Picture this: the once wealthy and powerful Ottoman Empire—which waged war against Europe from the Middle Ages to the 19th century, charging the gates of Southern Europe and capturing Constantinople from the Roman emperor in 1493—knocking, puppy-eyed, at the threshold of its former enemy. That’s exactly what Turkey has been doing since 1959 in hope of becoming a part of the European Union (then it was called the European Economic Community), despite receiving little encouragement from existing EU nations, which have been slow in accepting membership of a country with which they are unable to identify. Austria, the main EU negotiator on the issue, has been most resistant to Turkish entry. The roots of this aversion can be traced to 1683, when Vienna, Austria’s capital, was besieged by the Turks. Nevertheless, Austria has offered to allow Turkey into the EU under “privileged partner” status. Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel, who suggested the partial member status during negotiations on October 3rd, said that not “every country that has good relations with the European Union should become a member.”

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan demanded nothing short of full membership, however, when he claimed, “We are taking as a warning the political maneuvers of those attempting to obstruct our membership, which shock and amaze every reasonable man. We didn’t destroy our honor so much that we would sacrifice everything to be a member of the EU.”

Nevertheless, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, concerned with the effect EU tensions were having on NATO, has come to the rescue of Turkey-EU relations. Rice intervened on Monday, October 3rd, with the purpose of assuring Erdogan that EU initiation rules would not prevent him from declining Cyprus membership into NATO. The US has praised Turkey’s Islamic culture, which remains western, secular, and democratic; America has also been instrumental in encouraging Austria to drop the proposition of partial-membership, even though Austrians welcome Turkey with only a 10% approval rating. The US and, unsurprisingly, Britain also are betting Turkey’s entry into the EU will lead to a general amelioration of relations with other Muslim cultures. They are unsettled by worries that the rejection of Turkey’s bid will make Europe appear less amicable to the neighboring countries of Iran and Iraq.

Reactions to Turkey’s possible EU admission have been diverse. Some see Turkey’s entry as a useful link that would help the EU to compete with booming economies in Asia, particularly those of India and China. Former British Home and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says to the International Herald Tribune, “We don’t have the luxury of choice. We live in a world of global challenges and global competition. A static Europe will not face either with confidence. Stopping enlargement would only weaken Europe’s ability to compete with emerging Asian economies.”

Turkey also believes that admittance of an Islamic country to the EU will help to relieve hostility against Western Civilization in other Muslim countries. Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul prophetically stated, “It is not just Turkey that will win, but also the European Union will win. The world has opened its eyes to a new day where the East, the West, Europe and Islam will move towards union rather than confrontation. It’s a big gift to the world.”

It is easy, however, to see how such an outcome could be interpreted differently by skeptics: closer Islamic ties to the EU could also expose Europe to terrorist infiltration, with Turkey serving unintentionally as a passageway for Islamic fundamentalists trying to get into Europe. This possibility is geographically obvious when one considers the fact that Turkey neighbors both Iraq and Iran.

Others worry that Turkey is not a wealthy country, and will provide little benefit to the EU. According to CBC News, the European public doubts that the wealthy EU bloc will be able to absorb a predominantly poor nation consisting of 70 million people. In fact, if Turkey is admitted to the Union, the EU’s Muslim population will jump to 20% of the total, while it currently stands at 3%. The Economist notes “many Europeans are queasy about the idea of taking in a non-Christian member with a large population and of hordes of Turkish job-seekers overwhelming the EU’s current members.”

Other conflicts refer to a certain “backwardness” which is characteristic of Turkey, especially in terms of inadequate human rights pertaining to women. Turkey also occupies Cyprus, which belongs to the EU, with a 35,000-troop force and does not allow for full freedom of religious expression. Such faults run counter to the EU’s liberal social tenets, making Turkey’s case suffer in the eyes of other EU nations.

Yet European politicians are as sanguine as ever. As Jack Straw put it, “The prospect of EU membership, particularly over the last 3 years, has driven an impressive process of change in Turkey. Prime Minister Erdogan has pursued a thorough-going and courageous program of reform, including the abolition of the death penalty and measures to combat torture [and had] sufficiently met the Copenhagen political criteria to begin negotiations on October 3rd.”

The final reason for general opposition to Turkey’s entry is possibly the most potent: Europeans are simply unable to identify with a country more readily associated with Asia and Islam than Europe and progressivism. What is especially tricky is that the European Union is supposed to be primarily a trading bloc, and so one might say that cultural differences among members should not be of concern. Nevertheless, one can not ignore the fact that the union is specifically named the European Union, thereby forcing the European community to reevaluate what it is to be European. Furthermore, the European Union needs to assess whether the benefits of accepting Turkey, such as a potential Euro-Islamic alliance and trade connection, truly outweigh the potential negatives, such as its odd juxtaposition of politics and ideals, lack of wealth, and possibility of serving as a port for facilitated terrorism.

One thing which should seriously be considered at this crucial negotiating juncture is that whatever the EU decides will result in an extreme Turkish reaction. According to British Studies Web Pages, “Erdogan has warned of a dangerous backlash if the EU’s ‘yes’ is anything other than unequivocal and that rejection would deal a hammer blow to the Ataturk heritage of secularism.” Jack Straw contends, “The EU should now follow through on its decision to begin negotiations under tight European Commission supervision. To do otherwise would not only compromise the credibility of the EU but might also endanger the considerable progress already made in Turkey.” The affirmative move could help Europe shed its perpetual “Old World” stigma and, for once, gain a reputation for charging head-on towards the pressing challenges that exist in today’s world.