Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

February 5, 2010 |  22 comments |  Print | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Heinrich  Bonnenberg

Europe is More than the EU

Heinrich Bonnenberg: A broader definition of ‘Europe’ needs to be developed if it is to be competitive against other dynamic regions. For Europe to come together, a new identity based on past, present, and future values needs to be developed. In so doing, Europe will not only overcome divisions and prejudices, but it will also establish itself as a strong international competitor.

The future of the world is increasingly defined by the competition between four economic and cultural areas: China, India, North America and Europe. As an economic and cultural space, Europe extends from Gibraltar and Iceland, west of the Eurasian continent, all the way to the Russian Chukotka Peninsula in the East – thus, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The ‘Europe’ that I am speaking of here is more than just geographical Europe.

Only a region with expert knowledge and future technologies, raw materials and energy sources, integrated logistics and efficient management at its disposal will be competitive. Moreover, an important precondition for strength is that justice and solidarity are recognized and observed as moral values, there is a stable legal system, and state and economic actions are transparent.

The economic area and cultural sphere of Europe consists of two confederations and 18 individual countries, altogether with about 740 million inhabitants. The two confederations of EUROPE are the European Union with 27 member countries and the Russian Federation with 83 federal subjects.

Together, the countries of Europe possess these virtues, as well as high intellectual potential. They therefore stand a chance to succeed within the global competition of these regions. However, the precondition here is that these countries must identify and establish themselves as a European cultural and economic area, with the common values of cohabitation that are accepted by the people of Europe. This self-identification is conditioned on trust between the countries, which is currently dangerously low. The EU and non-EU countries of Europe need confidence-building measures.

An especially important requirement for the development of a European cultural and economic region is the partnership of the raw material and energy rich Russian Federation and the technologically savvy European Union. The EU needs Russia and Russia needs the EU. The teaming up of these two powerful centers is the key to a strong Europe.

Yet, misconceptions make the path to ‘Europe’ rocky. They strain the culture of discussion, deepen divisions, they can become poisonous prejudices, and destroy trust. Opinion makers – like Samuel P. Huntington, who establishes a new Iron Curtain through Europe in his Clash of Civilizations – overlook the integrative elements in Europe. They ignore the cross-border, common cultural departure of the 19th century; the suffering in the two world wars, as during the war of ideologies; and the fall of the Berlin Wall. These are some of the important foundations for the identity of Europe. We should all take exception to Huntington’s conclusions, which deepen rifts and further complicate the path to a united, successful, and competitive European future.

To be competitive as well as to cultivate trust, Europeans must reflect upon the identity of Europe. Elites must encourage grassroots efforts towards a culture of open, transnational discussion; above all, preserving common interests and perspectives, or, where they have been lost, regaining them.

Collective identity grows out of common experiences in the past, present, and future. This means that Europeans must take into account their history, appreciate the events of the present, and work together on common enterprises in the future.

We need identity-forming politics for Europe. In 1964, Charles de Gaulle expressed the hope that a day would come when “Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals” would be able to resolve its own problems – an early vision of a united Europe. This was a political sensation, in an age when ideological blocs in the East and West still existed and the world found itself in the middle of a war of ideologies. Now, despite the stabilizing factor of the OSCE, there still is no platform in which the countries and country-groups of Europe can work exclusively together.

China, India and North America are not waiting. The competition is already in full swing. Europe must find itself and get into position. The most important task is the immediate reduction of existing prejudices and the deficit of trust within Europe.

In addition, the following projects are conceivable:

  1. A “Europe” conference covering future perspectives, with all European countries and land groups participating; i.e., Europeans by themselves in a location outside the EU, Russia, and NATO – in Switzerland, for instance;
  2. The scientific interpretation of European characteristics towards the finding of a canon of values, necessary for the future of Europe; i.e. giving priority to synthesizing the values of the European Union and the Russian Federation;
  3. Roundtables on the identity of Europe;
  4. Projects for the innovation of technology in the areas of energy security; urban and cross-regional transport logistics; environmentally compatible material cycles; and medical, nano-, and communications technology;
  5. Projects to develop Europe into a center for training, research and development, employing the intellectual potential of Europe;
  6. The exchange of pupils, trainees, students, and young professionals; and
  7. The incorporation of ‘Europe’ as a subject into all school curricula in Europe.

