Turkey is not European

A hotly-debated issue at the moment is Turkey's proposed entry in the European Union. This subject raises intriguing and debatable questions such as: Is Turkey to be considered part of mainland Europe? Are Turks Europeans? Should Turkey be allowed to enter the Union even though it has not recognised Cyprus' membership? Are there any geopolitical boundaries to the European Union? I, for one, contend that Europe is the mainland of Europeans and that Turks are not Europeans.

It is normally assumed that Turkic people were native to central Asia. Others believe that migration to western Asia occurred via central Asia before the invasion of the Huns (circa 370s AD). Some scholars consider the Huns as one of the earlier Turkic-Mongol tribes.

The word "Turk" first appeared in history in the sixth century AD in China. This name was given by the Chinese to the nomad people who in the sixth century founded an empire stretching from Mongolia and the northern frontier of China to the Black Sea. This fact clearly shows that the Turks' ancestry is definitely not European but rather Mongolian-Orient.

Before the Turks inhabited Anatolia and named it Turkey, the inhabitants were a mixture of Hittite, Greco-Roman and Byzantine origin. An apt conclusion would be that the vast majority of the population of the Turkish Republic may be described as Turks, in that they are Turkish-speaking, although the ancestry of some of the inhabitants is probably pre-Turkish. This argument, I feel still isn't strong enough to prove that the Turks are Europeans, since a vast majority of Turks (mainly the Seljuks and the Ottomans) who inhabited Anatolia were of Mongol/Asiatic ancestry.

Therefore, from a historical point of view, the Turks cannot be considered Europeans. Neither are they Europeans from a geopolitical perspective. Reference to the three main civilisations - the Greeks, the Macedonians of Alexander the Great and the Romans - illustrates that all three clearly established a European-Asian boundary some 2,000 years ago! It is important to note that before becoming 'Turkey' officially, the Anatolian plateau was referred to as Asia Minor.

The Greeks set up colonies on the Western coast of present-day Turkey (Asia Minor) as in Ephesus and Miletus. Although their colonies were Greek in culture and origin, the Greeks clearly stated that these colonies were situated on the Asian continent. Roman records also support this assertion. There are hundreds of Roman extracts and records which mention 'Asia Minor' or 'Asia'.

Where does this historical analysis lead? It brings us to the conclusion that Turkey is not eligible to become a full member of the EU for at least two main reasons: 97 per cent of Turkish territory is not in Europe (although Istanbul is situated in Thrace (Europe), it was never originally part of Turkey since it was conquered by Turks and became an integral part of the Turkish mainland; and Turks are of Asiatic-Mongol origin.

Should Turkey join the EU, then the EU should change its name to World Union or a Union of Economic Markets, and other countries like Israel and Morocco would also have every right to join.

A comment posted on the BBC Website stated: "By not recognising Cyprus - a full sovereign member state of the EU - Turkey does not recognise or respect the very essence and meaning of the European Union." Ever since Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974, the island remained a divided country.

Turkey should certainly not be in the EU, not if European is to have any meaning at all. By my yardstick, the Turks are not European in language, culture, history or even geographically (and even that is through conquest). The EU would appear to be experiencing some sort of identity crisis if it allows Turkey to become a fully fledged member even if this had to happen in five or ten years' time.

Opening up the EU's geo-political boundaries at this stage in the evolution of European identity is an uncalculated risk!

Another factor which must be taken into serious account is the eventual clash between a secular Europe and a religious militant Islamic culture. What will happen to European culture when it is eventually confronted with Islamic culture? Will there be synergy, co-existence and peaceful relations or an eclipse of European culture?

As an optimist, I may come to believe that negotiations with Turkey may eventually lead to greater synergy; but as a realist and moreover as a rationalist, I strongly believe that only a few will benefit from such discussions.

During my visit to Germany for World Youth Day 2005, I could not help but feel the sense of insecurity and apprehension being experienced by many young Germans, in relation to Turkey's potential entry as a full EU member. When we talk about the EU we strictly refer to a Union of European People and not just any type of union that may suit particular political and economic interests.

The crux of the matter is: who will decide which kind of European Union future generations shall form part of in the years to come?