Quote of the day

Civil society tends to become a sort of artificial reservoir for an endangered species: the democratic intellectual, protected by the international institutions

Syndicate content

Login

Login or Register to be identified in your comments

Email & RSS

Sign up to oD's editorial summaries email:



Add oD to your Netvibes: Add to Netvibes


View 6 comments

Turkey and the European Union: don't despair

The accession of Turkey to the European Union is beset by troubles. It needn’t be if both sides concentrate on the positives, the big picture and the long term, says Katinka Barysch.

The relationship between Turkey and the European Union, never easy, has taken a turn for the worse. The dispute over Cyprus - involving Turkey's refusal of access of goods from the (Greek) Republic of Cyprus to its ports and airports, and rejection of compromise proposals involving the opening of the port of Famagusta in the unrecognised Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to trade with the EU - is the latest phase of a lengthy period of discontent on both sides.

The breakdown of talks on 27 November 2006 in Tampere, Finland - the current holder of the rotating EU presidency - signals the further entrenchment of this tension. Erkki Tuomioja, the Finnish foreign minister, who had hosted separate meetings with his counterparts from Turkey (Abdullah Gül) and Cyprus (George Lillikas), said that the failure to reach agreement would have consequences for Turkey's accession talks; "Business as usual cannot continue."

It is hardly an auspicious sign on the eve of the already controversial visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Turkey from 28-30 November. The pope's visit may not be a European Union matter, but the political background reinforces existing arguments - brought to the fore in the wake of the pope's Regensburg address of 12 September - that religious and historical differences render Turkey and Europe incompatible as long-term partners.

In October 2005, when the European Union started accession talks with Turkey, few could have anticipated such an outcome. The mood then was a mixture of relief, excitement and some apprehension. EU entry was finally in sight. But would Turkey be up to the technical complexities?

Thirteen months on, more than 2,000 Turkish experts and officials are busy with accession preparations. Brussels bureaucrats describe the Turkish team as efficient, focused and committed. The "screening"process, in which Turkish rules are compared with EU requirements, is on course to be completed by the end of 2006. And the reason why Turkey has so far negotiated only one of the thirty-five "chapters"of the acquis communautaire is that Cyprus (which entered the EU in May 2004 as part of the enlargement to ten new member-states) is blocking further progress.

Technically, Turkish accession is progressing as well as can be expected. But politically it is in trouble. Excitement has given way to disillusionment on both sides. The EU is concerned about Turkey's slowing reforms and its refusal to honour pledges over Cyprus. Turks are angry that the EU is making politically unacceptable demands, without even being able to guarantee that Turkey will eventually join the EU.

The forthcoming presidential (May 2007) and legislative (November 2007) elections in Turkey, and those next year in key EU states such as France, have raised the political heat even further. If mutual recrimination and incomprehension get worse, Turkey's accession could stall or even fail. Turkey would lose its "anchor" for reforms. The EU would lose credibility and a valuable partner. Both sides need to rethink, and quickly.

Here, then, are three pithy recommendations on the leading areas of concern surrounding the Turkey-EU relationship.

Katinka Barysch is chief economist at the Centre for European Reform (CER)

The article is largely based on the proceedings of the third Bosphorus Conference 2006, organised by the British Council, Tesev and the CER in Istanbul on 15-16 September 2006.

Also by Katinka Barysch in openDemocracy:

"Ukraine should not be part of a 'great game'" (7 December 2004) – with Charles Grant

EU talks: be constructive!

Turkish politicians need to be constructive and keep their eyes on the big prize: eventual European Union membership. Turks complain a lot about double standards and unfair treatment. The EU is partly to blame: it spends a miserly €1 million a year on communication in Turkey - obviously not enough to make Turks understand how enlargement works.

Accession is always tough, not only for Turkey. France under Charles de Gaulle twice (1963, and 1966-67) vetoed Britain's accession. Spain's accession negotiations went nowhere for five long years, as existing members worried about its impact on EU farm policies. Poland was told it would join in 2000 - and entered only four years later.

It is true that the enlargement process has changed since the last big round in 2004. But these changes are not necessarily directed against Turkey. Croatia is subject to the same tough criteria as Turkey, but it does not see these conditions as an anti-Croatian plot.

