Leading figures – Emma Bonino, a radical view of the world

Our editor talks to Emma Bonino: Turkey is European, terrorism kills more Muslims than Westerners. Europe must take inspiration from the US, and our leaders have a tendency to be short-sighted.

Twenty years ago, Emma Bonino decided to accompany Turkey on its long journey through the desert toward EU membership. But for some years now, Turkish civil society can’t seem to find the right balance of growth, democracy and the protection of rights, a balance that had secured a decade of peace and prosperity between 2002 and 2012.

In spite of the figures posted by Eurobarometer (33% of Turks are still in favour of membership), Turkey seems to be moving away from Europe. Are the European Union’s leaders’ mistakes partly to blame? Is there a religious ‘obstacle’ to Turkey’s EU membership?

The real and telling political mistakes of recent years have been due to short-sightedness, forgetfulness and a lack of strategic thinking by the European leadership and Erdogan alike. These days, politicians are obsessed with national, regional and local electoral results. This obsession rules out medium- and long-term action. In Italy, for example, the reform of citizenship rights based on ius soli has been suspended while we await the results of upcoming municipal elections! This short-term approach, multiplied by 28 EU countries, generates utter confusion. Europe has halted in mid-stride. Its community processes work, but any inter-governmental activities inevitably break down. If the European project fails to overcome this political stand-off, it will unravel. Today, summits are always called to address emergencies. No one has a plan; even relations with Turkey have been affected by this paralysis. 

Perhaps we are no longer a point of reference. Our model of civil cohabitation, democratic culture and efficient governance have been under stress for some time now (even beyond the financial issues!). This has inevitably undermined our image in the eyes of emerging countries and may have compounded our problems with Turkey.

Absolutely! We should take our cue from the United States, a system that has managed to merge its supranational, federal side with the individual identity of the various states, which have retained their history and distinctiveness. Europe, on the other hand, started out by pooling its economies in the belief that its politics would follow. That hasn’t happened. The euro played its part for ten years, as long as the economy kept rolling, but at the first signs of real crisis, our politics haven’t forged any solutions. Over the last five years, I’ve noticed a growing irritation with Germany, but I see no bold alternatives. Nor can one keep blaming Brussels’ ‘bureaucrats’. Political leaders take turns venting their frustrations with the EU, mindless of the major damage these outbursts do to public opinion, which has lost sight of the passion for Europe that enabled our countries to become the world’s richest in the wake of the disasters and tragedies brought on by the two world wars. Now we sit back and think we can casually do away with our European project.

Germany is the only country, at this moment in time, that could provide Europe with true leadership. Merkel, however, would have to carry Europe on her shoulders and run the risk of losing her fourth election , after having won three in a row…

She was prepared to shoulder the responsibility of the migrants without worrying about electoral results. And beyond her humanitarian inclinations, Merkel has realised that Europe is a political project that’s worth investing in, and the European demographic decline means new arrivals are essential.

Last 14 November, the EU resumed negotiations with Turkey. The migrant crisis could offer the country a few additional bargaining chips in the proceedings. Will the Cyprus wall fall in 2016?

What I’m worried about right now is the building of new walls, without anyone in Brussels requiring that [Hungarian Prime Minister] Orban and friends comply with our treaties. We preach democracy to Turkey (the Cyprus veto is an alibi), yet in Europe, we allow Orban to exploit the fear of immigrants his country doesn’t have for domestic political purposes. In the meantime – paradoxically – Hungarians are emigrating in search of better living conditions. … Without resolve, the European project will fall apart.

Let’s get back to Turkey: the last couple of years have dismayed those who believed Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan to be a democrat at heart, focused on economic development. Now he’s taken to rounding up journalists and repressing students.

In these two years, there’s been an obvious change in Erdogan’s domestic politics. Let’s leave aside conjectures concerning the existence of a hidden agenda – as some of his detractors claim – right from the outset. Let’s stick to the facts: today we are undoubtedly witnessing a shift towards a more authoritarian approach. If we analyse domestic policy choices, however, we can’t avoid noting the EU’s own responsibilities. Any institution worthy of the name cannot vote on a membership program in 2005 and then move the goalposts a few months later. It’s not acceptable. Erdogan decided not to wait for the road to Europe to open up again and has instructed [successor Ahmet] Davutoglu to follow the road of regional supremacy, presenting themselves as leaders of the Arab world, despite not being Arab. The results have not been very encouraging.

The Republican and Kemalist CHP party, for years the most socially progressive force, became embroiled in a crisis during the 1990s and handed power over to this new, Islamic version of ‘Christian democracy’, the AKP. Why do the International Socialists still support the CHP when it would seem obvious that the Republican Party stands for old, hyper-nationalist ideals that would push the country back 20 years?

