tion have been swept away. Civic freedom and
democratic government, the basic requirements
of membership, are being anchored in. Even with
all the difficulties ahead still to be overcome, who
can doubt that this is a better world for the
people of Europe?
The largest applicant of all, Turkey, with a pop-
ulation of almost 70 million, is keen to join but
arouses the most contention within the EU.
Ninety-eight of every hundred people living in
Turkey are Muslims. Can a Muslim country be
regarded as ‘European’? Should Europe remain a
union of overwhelmingly Christian countries?
That is the view of the former French president
Giscard d’Estaing who chaired the committee
drafting the proposed constitution. The centre-
left government of Gerhard Schröder, however, is
in favour. In this it differs from France’s right.
With Muslim problems at home, President Chirac
is more ambivalent. In ‘principle’ the EU is com-
mitted to admitting Turkey when all the condi-
tions are fulfilled. Turkey is governed by a
moderate Islamic party. Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan has legislated many reforms to
meet EU standards. There are three major obsta-
cles to be overcome. The economy is weak and
unstable and the country is far poorer than the
existing members; question marks over the dura-
bility of Turkish democracy linger; so as not to
impede the entry progress, the once all-powerful
army command has held back but continues to see
itself as the guardian of the Ataturk legacy; the
relationship with the Kurdish minority has eased
with a lessening of their harsh treatment but is not
completely solved. One big step forward was
Turkey’s pressure on the Turkish Cypriot leaders
to accept the UN plan even though it failed due to
the Greek Cypriot no vote. The Greek mainland
government acknowledged Turkey’s new stance
and, once the most determined opponents to
Turkey’s entry, have declared they will support
it. Turkey’s possible membership still lies some
years in the future. A democratic, Muslim, secular
Turkey, would help to change any Muslim per-
ceptions in the Middle East and beyond that a
‘clash’ between a Christian West and the Muslim
world exists. A new pattern in global relations is
emerging in the twenty-first century.
There are increasing global interrelations, good
and bad, such as trade liberalisation through
negotiations at the World Trade Organisation,
efforts to save the environment, the depletion of
world resources in the sea and on land, refugees,
human rights and the limitation of nuclear
weapons and weapons of mass destruction. More
global issues are dealt with by specific organisa-
tions and through UN agencies. Agreements are
hammered out reconciling national interests.
Peacekeeping, too, is an international concern but
international action through the UN is depend-
ent on none of the countries holding a veto
blocking it. Then individual countries will act on
their own or with partners even when they cannot
secure UN backing – the Kosovo war and the war
against Iraq are recent instances. No country will
accept being blocked by disagreement on the
Security Council if it believes rightly or wrongly
that its vital national interests are at stake. That is
a reality in an imperfect world. Kofi Annan, the
secretary-general of the UN has grasped the dif-
ficult nettle of reform. There is no African per-
manent member on the Security Council; neither
India nor Japan have permanent representation,
yet two European countries, Britain and France
each have veto powers; Germany, much larger
than either, has no voice. The distribution of
power dates back to the end of the Second World
War and no longer reflects the world half a
century later. That weakens the authority of the
UN, already undermined by Iraq, where the US
and Britain led a war declared illegal by Kofi
Annan. But Kofi Annan’s own standing has
suffered from the massive frauds of the oil for
humanitarian assistance to Iraq programme over-
seen by the UN, which enabled Saddam Hussein
to skim-off millions to bribe and corrupt foreign
‘friends’ of his regime.
Countries will take the lead in sending troops to
regions of traditional concern or for humanitarian
reasons later securing UN backing or acting for the
UN. Britain undertook intervention in Sierra
Leone, the US in Grenada, Haiti, Panama and
Liberia. But countries will also simply be left to
fight out each other’s conflicts, as during the wars
between India and Pakistan, at best they will be
offered diplomatic mediation. Nor is there any
1
INTO THE NEW MILLENNIUM 953
