The EU has few subjects that nobody in
Brussels likes to talk about, among which we find minority problems.
Corsica and the Bask country may serve as examples for many others
that are less visible or audible...
Paris and Madrid don’t mind, or actually demand EU subsidies to help
the economic development of its regions. However, they would oppose
vehemently any questioning by the EU parliament concerning the
political situation of these minorities, which they consider to be a
purely national affair.
Where democratic representation is involved, there are no national
affairs that do not concern the EU. The EU is to be a coherent body,
all its members being part of the total living community, like a
human body which cannot have totally independent members, legs or
hands.
Can it be a real national affair if those concerned do not consider
themselves part of that “National”community? In such cases a higher
supranational instance such as the EU is the logical place to deal
with the matter.
Switzerland, a confederation of some 25 cantons, had a minority
problem with the French-speaking minority inside the canton of Bern.
Like Corsica , they had an independence movement with bombings,
demonstrations, etc. After years of repression, the minority was
finally permitted to create its own canton of Jura, thus adding a
new canton to the Swiss confederation, a solution that satisfied
everybody.
There is no reason not to give any of the concerned European
minorities a chance to create their own state community within the
EU, if after careful comprehensive socio-economic studies, the
inhabitants of a region democratically vote and approve such a
change.
What are the motivations for secession? Why do national governments
want to prevent such regional political formations? Is it a question
of national pride, historic patriotism etc. France, e.g. because of
Napoleon being a French icon, might oppose a Corsican secession. Is
it matter of regional egotism, the rich not wanting to share with
the poor as may be the case in northern Italy and Spain’s Catalonia
? Or is it a cultural entity fearing to lose its character, its
language , its religion, or on the contrary an oppressed minority
demanding liberty?
The EU should develop clear criteria to
deal with these situations faced within its present borders,
including Wallonia, Bretagne, Kosovo and many more regions, before
engaging new more complex problems in new eastern EU candidate
countries such as Turkey , which faces three big minority problems:
1. The Armenian genocide, although a historic event, is still
being denied by the Turkish government and people. This problem must
be overcome by a clear revelation and acceptance of the truth, e.g.
as established by an international court procedure, before Turkey
can join the EU.
2. The Cypress problem concerning its Turkish and Greek
communities. The EU and UN reunification proposal , which was
accepted by the north and rejected by the south shows a deep
psychological barrier. The immediate economic and practical
advantages of reunification could not overcome an anxiety concerning
the unknown risks of joining a Turkish minority in Cypress with 62.7
mi. more Turks living on the close-by mainland. Would they not use
Cypress as the entrance door to Europe? The proposal was too much of
an academic dream. A unified Cypress can only come after Turkey
joins the EU.
3. The EU adhesion of Turkey as it is now would probably
solve the Cypress question, but a much greater problem would arise
with the Kurd minority on its eastern borders. With Constantinople
as the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, Turkey displays a
cultural historic role in Europe. Kurdistan however is definitely
not part of it. In Turkey, there are some 15 mi. Kurds, in Iran 6.6
mi., in Irak 6 mi, in Syria 2 mi, in Germany 0.6 mi., in Armenia and
Azerbaijan some 50 000, and elsewhere another 1.1 mi. a total of
31.l mi. Kurds. They aspire an independent state; there is no
population of that size on earth that has not its own state.
If Turkey would give independence to its 15 mi Kurds, this would
reduce its population to some 45 mi, this could be perhaps more
easily acceptable by the EU, and it might lead to the formation of a
new Kurdistan together with the Kurds from Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc.
and thus create a new stable buffer state to Iran.
''Kurd population dispersed over Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria,
Azerbaijan and Armenia''
Such geostrategic thoughts must be included in the debates on the
eastern extension of the EU, if we are not to fall into an
“IMPERIALISTIC TRAP“. The EU has no business in Kurdistan except to
help the Kurds to become independent, and possibly to have new good
friends in this oil-rich region. We must remind our parliament in
Brussels that the EU is not in need of more territory, it needs to
create more democratic, and efficient administrative structures, it
should develop closer and better relations with all its neighbours
and specially with those that are part of our cultural family,
wherever they are. In today’s world territorial closeness or
distance means less than cultural affinity.
newropeans-magazine org Top |
® 