Category: EU Members

European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Turkey on 17 Dec. 2004

  • Turkey Hopeful during Ireland’s EU Presidency

    Turkey Hopeful during Ireland’s EU Presidency

    EU Minister Bagis said Turkey was hopeful its bid to join the European Union would accelerate during Ireland’s presidency of the EU.

    DUBLIN — Turkey’s EU Minister and Chief Negotiator Egemen Bagis said Turkey was hopeful its bid to join the European Union would accelerate during Ireland’s presidency of the EU in the first half of next year.

    Speaking to Irish Times during his Ireland visit last week, Bagis said “Turkey did not expect to become a full member of the EU during the Irish presidency but they were pragmatic and they would work very hard to achieve the goal of putting Turkish-EU relations on a much more reliable track”. He added they thought with strong Irish support they could turn the process around.

    Mary Fitzgerald, the Irish Times foreign policy correspondent wrote in her piece Bagis’s statements on Turkey was heartened by signals from Paris that French president Francois Hollande, while stopping short of endorsing Ankara’s candidacy, took a more sympathetic view than his predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy, who was strongly opposed to Turkey’s accession.

    Turkey began formal accession talks in 2005 but has completed only one of the 35 policy ‘chapters’ every candidate must conclude in order to join the EU. All but 13 were blocked by France, Cyprus and the European Commission said Bagis and added he hoped France would unblock talks over its accession on at least two policy chapters in the coming months ahead of a visit by Hollande to Turkey.

    Given Ireland’s position of supporting Turkish accession, Bagis said he believed its six-month EU presidency would mark a ‘historical turning point’ in the process.

    He said despite dwindling domestic support, Turkey has continued to push for full membership of the EU, saying it wanted to join before 2023, the centenary of its founding as a republic.

    Bagis repeated Ankara’s line that the EU needs Turkey more than Turkey needs the EU. He compared the EU’s economic crisis with Turkey’s soaring growth rate, and said Turkey was crucial for European access to regional energy sources and lucrative markets.

    Bagis acknowledged that in several EU states where governments support Turkish accession, including Ireland, public sentiment did not always match the official position. He bemoaned the ‘prejudice’ he said was at the heart of this opposition.

    He said he had detected a shift in the personal views of Minister for European Affairs Lucinda Creighton, who had voiced strong opposition to Turkey joining the EU before she became Minister, in an official visit to Turkey earlier this year.

    Bagis said Turkey had an image problem, and added that “But when people visited Turkey, they would see that it was different to what they expected”.

    Responding the criticism of the EU for shortcomings in free speech and freedom of religion, and has raised concerns over minority rights, Bagis said progress was being made in these areas. He said the reform process was going faster, and Turkey was becoming more democratic and dynamic.

    Tuesday, 25 December 2012

    Anadolu Agency

  • Turkey is still yearning for EU membership

    Turkey is still yearning for EU membership

    Turkey is still yearning for EU membership

    ANKARA LETTER: This proud city is struggling to understand why, despite its growth, it is still being held at arm’s length

    It is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world; its capital has a larger population than Ireland and construction is booming to such an extent that skylines resemble those of the Celtic Tiger era. However, despite all this, Ankara is still negotiating Turkish membership of the European Union nearly 50 years after it first expressed interest in Europe.

    First impressions of the Turkish capital can be disappointing to the foreign tourist, because at first glance it seems to comprise nothing more than concrete tower blocks, houses piled on top of each other, and roads where six lines of traffic squeeze into four lanes.

    It’s a city where the net minimum wage is just €320 per month and yet petrol and diesel cost more than €2 per litre. Dozens of cranes populate the skyline and hundreds of multistorey buildings lie half-built, surrounded by hoardings promising prospective buyers not only an amazing apartment, but a better lifestyle.

    It’s a city that forever seems to lie in the shadows of Istanbul in terms of population, tourism, architecture and economy, even though it’s the capital.

    Yet despite all this, Ankara is an immensely proud city, one that struggles to understand the EU’s rejection.

    Long association

    The city began its long association with the project of European integration in 1963, when it signed the Ankara Association Agreement. The country’s application to accede the European Union was made in 1987, and it was officially recognised as a candidate for full membership in 1999. Since then Ankara has come a long way in public consciousness. Gone are the days when Istanbul seemed the only possible answer to the regular table quiz question: “what is the capital of Turkey?”

    However, after more than two decades of trying, Ankara has all but given up on accession to the European Union, having faced annual rejections from France, Germany and Cyprus.