It is imperative to overcome mutual reservations, especially mistrust in Europe. This is the most important prerequisite for Europe to be able to stand in competition with China, India and North America.

Dr.-Eng. Heinrich Bonnenberg is a member of the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), the German-Russian Forum, and the German Ukrainian Forum. He also advised the administration of the Ukrainian President by order of the German Minister of Finance from 1997 to 2003.

This article is based on a speech given by Dr. Bonnenberg at the St. Petersberg University of the Humanities and Social Sciences on Nov. 18, 2009. The full speech is available in German, in English and in Russian.

The speech and article were translated into English by Stefan Ducich, Atlantic Community Editorial Staff.

Related Material from Atlantic Community:

  • 11
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Unregistered User

February 5, 2010

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I don't think that britons or spaniards feel closer towards Russia than to Canada or Argentina, so this is definitely not a european point of view.
Not to mention Poland.
Also, this article will look better in Eurasian Community, than in Atlantic Community.
 
Joerg  Wolf

February 5, 2010

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
@ "Observer"

Thank you for your comment!

We believe that commenters are taken more seriously, if they reveal their real identity rather than use a nickname.

Therefore I have to ask you to please identify yourself, when you comment on Atlantic Community.

In fact, it would be best, if you would register for free on our open think tank.

We appreciate your input.
 
Diellëza  Gashi

February 5, 2010

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I agree with observers comment. British do feel closer to Canada than to Russia, but Observer this is not a bad thing :). Russia needs to redifine its view and do some internal political changes.
@author of the article - Thank you for your article.
 
Unregistered User

February 5, 2010

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Opining that " Greater Europe" needs to qualify itself to the competitive regions, is not accepting the fact that Europe is just an economic and cultural space.
Assisting Europe to define its identity, ethno-linguistic classifications of about 730 million people
(Europe 2005), could be helpful.
80% or some 600 million fall within three large ethno-linguistic supergroups, viz, Slavic, Latin
(Romance) and Germanic. The largest groups, that do not fall within either of these are the Greeks,
Hungarians and Albanians.
Genetic study's first scholar on European colonization was Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza.
Geneticists basically agree that Europe is the most genetically homogenous of all
continents.
However, Cavalli-Sforza's principal component analysis also revealed five major patterns throughout
" Greater Europe". This is to say that the colonization of Europe did not occur in discrete
migrations, rather the settlement process was complex and likely to have occured in multiple
waves from the EAST and to have been subsequently obscured by millenia of recurrent gene-flow.

This simply means, connecting these patterns to a " Pattern Highway", namely France, Germany
and Poland to its destination The Russian Federation, whith other nations of Europe being interconnected. Europe's future is in the East.
This will assit in creating a proper intellectual application base for existing human capital, while
unlimited natural resources will define the level of independence.
NATO with its dividing nature will have outlived its usefullness.
The United Kingdom, which, as recently revealed, is more than just a euro- sceptic, needs to
get out of Europe. and refrain from its political intrigues.

Now, world dynamics will be equalized to trade-zones with regional control currencies while based
on human capital, its application base/potential and natural resources.
Simply Brazil, China, Russia, India, Mexico, North America and South Africa as indentifier.
Tags: | athens/ |
 
Member deleted

February 5, 2010

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
First of all I need to point out that I am neither a Historian nor a qualified individual to discuss historical matters. Neverthelessly I sometimes glance through the past even though superficially.

What I have come to notice –in my adventures in going through some History texts for pleasure- regarding the geography extending to the East of Gibraltar towards the Urals & the Caspean Sea & even up to the Pacific Ocean, I have noted no significant and long lasting major Political Structures or Organizations if either the North Africa or the Middle East or both had been excluded…

Plainly summarized: A concept of a new European Cultural & Economic Structure disgarding the above mentioned regions as integral partners somehow is doomed to be a ½ pole.

