Danger That Brings Friedman and Gülen Together

Last Updated on Friday, 23 June 2006 13:45 by Abdulhamit Bilici Wednesday, 14 January 2004 05:00

Renowned New York Times writer Thomas Friedman, wrote an interesting commentary in Istanbul where he visited on the occasion of the re-opening of the synagogues damaged in the [November] bomb attacks. Influenced by the ceremony in which the chief rabbi and mufti were hand-in-hand and Turkey's position between East and West, the writer emphasized the significance of the European Union (EU), saying, 'Yes' to Turkey at the end of this year in order to avert an Islam-West conflict. For this reason, he suggested that the United States should offer financial assistance to the EU, if necessary.

Friedman is not the only one who is scared of the global nightmare, whose theory was written by [Sam] Huntington, and has accelerated since September 11. The great man of religion and thought, Fethullah Gülen, who also pioneers efforts on dialogue in order to prevent this danger, was among those on the recent Akademi pages [of Zaman daily], demonstrating how much importance he [Gulen] gives to this issue. Stating that the best news for him would be the unification of East and West by maintaining their own values through mutual respect, Gülen said that he could give up going to heaven for such good news.

At this point, the significance of Turkey-EU relations is realized in the U.S., the Islamic world and in a broad intellectual community. A U.S. administration official views the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) June summit to be held in Istanbul as a great opportunity to convince Europe. "If Turkey becomes an EU member, we will be neighbors with Europe,' says Syrian President [Bashar] Assad.

However, how much EU officials [Romano] Prodi and [Günther] Verheugen, who both visit Turkey tomorrow, and the European public in particular are aware of the situation, is debatable.

It is obvious that the EU perspective is the most important process that motivates Turkey in the direction of catching up with the [21st] century. Turkey's desire to embrace Europe presents great prestige and an opportunity to benefit from the EU's universal values. By taking a sincere approach towards Turkey, the EU can easily succeed in what the U.S. is trying to do with guns and cannons in the Islamic world.

By ousting despotic regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. promises to bring freedom and prosperity to the Islamic world with these two examples. And almost at the same period, the EU is interested in Turkey, one of the countries in the Islamic world with the strongest symbolic value. Incorporating military power into its project, the U.S. continues to have a hard time in fulfilling its promises, while the EU achieves the transformation of Turkey to democracy with only the word 'membership.' You just dream of the profoundity that EU member Turkey, with its young demography, Muslim identity, democratic structure and powerful military will bring to the Union.

First of all, contrary to a U.S. picture trying to tame Islamic countries with its guns and cannons, the EU will gain a power-sharing image through mutual consent. Besides, an EU with Turkey will be the biggest blow to the clash of civilizations theory. If Turkey can solve its ethnic and religious problems without disintegrating and a regime change, then this will form a real model for countries that experience similar problems. Realizing all these will mostly depend on whether the EU will decide to start discussions with Turkey in December 2004.

Despite the emphasis on cultural differences, many Europeans stress that the real issue is the financial burden that Turkey, with its 70 million population, will bring along. According to estimations, this cost will range between US$8 and 15 billion annually. (The Munich East Europe Institute calculates the cost as 14 billion euros and for the Turkish Research Center it is 8 billion euros.) But when viewed from a global dimension, the importance of this reasoning diminishes.

That the U.S. allocating US$87 billion for the Afghanistan and Iraq projects both resulted in heated debates, the EU refraining from this cost for the Turkey project, with a high chance of success, does not really seem rational. In the end, an American writer suggests that the U.S. undertake this burden in the name of global peace. Although, Brussels refuses this humiliating offer, it could try one more time to think big about Turkey, a country that the whole world is convinced of its significance.

ZAMAN