    Along with the rest of the country, it has a high growth rate, a low unemployment rate, a booming construction industry and a rapidly developing manufacturing sector.

    Thus the city’s population struggles to understand how the country – one where the average age is 29, one which lends money to the International Monetary Fund, one which is the world’s 18th largest economy – is still being denied EU membership.

    The Turkish economy deserves more than what larger European countries and leading international rating agencies tell the world, according to Turkey’s minister for finance Mehmet Simsek.

    “We would like to remain firmly anchored to Europe. I think we can add value to Europe,” he said.

    Last year the Turkish economy grew by 8.8 per cent in real terms, one of the fastest rates in the world. In contrast, Europe only grew by 1.5 per cent last year.

    Growing economy

    The Turkish economy had been growing 17 per cent year on year in real terms, almost twice the Chinese growth rate, but the country tightened credit policy and introduced specific tax hikes to slow growth, Mr Simsek said.

    The Turkish rate of unemployment totalling 8.5 per cent last year is also lower than the EU average which in August 2011 was 10.5 per cent.

    These statistics show that Turkey would fulfil the Maastricht criteria for entry into the euro zone, unlike many member states, yet the country is still being denied entry by member states, which the Turks believe, are concerned about eastern influence in Europe.

    Having tired of waiting to join the European Union, the city has decided to use its growing economic and political influence to establish its control over the region, assuming the role of an economic centre due to stable economic growth and strategic position.

    However, while the country has strengthened trade ties between Middle Eastern and North African countries; the European Union is still seen as a lighthouse and beacon of hope for Turkey.

    “Europe is still the best reference point for us for laws. Europe implies transformation for us, it implies reforms. Our country needs transformation. Europe ultimately gets a very reliable and strong neighbour,” Simsek says.

    “I think much of Europe’s fears are based upon the fact Turkey is big. Big players don’t want their power diluted.”

    via Turkey is still yearning for EU membership – The Irish Times – Sat, Dec 22, 2012.

  • Istanbul’s special mission in facilitating Turkey’s EU integration

    Istanbul’s special mission in facilitating Turkey’s EU integration

    Istanbul’s special mission in facilitating Turkey’s EU integration

    The city represents Turkey’s harmony and diversity, reflecting a centuries-old interaction between cultures and religions

    guardian.co.uk, Saturday 22 December 2012 11.00 GMT

    Turkish and EU flags in Istanbul

    Turkish and EU flags in I 008

    ‘Istanbul is the jewel in the crown of this almost unnoticed, ground-level Turkey-Europe integration’. Photograph: Tolga Bozoglu/EPA

    It is 25 years since Turkey first applied to join the European Union, and seven years since full EU membership negotiations began. It is a long road on which we have embarked – and we always knew the process was going to take time. But the idea that Turks are going off the idea of EU membership, or that Europeans are losing interest in Turkey, is uninformed and wrong. Quite the opposite is the case.

    Almost unnoticed, remarkable advances in Turkey’s integration with Europe are taking place every day in Istanbul and at grassroots level across the length and breadth of the country, far away from the stuffy negotiating rooms of Brussels and Ankara. To increase the relevance of the EU to the lives of ordinary Turks, we have developed a national programme that aims to raise awareness of the EU reform process and build shared platforms at the provincial and local level.

    Every province in Turkey has an EU department operating under the auspices of my ministry that tracks and co-ordinates the reform process on the local level. These local branches aim to connect with EU cities and regions that share common characteristics or similar economies and industries. In this way, Turkey’s cities can pair with their EU peers and learn from their counterparts’ experiences. Once this connection is established, city-to-city interactions begin that bring people closer and expand mutual understanding.

    This project embraces not only Turkey’s 81 provincial capitals, but is also expanding to smaller towns that want to be put on the EU map. Currently 1,103 Turkish towns are linked to EU equivalents. These interactions go beyond the traditional “sister cities” link-ups, ultimately aiming at full EU integration and conversion. A clear philosophy underpins this approach. While paying close attention to civic and institutional aspects of the union, our aim is to convince both Turkish and EU populations that Turkey in the EU is a win-win situation for all.

    Istanbul is the jewel in the crown of this almost unnoticed, ground-level Turkey-Europe integration. Ever greater numbers of Europeans make the journey to Turkey’s largest city each year. Istanbul is up in lights around the world these days as Hollywood’s favourite movie set: Skyfall, Argo and Taken 2 are the most recent productions to use the city as a stunning setting and backdrop. Movie directors have successfully captured its beautiful skyline and interpreted its allure for a global audience.