Thanks,
Mustafa
 
Jakob  Schirmer

February 8, 2010

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I substantially agree with Dr. Bonnenberg. I am convinced that we haven't any alternative to integrative European policy. What we need is the promotion of a common economic space and a common framework of basic (!) values. I agree that this strengthening of Europe must come from the people and should not be imposed from above. An European idea from the grassroots could boost the necessity of European integration.

A first step shoud be - from my point of view - the establishment of a common way of discussing political differences and solving political problems because a main problem of current European misunderstandings and disputes is due to a lacking common voice. People and governments often talk at corss-purposes. When Russia and Germany speak from integration, e.g., Poland might understand it different. Therefore, we have to work towards a "ideale Sprechsituation" between people as well as governments.
 
Alexander Josef Pilic

February 8, 2010

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
European integration is important - but it should be the European Union who drives this process. Mainly because all the outside players like Russia, Turkey, Norway or Switzerland do not consider European integration as their priority - they rather think of their own well-being. This is not meant as an offense, most EU-members do think as well in how they can profit from membership but at the same time they are ready and willing to cease national interests in order to further the goal of European unity.

Russia by it's own definition is not interested to integrate into whatever European framework if it is not run by them. So why, Mr. Bonnenberg, should we synthesize our (I speak as a proud EU-citizen) values with Russia's? In order to get some lessons in corruption, mismanagement and controlling the media? I am not suggesting that the EU is the perfect place, especially with regard to implementing a working parliamentary democracy on the European level, there is still lots of work to be done!

As for most of the other objectives you mentioned, these things are being worked on although I see your point that the situation still needs improvement. However, your vision of an European entity from the Atlantic to the Ural Mountains will only become true if there is substantial political change in Russia.
 
Samir   Awwad

February 8, 2010

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I tend to agree party to Mr. Bonnenberg and partly to Mr. Reuther-Fix,

On the one hand Mr. Reuther Fix is right to name clear boarders and to refer to social affiliation.

On the other hand, Mr. Pilic took it right to name the EU as a leading figure concerning all process. Imagine the final result would be a least common denominator... the EU would have to downgrade good governance and human rights. A leading EU role would be able to inspire the rest of the continent.

Nevertheless, recently I was concerned with Turkeys EU perspective and the scenario of non integration... likely a EU-Model Sultanate from the Levant to the Balkans, however, likely to adapt an anti-Western bias as a least common denominator would develop!

As Turkey is held as a friend ought to cement vital EU and NATO interests in the Caucasus and the Middle East, the EU and NATO could go from the fry-pan into the fire, if accession is denied in the end of the day. Russia also holds the Ballistic Shield over the scale and cooperates with the Shanghai Council in Central Asia and looks forward in order to cooperate in Caucasus on security levels, a relation of mistrust is likely to develop.

Therefore Mr. Bonneberg is absolute right to search for common ground with Russia, as Egypt with the Suez is our mercantile bottleneck. Logistic projects with Russia would likely make us less dependent on this already highly threatened sea-way to Asia.

Future foreign politics is portfolio-management! Hence to distribute risks and gains. In this case make also Russia witness high stakes, such shared best interest, to threaten our vital interest.

Regarding a competitive US, Mr. Bonnenberg, the virtual/financial world, such Internet traffic and Investments, witness we are one, the Pacific Ocean is, in my opinion, a geographic figure set to manipulate perception on the reality. Therefore the EU will get into position with a strong transatlantic partner.

"Opinion makers – like Samuel P. Huntington, who establishes a new Iron Curtain through Europe in his Clash of Civilizations – overlook the integrative elements in Europe." Yes, and thats why pupils should learn more about the positive relations with the Islamic World that as a merely undefined and not institutionalized feudal collective is set to cause headache, itself and others, therefore, is also in need of a helping and admonishing EU hand.
 
Tobias P. Fella

February 9, 2010

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I tend to agree with you, Mr. Bonnenberg. Closer ties with Russia are indeed essential for our competitiveness. But let us not forget the tensions and disagreements between the EU and the Kremlin.

