Dangers in defining a ‘European’

Date: 25/09/1997

By Mark Turner

DESPITE millennia of arguing, Europeans still cannot decide where their continent ends and Asia or the Middle East begin.

Nonetheless, once the Union has brought on board the ten central and eastern European applicants, it will have reached what most people see as its natural limits.

That, in itself, would be a remarkable achievement.

Although the continent has been able to claim some kind of identity for around 3,000 years, achieving political unification has for most of that time been on a par with finding the philosophers' stone.

The resulting unity would be all the greater because, for the most part, it would have been achieved through democratic and non-violent means.

But it would not be the end to all struggles, as some have painted it. This finally-intact Europa will bring with it a host of unwelcome features for which the continent is ill-prepared.

The moment the Union declares itself a finished project, every one of its new neighbours will find a reason to explain why that is not the case. Assuming all ten of the present EU candidates are on board by the year 2010, that will leave Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Russia and Turkey all pressing their case for adhesion to the bloc.

At that point, Brussels will be faced with the kind of dilemma that has befuddled political thinkers for generations.

Are Russians Europeans? Geographically, the continent's limits are the Urals, so by that criteria some of them clearly are.

However, as Peter the Great discovered, geography is one thing and culture something entirely different.

And what about Belarus, where the hard-line antics of its current President Alexander Lukashenko - and the support he enjoys despite them - give western and central Europeans severe pause for thought?

And then, of course, there is the perennial Turkish question. Fiercely different from the Arab world, and with a long history of trade with the West, Turkey's European credentials are - on paper - quite convincing.

But if EU citizens are ever to believe in their common heritage, it might be very difficult to convince them of Ankara's cultural case for membership.

However the debate goes, it will be bitter. And once the lines are drawn, as surely they will have to be, a wave of resentment may emerge which dwarves any current cross-boundary bickering.

For all the disadvantages of today's philosophical grey areas, at least amidst all the confusion everyone can find some reason to harbour hope. When Europe's end-game results are finally announced, however, the losers may have little reason to keep the friendship alive.

By uniting, Europe could find itself suddenly an island surrounded by an affronted and hostile world. What is more, that outside world - on which the psychological shutters would have been closed - would have its fingers on the twin jugulars of oil and gas.

That is why current developments such as the oft-derided Euro-Mediterranean dialogue are so important. This arrangement tells the EU's African and Middle Eastern neighbours clearly that although they will never be potential EU members, they are welcome as political allies and trading partners.

Whether or not the substance of their decision was wrong, many observers believe European Christian Democrats were right to begin laying down the lines of the debate over Turkey this year.

Unfortunately, their announcement that Turkey should never become an EU member was badly handled, as was the subsequent and undignified scramble by Union leaders to repair the damage.

The trouble is that the timing is never right. Opportunistic 'maybes' and are always easier than definite 'nos'. But in the long term, trying to juggle too many balls at once means that all of them fall on the floor.

Shutting off a few options now may be crucial to keeping others open.