    At the same time Istanbul, in my opinion, has even greater importance as a city representing the highest artistic and cultural values – for its majestic charm extends beyond movie scenes. The city is a testimony to the harmony of east and west and, for this reason, it has a special mission in facilitating Turkey’s EU path.

    Istanbul is a reflection of humanity’s past and the nation’s future. Its economy produces about one fifth of the national GDP, connecting Europe with Asia and linking Turkey with the EU. The city represents Turkey’s harmony and diversity, a cultural capital that reflects a centuries-old interaction between cultures and religions.

    Istanbul, under the “sister cities” project, has relations with 200 cities around the world. About 65 of these are EU cities. My ministry aims to enrich the latter group by lending special emphasis to the EU perspective and institutionalising existing connections. There are 30 major projects in Istanbul aiming to enhance the EU integration process led by universities, civic associations and NGOs.

    In recent months Istanbul has co-operated on cultural projects with Cologne, shared a business platform with Barcelona and just completed a sustainability summit with Copenhagen. EU grants have been utilised on the Istanbul-Ankara high-speed rail project. We are about to build a third bridge across the Bosphorus to further connect Europe and Asia while reaffirming Turkey’s special role between east and west.

    Above all, in my view, the EU is a major peace project that will not be complete without Turkey. The EU is about social cohesion, tolerance and harmony. We cherish these values and recognise their contribution to peace and prosperity in our region. All we need for complete success is a clear and unbiased vision and mutual determination. Turkey is travelling a long road to deliver on its commitments. We demand equally clear determination and vision from our EU partners.

    via Istanbul’s special mission in facilitating Turkey’s EU integration | Egemen Bağış | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk.

  • APA – Turkey withdraws from Eurovision Song Contest 2013 in Sweden

    APA – Turkey withdraws from Eurovision Song Contest 2013 in Sweden

    Baku. Ulker Rashidgizi-APA. Turkey will not be represented at the «Eurovision song contest 2013″ to be held next year in Sweden.

    fa8b6f21a8f03f378e9ffb0758c76f25Eurovision fans were confused after TRT had stated that they may consider withdrawal in 2013. Then, everyone calmed down when TRT started to put lots of effort trying to decide which artist should represent Turkey in Malmö. However, today it’s been officially announced that, Turkey will not take part in the 2013 edition of Eurovision Song Contest.

    After Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Bosnia & Herzegovina withdrew (and Cyprus first announced to do so, but later changed its mind), TRT also announced that Turkey will not participate in next year’s contest.

    In August 2012, Director General at TRT said that Turkey was considering withdrawal in 2013. However, this was not taken much seriously among the public, as TRT started to organize meetings with an “Advisory Board” which gathered music proffessionals in order to discuss, who would be the right participant for Turkey. Last week, some rumours spred out that the meetings with the 2013 representative were close to an end, and the name would be announced very soon. Today, both the media and the fans were shocked by the withdrawal of Turkey.

    Unlike the other withdrawn countries, Turkey’s reason is not financial. TRT stated that, this is a reaction to the injustice of the competition, like a “boycott”. In the explanation they made, TRT claimed that the contest was unfair due to the latest rule in the voting system; the 50-50 combination of jury voting and televoting. It is thought that the involvement of jury had a downstream effect on Turkey’s points. The broadcaster also finds the “big 5 direct qualifiers” unfair.

    Turkey will most likely participate in the 2014 contest, as TRT told that they’ll take the opinions of Advisory Board into consideration to develop a strategy for the next years, and hopefully end up with better and more effective conclusions.

    Many Turkish Eurovision fans are however thinking the withdrawel has mostly to do with the latest rule change making the producer decide the running order of the participating songs. Something that can have a big influence on the winner.

    Turkey has been in the contest since 1975, and they were active except for the years 1976, 1977,1979, and 1994. They won for the first time in 2003, with the song Everyway That I Can by Sertab Erener, their only victory until now.

    In 2012, Turkey was represented with the song Love Me Back by Can Bonomo, which finished the contest at a respectable 7th place.

    via APA – Turkey withdraws from Eurovision Song Contest 2013 in Sweden.