Russia wants to reestablish a sphere of influence over the countries around it. But Brussels can't accept that its neighbours should be denied the freedom to choose their foreign policy. There are different feelings about Russia in the EU, we have for example Eastern European countries feeling threatened by Russia (see the discussions prior to the new strategic concept of Nato).


 
Heinrich  Bonnenberg

February 11, 2010

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Thanks for your comments.

I am sure, the youth in EUROPE will bring about a revolution against the elderly hardheads always praying cut and dried opions.
 
Member deleted

February 11, 2010

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
The tendency of younger generations to aim at overthrowing the "elderly knuckleheads" with or without any good reason has been a worldwide human tradition.

This inevitable tendency was also briefly noted by Machiavelli in one of his works - maybe "The Prince" if I recall right.

Housewives also display a similar tendency in re-arranging furniture or in re-dedorating their homes with or without a good reason. I think this often comes about because of boredom with the present circumstances...

So one of the few effective way to get around this conflict with the younger generations -sometimes called 'generation gap'- is to choose to implement well planned systematical reforms for the benefit of all involved as I may assume.

Otherwise changes may come about spontaneously for the better or worse anyhow...

Thanks,
Mustafa
 
Unregistered User

February 11, 2010

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
what europe needs is decentralization. you're bogged down by the drips over at central planning. there is strength in diversity.
 
Samir   Awwad

February 12, 2010

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
What I am basically concerned with are two aspects,

such Cortney Shupes demand for close security cooperation and a level of engagement Turkey would not witness if reduced to a close partnership agreement and Mr. Bonnenbergs approach to define continental Europe through its predominant religion, such Christianity.

Both approaches try to pitch the audience commutation of Russia and the EU on levels of political economy and security cooperation.

German economist Max Weber elaborated the relation of capitalism and protestantism regarding central and north west Europe describing commoner (capitalist) circumstances. But he would have never presumed to try to explain the Christian axis from "west of the Eurasian continent, all the way to the Russian Chukotka Peninsula in the East" the same way. Almost like an approach to define the Umma, the Islamic House from Morocco to Southeast Asia.

Political economy is more than an encroachment upon adjoining land or superstructure!

Russia still, over large swaths of land, is described by subsistence agriculture, feudalism and per-bourgeoisie. The whole approach sounds almost like defining the Umma, the Islamic House from Morocco to Southeast Asia over the predominant religion alone.

Mr Bonnenberg uses the term "revolution" and Courtney wrote in empathy and terms of "a new dawn". Those terms are used by some "Morgenrötlern", have historically frequently led into a absolute catastrophe because redemptive expectation (even by force) never came in ( I think in Germany we left this behind us recently).

I think Jen Paton from Open Democracy offered a piece urgently to be discussed at TAI, reminding us what those Morgenrötler in pre-humanist Europe were: Europe and Its Cannibals at
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?l...


The European Council on Foreign relation recently held a power audit on Russia and offered 6 points of urgency:

- Push for the implementation of all international agreements and standards Russia has
committed itself to, in order to further promote the rule of law;
- Make Russia's participation in G8 summits conditional on its commitment to the spirit
and the letter of common agreements, with the threat of organizing more low-level
meetings within the G7 format should Russia be uncooperative;
- Introduce the policy of 'principled bilateralism' where EU governments are expected to
use bilateral links to serve common EU goals and introduce an early warning system to
inform of impending energy deals or bilateral disputes;
- Make the EU Neighbourhood Policy more efficient to encourage participating countries to
respect the rule of law and draw them further into the EU's orbit;
- Give the European Commission political backing to use competition policy to investigate
energy deals; and authorise it to pre-approve major energy deals;
- Provide assistance to Turkey, Ukraine and Moldova in implementing the EU's energy
acquis communautaire.

 
Unregistered User

February 12, 2010

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Agree with Dr. Bonnenberg with both hands up. The main problem though is that the US policy of geo-strategic containment toward Russia will not allow - or at least slow down - any movement in this crucial for Europe direction. And that’s unfortunate because, due to constant pressure from the US, Russia is becoming increasingly more distrustful and wary about West’s intentions. The Russian talk about the area of privileged interest in the “near abroad" comes from this mistrust. And I understand their concerns. The United States would not have tolerated an expanding military alliance on its borders.
 
