs to most of NATO's structures: it is NATO's 4th biggest contributor in troops, and it is currently involved in 38 of the 40 NATO missions. It is hence completely natural to reintegrate NATO's military command. François Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac both tried to get France back into there during their presidency. Hence, there's nothing new under the sun.
I don't agree...I have no particular nostalgia for General de Gaulle, I even do not consider myself as a Gaullist (in the view of de Gaulle's anti-European stands, this will not surprise you...though I agree with him we should have never let the UK enter what was then the European Community).

I have no expertise in the NATO ins and outs. But here is simply what I know and what I feel:

1. The US illegally invaded Iraq in 2003, which led to the chaos we are all witnessing there today. Saddam was no angel but he also did not possess any weapons of mass destruction. I am extremely proud about my country refusing to take part to this illegal attack against a sovereign country. Would France have been able to have the same position, being a full member of NATO? we will of course never know, but I do not believe this independence would have been possible. To be more accurate, I strongly believe that Germany and Russia strongly opposed the US-led invasion because of the french position (they probably would have opposed anyway, but they probably felt less isolated).

2. France (previously) believed that a third path was possible: neither the US, neither the Soviets...This has attracted a lot of sympathy around the world, especially in the arabic and African countries. I fear that France will lose this credit by joining NATO. It is indeed much harder to hear somebody shout in a crowd than in a church. Our non-aligned, atypical stand gave us echo...

3. Mr Sarkozy told the French people that his efforts to get France back into NATO would be accompanied by a strengthened and renewed European Defense system. What did Mr Sarkozy obtain from the US? the Norfolk SACT and an inter-arm high-ranking position for French officers in Lisbon...well done...anything else? where is the European Defense? Are several hundreds of additional french officers in NATO going to be enough to influence the US and make the world hear our difference? I am silently laughing...

4. What do we get by joining NATO? NOTHING!!!
What do we lose by joining NATO? Independence, respect, and a certain freedom of speach . We also lose all chances of ever building an independent European Defense and army. But, most of all, we implicitly acknowledge that being different and thinking out of the box is not a viable diplomacy today. In the past few days, many analysts in the French newspapers have said that reintegrating NATO would not mean systematically following the US, though I have heard the contrary in the Netherlands where France is said to finally get back into the rank...CNN even states: "French President Nicolas Sarkozy has aligned France more closely with the U.S."

The world evolves and France should evolve likewise. However, does France's future and safety stand here with its European partners, or there, with the US? I am sad for my country and I cannot refrain from thinking about my grand-father, who passed away more than 15 years ago, and who was a resistant during WWII. I am trying to figure out what he would say today. Names of birds would probably fly across the room...all the more when considering that our beloved, but extremely small, president decided not to consult the French people: lack of time or lack of courage? Is this quick decision linked to the fact that the French troops in Afghanistan are apparently going to fight under US command from next summer on?

We have a constitution in France and here is what it says:
Art. 11
al. 1) The president of the Republic can submit to a referendum the signature of a treaty;
al. 2) A referendum about a subject mentioned in the first alinea can be organised at the initiative of a fifth of the members of the french parliament, backed up by a tenth of the enlisted voting citizens. This initiative leads to a law being proposed;
Art 34
The law determines the fundamental principles about the general organization of the nation's defense.