  • UK Prime Minister  apologises for MI5’s role in murder of Ulster lawyer but wife slams report into police collusion in his murder

    UK Prime Minister apologises for MI5’s role in murder of Ulster lawyer but wife slams report into police collusion in his murder

    Pat Finucane

     

    • 38-year-old was shot dead in front of his wife and children at home in 1989
    • Report by Sir Desmond de Silva QC published today reveals the killing might not have happened without the involvement of security agencies
    • Widow Geraldine has repeatedly called for a full public inquiry
    • David Cameron admitted there was collusion between police and loyalists responsible for the killing but only ordered a review of the case

    David Cameron said the Government was ‘deeply sorry’ yesterday after a report into the murder of solicitor Pat Finucane found the security services colluded with the loyalist terrorists who killed him.

    A review of the case by Sir Desmond de Silva, QC, found the father-of-three would probably not have been executed by the Ulster Defence Association without the encouragement of British agents.

    Sir Desmond said state employees ‘furthered and facilitated’ the shooting of the 38-year-old, who was gunned down in front of his family in 1989.

    But his finding that there was no evidence of an over-arching conspiracy involving ministers or security chiefs to target Mr Finucane sparked calls for a full public inquiry.

    The widow of murdered Belfast solicitor Mr  Finucane slammed a report into his death as ‘a sham… a whitewash… a confidence trick’.

    Geraldine Finucane said Sir Desmond de Silva’s report was ‘not the truth’ and renewed her call for a full public inquiry.

    In a Commons statement today, David Cameron admitted Mr Finucane might still be alive had police and state agencies not colluded in his murder.

    The Prime Minister said the ‘appalling crime’ was the result of ‘shocking levels’ of state collusion and apologised on ‘behalf of the government and the whole country’.

    The de Silva review into the 1989 killing found that state employees actively ‘furthered and facilitated’ the loyalist murder of Mr Finucane.

    But the victim’s family have criticised the review, insisting only a full public inquiry will reveal the truth about his murder.

    The 38-year-old was shot in front of his wife and children at home by loyalist paramilitaries from the Ulster Defence Association in 1989.

    At a press conference after the review was published, Mrs Finucane accused the British Government of suppressing the truth while attempting to blame dead individuals and disbanded organisations while exonerating ministers, serving officers and existing security agencies.

    Mrs Finucane said: ‘Yet another British government has engineered a suppression of the truth behind the murder of my husband, Pat Finucane.

    ‘At every turn it is clear that this report has done exactly what was required – to give the benefit of the doubt to the state, its Cabinet and ministers, to the Army, to the intelligence services and to itself.

    ‘At every turn, dead witnesses have been blamed and defunct agencies found wanting. Serving personnel and active state departments appear to have been excused.

    ‘The dirt has been swept under the carpet without any serious attempt to lift the lid on what really happened to Pat and so many others.

    ‘This report is a sham, this report is a whitewash, this report is a confidence trick dressed up as independent scrutiny and given invisible clothes of reliability. But most of all, most hurtful and insulting of all, this report is not the truth.’

    Mr Cameron told the Commons said the review had found the Army and Special Branch had advance notice of a series of assassinations planned by the loyalist paramilitary group, the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), but nothing was done.

    The review found a ‘relentless’ effort to stop justice being done with Army officials giving the Ministry of Defence highly misleading and inaccurate information, Mr Cameron said.

    Successive UK Governments are accused of a ‘wilful and abject failure’ to properly control secret agents within paramilitary groups.

    Mr Cameron said: ‘It is really shocking this happened in our country. Collusion demonstrated beyond any doubt by Sir Desmond, which included the involvement of state agencies in murder, is totally unacceptable.

    ‘We do not defend our security forces or the many who have served in them with great distinction by trying to claim otherwise. Collusion should never, ever happen.

    ‘On behalf of the Government and the whole country, let me say again to the Finucane family I am deeply sorry.’

    The review found no evidence that any Government was informed in advance of Mr Finucane’s murder or knew about the subsequent cover-up.

    Sir Menzies Campbell, former Lib Dem leader, said he had never heard a statement in the Commons which filled him with more ‘revulsion’.

    However, today Mr Finucane’s son John said he could not believe that there had been a public inquiry into newspapers hacking mobile phone messages but not into state involvement in the death of a British lawyer.

    ‘We’re talking about the murder of a lawyer in the UK,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

    ‘I rather flippantly announced last year that I thought it would have been easier if my father’s phone had been hacked rather than being killed. That’s not in any way to disrespect the victims of phone hacking.

    ‘But if we can have an inquiry into something as important as that, this case is the murder of a lawyer which the British government have admitted there was collusion, you don’t then deal with that, such a fundamental attack on democracy, by holding a non-statutory review behind closed doors.’

