Can Baydarol
We ended the week with warnings coming from the European Union front. First, the former Italian prime minister, then European Central Bank President Mario Draghi raised the question, ‘Is Europe entering an era of humiliation?’ followed by German Chancellor Merz’s statements to the effect of ‘farewell to the welfare state,’ led to the question: ‘Are we coming to the end of the European construction process that has been ongoing since the 1950s?’
First, let’s briefly look at the concept of ‘construction.’
When the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was established in 1952, Altiero Spinelli, a prominent politician inspired by the federalist winds blowing across Europe, would immediately set out to establish a political union and defence community based on this formation. (If you happen to visit the European Parliament in Brussels, one of the entrance gates will greet you as the Spinelli Gate.) Within this framework, two treaties were drafted and submitted for approval to the founding member states (Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg). While five of these countries gave their approval, France rejected them because ‘if we ratify these treaties, we will rearm Germany, which we have worked so hard to disarm.’ The rejection of the project would lead to the search for a ‘more realistic’ path.
Paul Henri Spaak, the Belgian former NATO Secretary General (one of the entrance gates to the European Parliament is named after him), did not abandon the idea but opened the discussion on the distinction between superstructure and substructure. According to Spaak, political union and a defence community were the roof of a building without a foundation or ground floor. In order for the building not to collapse and to be constructed solidly, it was necessary to lay the foundation correctly, strengthen the ground, and then move towards the ultimate goal. Therefore, it had to be built on the basis of fundamental economic integration.
The development trajectory that we knew for years as the European Economic Community (EEC), then as the European Communities (EC), and finally as the European Union (EU), emerged as a result of efforts to build upon this core philosophy. The construction was an ongoing process and would never be completed until the ultimate goal was achieved. In this regard, for example, even the 1993 Maastricht Treaty, recorded as the treaty establishing the EU, did not actually establish the European Union; rather, it outlined how the Union would be established.
So, at this stage, has the Union been established?
Returning to Draghi’s words, if we recall, his approach, which can be summarised as, ‘We thought that a strong economy would take us to a stage where we would also be politically strong. However, at this stage, we see that this is not the case!’ followed by Merz’s statements signalling the collapse of the German economy, does this not show us that there was a mistake somewhere in the initial grand European construction project?
Whether we highlight the problems stemming from a legal system that, after the six founding states, gradually expanded to 28 and then, after the UK’s departure, to 27 states, or whether we blame the problems on the erosion of EU leadership, which has been unable to adapt to the paradigm shifts that have taken place since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
Ultimately, we are faced with the reality that the EU is unable to provide a satisfactory response to current issues under today’s conditions.
Are the concepts of ‘democracy, respect for the rule of law, human rights and minority rights’ set out in the 1993 Copenhagen political criteria for new members still valid, not only for us but also for EU countries? Or are all these concepts eroding in the face of the realities of real politics in which we live?
The real reason for not being able to join the EU today can largely be attributed to the failure to establish a satisfactory level of the ‘common foreign and security policy’ envisaged by the EU Treaty. But was a foreign and security policy that excludes Turkey to such an extent, even disregarding it, a realistic goal for the EU given the geographical conditions we live in?
This is highly debatable…
So, from our perspective, was it possible to disregard the values that once defined the EU and pursue EU membership?
Another open-ended question…
If geography is destiny, then the necessity of finding answers to these questions together is clear.