mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
EU Migrant Summit
Bad Timing

The fourth EU summit this year on the migrant crisis concluded yesterday, with European leaders “welcoming” the terms of an action plan hammered out with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan—terms that were only announced yesterday. The terms are much more generous to Turkey than expected: €3 billion in support (the European Commission initially was offering €500 million, and then upped the offer to €1 billion on October 5); the re-opening of around five chapters in Turkey’s EU accession negotiations; and visa liberalization giving Turkish citizens the ability to travel in the Schengen border-free area as soon as next year.

“Welcoming” is not agreeing to, of course. Most of the terms of any deal will have to be approved in national parliaments, where opposition could be stiff. French President Francois Hollande immediately began hedging about the prospects of visa liberalization, for example, and several EU diplomats expressed surprise at the €3 billion figure. One senior diplomat averred that the summit’s result was cosmetic, at best: “The purpose is to improve the mood on this very toxic issue. I’m not sure we’ll be able to give a positive answer, but we can’t afford a clear message of failure.”

EU leaders are clearly desperate to get some kind of deal with Turkey to stop the flow of refugees, and there is nothing wrong with that in itself. But the timing is questionable at best. By announcing and endorsing these very generous terms two weeks before critical Turkish elections, they are giving a big boost to a man whose ambitions threaten to make the Middle East crisis substantially worse. Pledges of billions in aid, and the optics of Europeans essentially begging Erdogan for help will strengthen his image as Turkey’s Strong Man, and give him credibility with nationalist voters.

It would have been smarter to wait a couple of weeks and see where Turkish voters wanted to take the country. As it is, Europeans managed to cobble together a Potemkin village of a united front on migration—at the price of potentially increasing its difficulties as the Middle East meltdown proceeds.

Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Kevin

    They (European leaders) are so profoundly narcissistic that they couldn’t comprehend their internal deliberations and actions could cause external actors to change their behavior in any way that mattered.

  • Jim__L

    Stop, you’re making Francis Fukuyama cry. =(

    Liberal democracies aren’t supposed to have a demographic Achilles’ Heel! Although, I guess those predictions were made back when the big-L Liberal side of the Culture War hadn’t taken over Europe and (thanks to Obama) made severe inroads into America.

    Free economics / restrained libido apparently outperforms both free libido / restrained economics, and free libido / free economics, given a point of view longer than a generation and a half.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service