     

    Mr Cameron has apologised more than once for the collusion between police and the loyalists responsible for the murder.

    But Mr Finucane added today: ‘An apology is not in the correct running order. You don’t apologise for something but then not fully admit what it is you’re apologising for. I think that’s what the Prime Minister has done.’

    The Finucane are unhappy that in 2001 the British government agreed during peace talks to meet honour for public inquiries into deaths. Of five recommended, four were held but in Mr Finucane’s case it was rejected.

    Mr Funucane said: ‘The only case that’s outstanding is the case of my father. This review, we feel, is the embodiment of a broken promise of the British Government. We do feel that if they are sincere in dealing with this issue then they need to grasp this issue and they need to deal with it in a credible fashion.’

    The loyalist paramilitaries shot Mr Finucane 14 times as he sat eating a Sunday meal at home, wounding his wife in the process. The couple’s three children witnessed the attack.

    The former head of the Metropolitan Police in London, Sir John Stevens, has previously investigated collusion claims surrounding Mr Finucane’s death.

    Shortly after starting the new inquiry, the Stevens team charged former Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch agent and loyalist quartermaster William Stobie in connection with the killing.

    But in November 2001 the case collapsed and he was shot dead outside his home within weeks.

    In September 2004 a loyalist accused of murdering the solicitor pleaded guilty to murdering him. Ken Barrett entered his plea at the beginning of his trial.

    Prime Minister David Cameron, who ordered the de Silva review, will deliver a statement to the Commons

    In 2004, retired Canadian judge Mr Justice Peter Cory, asked by the Government to investigate cases of suspected collusion, concluded that military and police intelligence knew of the Finucane murder plot and failed to intervene. He recommended a public inquiry.

    That year, Barrett was sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment.

    In 2004, then Northern Ireland Secretary Paul Murphy announced an inquiry under new legislation introduced in 2005.

    The Finucane family opposed the Inquiries Act 2005, arguing it would allow government to interfere with the independence of a future inquiry because a government minister could rule whether the inquiry sat in public or private.

    As a result, plans to establish an inquiry were halted by former Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain.

    In October 2011, the Government ruled out a public inquiry into Mr Finucane’s murder but put forward a proposal for a leading QC to review the case. That review is to be published today.

     

    Former Met Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens published the results of his four-year inquiry into Pat Finucane's murder in 2003. The report confirmed that rogue elements in the security forces were involved in a deadly plot with loyalist paramilitaries to carry out a series of sectarian murders in Northern Ireland
    Former Met Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens published the results of his four-year inquiry into Pat Finucane’s murder in 2003. The report confirmed that rogue elements in the security forces were involved in a deadly plot with loyalist paramilitaries to carry out a series of sectarian murders in Northern Ireland

     

    Daily Mail

     

  • The American-Western European Values Gap

    The American-Western European Values Gap

    American Exceptionalism Subsides

    The American-Western European Values Gap

    UPDATED FEBRUARY 29, 2012

    Survey Report

    As has long been the case, American values differ from those of Western Europeans in many important ways. Most notably, Americans are more individualistic and are less supportive of a strong safety net than are the publics of Britain, France, Germany and Spain. Americans are also considerably more religious than Western Europeans, and are more socially conservative with respect to homosexuality.

    Americans are somewhat more inclined than Western Europeans to say that it is sometimes necessary to use military force to maintain order in the world. Moreover, Americans more often than their Western European allies believe that obtaining UN approval before their country uses military force would make it too difficult to deal with an international threat. And Americans are less inclined than the Western Europeans, with the exception of the French, to help other nations.

    These differences between Americans and Western Europeans echo findings from previous surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center. However, the current polling shows the American public is coming closer to Europeans in not seeing their culture as superior to that of other nations. Today, only about half of Americans believe their culture is superior to others, compared with six-in-ten in 2002. And the polling finds younger Americans less apt than their elders to hold American exceptionalist attitudes.

    These are among the findings from a survey by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, conducted in the U.S., Britain, France, Germany and Spain from March 21 to April 14 as part of the broader 23-nation poll in spring 2011.

    Use of Military Force

    Three-quarters of Americans agree that it is sometimes necessary to use military force to maintain order in the world; this view is shared by seven-in-ten in Britain and narrower majorities in France and Spain (62% each). Germans are evenly divided, with half saying the use of force is sometimes necessary and half saying it is not.

    Germans are more supportive of the use of military force than they have been in recent years. For example, in 2007, just about four-in-ten (41%) Germans agreed that it was sometimes necessary, while 58% disagreed. Opinions have been more stable in the U.S., Britain and France.