Cortnie  Shupe

February 12, 2010

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear Samir,

Nowhere in my text to I speak of "a new dawn" and the article is not simply about hard security. I am quite confused by your reaction.

Best Regards,
Cortnie Shupe
 
Samir   Awwad

February 13, 2010

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear Cortnie,

Under this tread I replied to Mr. Bonnenbergs address in Sankt Petersburg for the first and foremost.

http://www.atlantic-community.org/app/webroot/files/articlepdf/bonn...

"Huntington establishes a new Iron Curtain right through Europe, directly through, among
others, the Republic of Belarus and Ukraine – the two sibling countries of the Russian
Federation. What should this wedge in Europe produce?"

Nothing, he is a scientist, and for me as an economist, I used to say that some people have 1,7 children. Huntington, if one read his work on "Culture Matters", knows that there is a whole portfolio of characterizations on a social collective... Ethnics, Cultural Code and many more beside Religion, which he says, is even under one defining word, highly complex given the other determinants. Many people only read the header and parts of his popular literature, but did not cope with his life and works.

Mr. Bonnenberg states quite central in his address:

"The Enlightenment is a part of the identity of Europe. The maxim “truth gives freedom” gave way to the insight that “freedom gives truth.”" and I agree. Enlightenment managed to stop leaders to instrument religion for the purpose of power politics for the first and foremost. This lead to some central extends to the facts, that "The social market economy is part of the identity of Europe." and "Overcoming the division is a part of the identity of Europe."

Where I stumbled, however, were the sentences a) "Christianization is a part of the identity of Europe." and "The “Russian earth” is a part of the identity of Europe." and for the first and foremost b) "Despite having regions that are geographically part of Europe, Turkey and Kazakhstan are not mentioned as they do not belong within the European cultural realm.".

So, let me ad some "truth":

Why? Turkey is a secular republic (?) and witnesses now merely a decade of reforms inspired by the EU's enlightened rule. In addition, Kazakhstan is a, everything but densely populated, rural and peaceful nation. Why do they not belong to us, don't they?

The single difference between "EUROPE" and the two excluded nations is that they are predominantly Islamic... Is Islam an obstacle for enlightenment? I was shocked, because medieval Islamic rule was the source and perpetrator of enlightenment over all other!

We remember the Templar who traveled to the “Holy Land” long before the crusades and transported medical, financial, philosophical, and social knowledge to Central Europe as a main reason for their rift with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church itself was keen to solve European power struggles by the use of Crusades in order to, a) gain control over Jerusalem and b) cement its power in Europe, therefore established propaganda with the concept of the enemy, such Islam. Knowledge and truth transported by the Templar was contrary to that bearing.

To make it short, I have the feeling that Mr. Bonnenberg refers centrally to religion in order to promote arguable necessary power politics all together with excluding Islamic nations from his perception obviously because of their Religion. This bearing is arguable less enlightened, isn't it?

We would likely repeat a mistake!


Sincerely Yours


Samir

P.S: Rest under your piece






 
Member deleted

February 13, 2010

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
My personal point of view is such that the Europeans do not consider the EU as solely a Christian organization; If they thought so, nothing could stop them from saying so!

Turkish accession to EU has some difficulties associated with it and I presume the primary one is the size of Turkey which may make it harder to assimilate under her present cultural, economical & political structure.

Some Europeans may be feeling that Turkey -despite her religious difference- might be better integrated into the EU following further enlargement of EU into other regions. That is within the scope of a greater space.

Regarding the touchy question of whether Turkey is a European country or not, I have come to think at present that most of the land area of Turkey being in Asia Minor she is not geograhically European but from the historical standpoint Turkey has always been an integral part of Europe.

I do not believe that the European people are concerned much with geographical semantics in gettting integrated for the purposes of regionalization.

After all the EU is a live and dynamical entity and not a frozen & static organiztion as was recently proved herself to be so by undertaking the Lizbon Treaty which in a sort of a way may be her first step in the direction of decentralization.

