In American foreign-policy thinking the most widespread argument for pushing the EU to accept Turkey into its arms is the supposed transformational power of the decision. By taking up a Muslim, second world country the EU is supposed to show the world that the cultural and economic standards of what we still call the west are open to everyone. This is one of the few really bipartisan foreign-policy ideas, supported by Clinton as well as by both Bush 41 and 43. The view was repeated in recent comments by US undersecretary of State Nicolas Burns:

"Historians will say it is one of these important decisions the Europeans made ... at the beginning of the 21st century, to open the EU up to this major Muslim secular democracy"

In the EU, we should be extremely careful about this kind of view, because in a way, it asks us to embrace Turkey precisely because of the aspects that separate us. We will be ill-served by this kind of enlightened idealism when we want to work on the things that unite the EU, like respect for diversity, human rights, international law and a dynamic economic system that rewards all people's efforts. Turkey still has some way to go on all of these.

The potential reward of welcoming Turkey is also belied by the more detailed cleavages that exist in the Middle East. Turkey's neigbours are Arabs - who dislike Turkey for having been an occupying country and not being or speaking Arab; Iranians, who are of a different Islamic denomination; Armenians, who are Christian and have some old issues with Turkey, and Georgians who are also Christian. Turkish entry into the EU could well serve to enlarge instead of bridge these cleavages, especially those with the Arab world.