    For the most part, opinions about the use of force do not vary considerably across demographic groups. In Germany and Spain, however, support for the use of military force is far more widespread among men than among women. Six-in-ten German men agree that it is sometimes necessary to use military force to maintain order in the world, compared with just 40% of women. And while majorities across gender groups in Spain believe the use of force may be necessary, more Spanish men than Spanish women say this is the case (68% vs. 56%).

    In Britain, France, Spain and the U.S., conservatives, or those on the political right, are more likely than liberals, or those on the left, to agree that the use of force is sometimes necessary to maintain world order. However, in the four countries, majorities across ideological groups express this view.1

    When asked whether their country should have UN approval before using military force to deal with international threats, American opinion differs considerably from that of Western Europeans. Americans are almost evenly divided on the question, with 45% saying that the U.S. should have UN approval while 44% say this would make it too difficult to deal with threats; in contrast, solid majorities in the four Western European nations surveyed, including about three-quarters in Spain (74%) and Germany (76%) say their country should have UN approval before it takes military action.

    In Western Europe, those with a college degree are more likely than those with less education to say their country should have UN approval before using military force, although majorities across both groups share this view. For example, in Spain, 84% of those who graduated from college say UN approval should be obtained, compared with 70% of those who do not have a college degree. Double-digit differences are also evident in Britain (15 percentage points), Germany (11 points) and France (10 points). This is not the case in the U.S., where respondents across education groups offer nearly identical views.

    In Germany, gender differences are also notable; even though German men are more likely than women to say the use of military force is sometimes necessary, more men than women say their country should have UN approval before using force (83% vs. 70%).

    The view that their country should have UN approval before using military force to deal with threats is far more prevalent among American liberals than among conservatives. Close to six-in-ten (57%) liberals favor obtaining UN approval, while 33% say this would make it too difficult for the U.S. to deal with threats; in contrast, most conservatives (52%) say getting UN approval would make it too difficult to deal with threats, while 38% say this is an important step. Political moderates fall between the other two groups, with 49% saying the U.S. should seek the approval of the UN before using military force and 42% saying this would make it too difficult to deal with threats. The same ideological difference is generally not evident in Western Europe.

    Views on International Engagement

    About four-in-ten (39%) Americans say the U.S. should help other countries deal with their problems, while a narrow majority (52%) says the U.S. should deal with its own problems and let other countries deal with their problems as best they can. In this regard, Americans are not drastically different from respondents in France, where 43% believe their country should help other countries and 57% say it should focus on its own problems.

    The British are nearly evenly divided; 45% say their country should help other countries deal with their problems and about the same number (48%) believe Britain should deal with its own problems.

    Compared with the U.S., France and Britain, Spain and Germany stand out as the only countries where majorities favor international engagement: 55% and 54%, respectively, say their countries should provide assistance to others, while 40% in Spain and 43% in Germany take the more isolationist view.

    Opinions about international engagement have changed somewhat in the U.S., France and Spain since last year, but while publics in the two Western European countries are now more in favor of helping others than they were in 2010, more Americans currently take an isolationist position. Last year, about the same number of Americans said their country should help other countries (45%) as said it should let other countries deal with their own problems (46%). Similarly, the Spanish were nearly evenly divided, with 49% favoring engagement and 47% taking an isolationist approach. In France, where a majority continues to take an isolationist view, even more (65%) did so a year ago.

    In the U.S. as well as in the four Western European countries surveyed, those with a college degree are far more likely than those with less education to offer an internationalist view. This is especially the case in Germany, where about three-quarters (73%) of those who graduated from college believe their country should help other countries deal with their problems, compared with a narrow majority (52%) of those without a college degree.

    Political ideology is also a factor in Germany, France and Spain. In these three countries, those on the right are more likely than those on the left to take the isolationist view when it comes to international engagement. For example, while about half (48%) of left-wing French say their country should deal with its own problems and let other countries deal with theirs as best they can, about six-in-ten (59%) on the right offer this opinion.

    Cultural Superiority

    About half of Americans (49%) and Germans (47%) agree with the statement, “Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others;” 44% in Spain share this view. In Britain and France, only about a third or fewer (32% and 27%, respectively) think their culture is better than others.

    While opinions about cultural superiority have remained relatively stable over the years in the four Western European countries surveyed, Americans are now far less likely to say that their culture is better than others; six-in-ten Americans held this belief in 2002 and 55% did so in 2007. Belief in cultural superiority has declined among Americans across age, gender and education groups.