The International Socialists, which is nothing more than a conglomeration of national parties whose leaders meet but do not integrate and who spend time writing reports that no one reads, is undoubtedly to blame. No one points the finger (and the same happens in the PPE) for fear of losing seats or votes. I think that secularism has made inroads into many sections of Turkish society and the AKP’s success was born out of an obvious yearning among the Turkish electorate to be rid of the climate of corruption and mismanagement of the public good that had marked the last decade of CHP rule. Turkey is certainly a country with profound differences between urban and rural areas, between the coast and the Anatolian plateau. Erdogan’s winning rhetoric is based on creating a shared identity. The veil, more than a religious symbol, is a way of establishing that identity.

Is the identitarian rhetoric partly responsible for the shift of voter allegiance towards AKP from 40% to 49% in just three months, in the two ballots cast in 2015?

The last elections hinged on the issue of security. After three months of terrorist attacks, the people had had enough. Erdogan’s electoral refrain was that without him, the country was ungovernable. The PKK’s extremist actions and mistakes did the rest.

Getting back to geopolitics: my feeling is that Turkey’s backing of moderate Islamic movements in the Mediterranean has gotten out of hand.

The democratic success of moderate Islamic movements in the Arab world was a collective pipe dream. In 2013, there was a rush to arm and train moderate Islamic groups … I couldn’t see why! Where were these moderates? As far as I knew they’d been living in exile for ages. There weren’t any about. If we arm them, how do we know they won’t use these weapons?

Not just a Turkish mistake, but one for which the whole international community should take the blame?

Everyone armed everybody, everyone had their own moderate group … But the Turks got it wrong when they believed the PKK to be more dangerous than IS, because they were obsessed with the thought of having a Kurdish state on their doorstep and might risk losing Dyarbakir.

Why does northern Iraq, the Kurdish autonomous region, established for years now, worry them less?

If we include the Syrian Kurds, who share a border with the Turkish Kurds … the Pan-Kurdish syndrome springs to mind. I’ve spoken to many Kurds, and they seem to have no interest in a state that would be completely landlocked … and in any case, even among Kurds there are different positions. The HDP (pro-Kurdish) party held its own during the second of the ballots (despite the PKK’s military activities) and successfully negotiated the decisive 10% threshold, a historic result. This has become Erdogan’s main concern today, and induced him to forgo his usual policy of dialogue with the Kurds, at least at this stage. In any case, Erdogan will pass but Turkey will remain, and in a strategic position we’d do well to bear in mind.

Do you see a military conflict with IS on the horizon? Might we have to defeat the ideal of a confessional Islamic State.

I’m under the impression that everyone’s very worried about shifting borders – the Russians, the Chinese – they all fear possible fragmentations that could result in domestic pressures (the Uyghurs, the Chechens). There’s a great deal of confusion on the issue, everyone is humming and hawing, and not just in Europe. Even the Gulf countries’ historic alliances are wavering, but the confusion of thousands of bumbling conferences is preferable to bombings and might help reduce the violence.

Wouldn’t a ground war be less violent than these indiscriminate bombings that cause wanton destruction and civilian casualties, triggering knee-jerk reactions that bring death into our homes? Paris has been scarred by serious attacks during the course of 2015. Do you think it has become a target for IS terrorist attacks due to its failure to achieve immigrant integration in the suburbs or as a result of Paris’ muscular policies and its ostensible claim to being the EU’s minister of defence?

A combination of the two, to my mind, and difficult to distinguish. IS’ primary objective is its own territory, and it kills many more Muslims than Westerners. Its natural tendencies would be unlikely to lead it beyond what it considers its areas of natural expansion. The problem is that, after the disastrous experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, the international community rightly questions its capacity to deal with the aftermath of war and relations with the local population. Regional powers that 20 years ago had no ambitions, Turkey and Qatar, for example, today have contrasting interests; an inter-Sunni war is being waged between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Gulf monarchies for financial and ideological supremacy. They’re all vying for political Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood has chosen the electoral path; the monarchies are structurally anti-democratic. Al Jazeera is the voice of the Muslim Brotherhood; Al Arabiya speaks out for the Gulf monarchies. But beware: if the Gulf monarchies were to collapse, the Syrian hell would be nothing in comparison. A whole balanced system would collapse, even though it might be a system that we don’t like. The paradox is that we seem to have no nuance: either best buddies or enemies to be wiped out? Some 3000 deaths in the heart of New York have not dented the alliance with Saudi Arabia! And no one seems too upset by the fact that the only two countries to have recognised the Taliban government were Saudi Arabia and the UAE.  

@GiuScognamiglio