I have to assume at the moment that decentralization may be necessary if EU is to eventually extend from Atlantic to Urals and beyond....

Thanks,
Mustafa
 
Unregistered User

February 15, 2010

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Mr. Pilic is completely correct.

Moreover, this isn't a "choice" between a "social/economic Europe" and a "Nation-state Europe, because both notions encapsulate needs that have to be served. They need not be contuguously identical, especially on the strategic issue, as there is a core of Europe with an interest in strategic issues that will only be dessicated of capacity and introduce risk if dissinterested (of even countervailing parties) at the margin are included.

For large populations to tie their fate to statelets that have no interest in teh world apart from commerce is suicide, and renders Europe's capacity to do good in the world irrelevant. However, while it certainly doesn't require hostility at the margins, an EU must count for something other than a security burden and risk to the rest of humanity.
 
Unregistered User

February 15, 2010

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I agree. Europe is not only the EU, it is more. But I think that there is big hollow between the EU’s institutions and European citizens. The participation at the European elections is the fewer of all type of elections. European citizens don’t look the UE like something important. The Europarlaments, normally, are old elephants looking for relaxing place for end their political life.

A new Europe will rise but the main values mustn’t be only economical. Cultural and society values must be pushed, without that we will continue showing Brussels very far.
 
Marie-Claude  Corneauster

February 16, 2010

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"We need identity-forming politics for Europe. In 1964, Charles de Gaulle expressed the hope that a day would come when “Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals” would be able to resolve its own problems – an early vision of a united Europe. This was a political sensation, in an age when ideological blocs in the East and West still existed and the world found itself in the middle of a war of ideologies. Now, despite the stabilizing factor of the OSCE, there still is no platform in which the countries and country-groups of Europe can work exclusively together."

De Gaulle never wanted that nowadays EU, this abstract octopusian administration, that doesn't take responsability over its actions, nor to solve societies crisis, but to survive to itself

DeGaulle wanted rather an EU of NATIONS, in which they would be allowed to voice their difference and to volontary choose their sharing of responsabilities when decisions are necessary, like it happened for the money crisis in 2008, and also it will happen when we'll have to determin if Greece deserves our bailing out or not.

Only during crisis we can see that the 27 countries are really concerned, when the Brussels apparatchik is paralysed, because it can't endorse the responsability of taking risks, and has no ideas how to solve "surviving" problems.

if anyone wants that EU still has a future in the nowadays economical configuration, it must be taken into account that we should also discuss our foreign policy as nations, and not with this invisible and ridicule foreign Minister, who plus is Brit, the Ashton hoax Baroness.

Derivating from an accepted foreign policy, we should also envision an european Defense, which was up to now in the hands of the Anglo-Saxon world, that works mostly for dividing the european countries, (especially evident when the Irak war participation wasn't discussed inside and with the european nations but imposed : "you're with us, or against us", naturally that the Bush administration used the eastern EU republics as a role model for the support of the US policies, and to demonise the rest of the western EU countries, that wanted to discuss the deal)
 
Marie-Claude  Corneauster

February 16, 2010

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
about Turkey access, into EU, there's already one more difficulty, Turkey removed "visas" for counties like Lybia, Syria... so imagine Turkey in EU with the Schengen agreement, the whole Maghreb and ME would have a free pass to travel in our countries when we have to secure our borders from illegals !

Turkey is still dreaming of becoming an EU member http://tinyurl.com/ygst744

while honor killings are not rare http://ovipot.blogspot.com/

that the EU conditions like basic rights for women are a "joke" for Turkey men,

when police and administration don't care of the EU recommendations and also don't care what the Ankara government has promulgated in trying to become conformed to the EU
 
Marie-Claude  Corneauster

February 16, 2010

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
impossible for Turkey to accept the EU conditions

http://tinyurl.com/ygrsogl
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Ari  Rusila
Ari Rusila
"Projects:Blue visions - real..."

Poll


DW-WORLD.DE


Europe
Europe
Business




DW-TV Live DW-Radio Live