    As in past surveys, older Americans remain far more inclined than younger ones to believe that their culture is better than others. Six-in-ten Americans ages 50 or older share this view, while 34% disagree; those younger than 30 hold the opposite view, with just 37% saying American culture is superior and 61% saying it is not. Opinions are more divided among those ages 30 to 49; 44% in this group see American culture as superior and 50% do not.

    Similar age gaps are not as common in the Western European countries surveyed, with the exception of Spain, where majorities of older respondents, but not among younger ones, also think their culture is better than others; 55% of those ages 50 or older say this is the case, compared with 34% of those ages 30 to 49 and 39% of those younger than 30.

    As is the case on other measures, opinions about cultural superiority vary considerably by educational attainment. In the four Western European countries and in the U.S., those who did not graduate from college are more likely than those who did to agree that their culture is superior, even if their people are not perfect. For example, Germans with less education are about twice as likely as those with a college degree to believe their culture is superior (49% vs. 25%); double-digit differences are also present in France (20 percentage points), Spain (18 points) and Britain (11 points), while a less pronounced gap is evident in the U.S. (9 points).

    Finally, among Americans and Germans, political conservative are especially likely to believe their culture is superior to others. In the U.S., 63% of conservatives take this view, compared with 45% of moderates and just 34% of liberals. Similarly, a majority (54%) of right-wing Germans see their culture as superior, while 47% of moderates and 33% of those on the political left agree.

    Individualism and the Role of the State

    American opinions continue to differ considerably from those of Western Europeans when it comes to views of individualism and the role of the state. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) Americans believe it is more important for everyone to be free to pursue their life’s goals without interference from the state, while just 35% say it is more important for the state to play an active role in society so as to guarantee that nobody is in need.

    In contrast, at least six-in-ten in Spain (67%), France (64%) and Germany (62%) and 55% in Britain say the state should ensure that nobody is in need; about four-in-ten or fewer consider being free from state interference a higher priority.

    In the U.S., Britain, France and Germany, views of the role of the state divide significantly across ideological lines. For example, three-quarters of American conservatives say individuals should be free to pursue their goals without interference from the state, while 21% say it is more important for the state to guarantee that nobody is in need; among liberals in the U.S., half would like the state to play an active role to help the needy, while 42% prefer a more limited role for the state.

    Those on the political right in Britain, France and Germany are also more likely than those on the left in these countries to prioritize freedom to pursue one’s goals without state interference. Unlike in the U.S., however, majorities of those on the right in France (57%) and Germany (56%) favor an active role for the state, as do more than four-in-ten (45%) conservatives in Britain.

    American opinions about the role of the state also vary considerably across age groups. About half (47%) of those younger than 30 prioritize the freedom to pursue life’s goals without interference from the state and a similar percentage (46%) say it is more important for the state to ensure that nobody is in need; among older Americans, however, about six-in-ten consider being free a higher priority, with just about three-in-ten saying the state should play an active role so that nobody is in need. No such age difference is evident in the four Western European countries surveyed.

    Asked if they agree that “success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control,” Americans again offer more individualistic views than those expressed by Western Europeans. Only 36% of Americans believe they have little control over their fate, compared with 50% in Spain, 57% in France and 72% in Germany; Britain is the only Western European country surveyed where fewer than half (41%) share this view.

    In the U.S. and in Western Europe, those without a college degree are less individualistic than those who have graduated from college; this is especially the case in the U.S. and Germany. About three-quarters (74%) of Germans in the less educated group believe that success in life is largely determined by forces beyond one’s control, compared with 55% of college graduates. Among Americans, 41% of those without a college degree say they have little control over their fate, while just 22% of college graduates share this view.

    Religion More Important to Americans

    Americans also distinguish themselves from Western Europeans on views about the importance of religion. Half of Americans deem religion very important in their lives; fewer than a quarter in Spain (22%), Germany (21%), Britain (17%) and France (13%) share this view.

    Moreover, Americans are far more inclined than Western Europeans to say it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values; 53% say this is the case in the U.S., compared with just one-third in Germany, 20% in Britain, 19% in Spain and 15% in France.

    In the U.S., women and older respondents place more importance on religion and are more likely than men and younger people to say that faith in God is a necessary foundation for morality and good values. About six-in-ten (59%) American women say religion is very important in their lives, compared with 41% of men; and while a majority (56%) of Americans ages 50 and older say religion is very important to them, 48% of those ages 30 to 49 and 41% of those younger than 30 place similar importance on religion.

    Similarly, while a majority of American women (58%) say it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values, men are nearly evenly divided, with 47% saying belief in God is a necessary foundation for morality and 51% saying it is not. Among Americans ages 50 and older, 58% say one must believe in God in order to be moral and have good values; 50% of those ages 30 to 49 and 46% of those younger than 30 share this view.

    Education also plays a role in views of religion in the U.S., to some extent. Although Americans with a college degree are about as likely as those without to say religion is very important to them (47% and 51%, respectively), the less educated are far more inclined to say that one must believe in God in order to be moral; 59% of those without a college degree say this, compared with 37% of those who have graduated from college.

    Views of religion and whether belief in God is a necessary foundation for morality vary little, if at all, across demographic groups in the Western European countries surveyed. In Spain, however, respondents ages 50 and older place more importance on religion than do younger people, although relatively few in this age group say it is very important to them; 33% say this is the case, compared with 16% of those ages 30 to 49 and 11% of those younger than 30.

    Politically, conservatives in the U.S., Spain and Germany are more likely than liberals to say it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values, but while solid majorities of conservatives in the U.S. (66%) take this position, fewer than half of conservatives in Spain (31%) and Germany (46%) share this view. Meanwhile, just 26% of liberals in the U.S., 11% in Spain and 19% in Germany say belief in God is a necessary foundation for morality. Conservatives in the U.S. are also far more likely than liberals to consider religion very important in their lives (67% vs. 29%); in Western Europe, few across ideological groups place high importance on religion.

    Religious vs. National Identity

    American Christians are more likely than their Western European counterparts to think of themselves first in terms of their religion rather than their nationality; 46% of Christians in the U.S. see themselves primarily as Christians and the same number consider themselves Americans first. In contrast, majorities of Christians in France (90%), Germany (70%), Britain (63%) and Spain (53%) identify primarily with their nationality rather than their religion.

    In Britain, France and Germany, more Christians now see themselves in terms of their nationality than did so five years ago, when national identification was already widespread in these countries. This change is especially notable in Germany, where the percentage seeing themselves first as Germans is up 11 percentage points, from 59% in 2006.

    Among Christians in the U.S., white evangelicals are especially inclined to identify first with their faith; 70% in this group see themselves first as Christians rather than as Americans, while 22% say they are primarily American. Among other American Christians, more identify with their nationality (55%) than with their religion (38%).

    Homosexuality

    Tolerance for homosexuality is widespread in the U.S. and Western Europe, but far more Western Europeans than Americans say homosexuality should be accepted by society; at least eight-in-ten in Spain (91%), Germany (87%), France (86%) and Britain (81%), compared with 60% in the U.S.

    Acceptance of homosexuality has increased in recent years, and the shift is especially notable in the U.S., where only slightly more said it should be accepted (49%) than said it should be rejected (41%) in 2007. Today, more Americans accept homosexuality than reject it by a 27-percentage point margin.

    While there are some differences in opinions of homosexuality across demographic groups in the Western European countries surveyed, overwhelming majorities across age, education and gender groups believe homosexuality should be accepted by society. In the U.S., however, these differences are somewhat more pronounced. For example, while 67% of American women believe homosexuality should be accepted, a much narrower majority of men (54%) share that view. Among Americans with college degrees, 71% accept homosexuality, compared with 56% of those with less education. Finally, about two-thirds (68%) of Americans younger than 30 say homosexuality should be accepted by society; 61% of those ages 30 to 40 and 55% of those ages 50 and older share this view.

    In addition to demographic differences, an ideological divide on views of homosexuality is also notable in the U.S., where more than eight-in-ten (85%) liberals and 65% of moderates express tolerant views, compared with 44% of conservatives. In the four Western European countries surveyed, at least three-quarters across ideological groups say homosexuality should be accepted by society.

    1. In the U.S., respondents were asked, “In general, would you describe your political views as very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal or very liberal?” In Western Europe, respondents were asked, “Some people talk about politics in terms of left, center and right. On a left-right scale from 0 to 6, with 0 indicating extreme left and 6 indicating extreme right, where would you place yourself?” Throughout this report, we use the terms left/liberal and right/conservative interchangeably. In the U.S., an analysis of partisan differences shows that, for the most part, the views of Democrats align with those of liberals, while views of Republicans mirror those of conservatives; we refer to ideology rather than partisanship for a more direct comparison between Americans and Western Europeans. ↩

    2011 VALUES0014

    Source :