Accession has become tougher, but it has also become more objective. At one time, political judgment was the only measure of progress. Today there are "benchmarks" for each step in the negotiations, and the European commission checks meticulously whether candidate countries implement EU laws. In its strategy report on enlargement issued on 8 November 2006, the commission suggested that the "benchmarks" used in accession negotiations should be made public: a good idea, because this would make it harder for existing member countries to block negotiations on say, competition policy or environmental rules because of disputes over borders or property they have with the candidate in question.

Turks scowl when the likes of Angela Merkel and Wolfgang Schűssel (the German and Austrian chancellors) call for a "privileged partnership" instead of full membership. But Turkey needs to remember that, just like EU-critical remarks coming from Ankara, such calls are primarily meant for home consumption. The fact is that the EU has stuck to its decision to negotiate with Turkey with the objective of full membership.

Europeans will continue to debate whether this is good or bad - as they should in an open, democratic society. Rather than pouncing on pre-election statements in EU capitals or reports by the European parliament, the Turkish leadership needs to calm down its voters before support for EU membership drops further.

Cyprus: muddle through!

The division of Cyprus is the most urgent, controversial and convoluted issue on the EU-Turkey agenda. Turkey has committed to extending its customs union with the EU to the new member-states, which involves opening up its ports and airports to ships registered in Cyprus. Ankara now says it will only do so if the Europeans honour their own pledge to open up for trade with Northern Cyprus. But the (Greek) Cypriot government uses its EU veto on the trade question, and some western European politicians say that EU talks should be stopped if Turkey does not open its ports.

The news from Tampere on 27 November is the clearest indication that the Finnish government's mediation efforts have gone nowhere. The European commission in early November postponed making a recommendation on whether the negotiations should be - wholly or partly - suspended. But the Brussels summit of EU heads of state and government on 14 December (three days after a foreign-ministers' summit) will have to make or confirm a decision on this.

Also in openDemocracy's "The future of Turkey" debate:

Reinhard Hesse, "Turkish honey under a German moon"
(11 March 2004)

Alex Rondos, "Cyprus: the price of rejection "
(22 April 2004)

Murat Belge, "Turkey and Europe: why friendship is welcome"
(15 December 2004)

Fred Halliday, "Turkey and the hypocrisies of Europe"
(16 December 2004)

Fadi Hakura, "Europe and Turkey: the end of the beginning"
(5 October 2005)

Daria Vaisman, "Turkey's restriction, Europe's problem"
(29 September 2006)

John Palmer, "A commonwealth for Europe"
(11 October 2006)

Fadi Hakura, "Europe and Turkey: sour romance or rugby match?"
(13 November 2006)

EU leaders should bear in mind that the Recep Tayyip Erdogan government has little room for manoeuvre ahead of Turkey's national elections, the first since his moderate Islamist Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (Justice & Development Party / AKP) came to power in November 2002. Any concessions would play into the hands of Turkey's nationalist opposition. Many Turks feel that, since it was the Greek Cypriots who in 2004 voted down the Kofi Annan plan for reunification (which would have allowed a united Cyprus to enter the EU), it is Nicosia that has to move first.

However important Cyprus is, it is not worth calling off the accession talks over the issue. Turkey would probably be asked to make even bigger concessions before it could resume negotiations. And Cyprus would forego the last chance of having a negotiated settlement.

The best the EU and Turkey can do for now is to muddle through until after the Turkish elections. If Turkey - as still seems likely - refuses to open its ports by the 6 December deadline which the European commission is working towards, Brussels could suspend accession talks on only those chapters that are narrowly related to the customs union. That would not be a disaster, for two reasons. First, Turkey already has a customs union with the EU, so there has already been a lot of progress in many of the areas affected; second, if the EU put part of the negotiations on ice, that would still leave Turkey with twenty-five or thirty other "chapters" to get on with.

In the meantime, the EU should press Cyprus to allow for trade opening. And the Turks should agree to confidence-building measures to prepare the ground for a resumption of United Nations-sponsored talks on reunification.

PR: highlight the positive!

A third issue that is turning the Turks off EU accession is public hostility in western Europe. Fewer than half the citizens in the twenty-five EU member-states want any more EU members, and the prospect of Turkish entry is particularly controversial. In a survey of the "national brands" of thirty-five existing and potential EU member-states, Turkey consistently comes last. More than 80% of Austrians, 60% of Germans and 50% of French people are against Turkish membership, and Austria and France are committed to holding a referendum on Turkish accession.

However, Turks should not be too discouraged by the polls, for three reasons. First, in ten out of twenty-five EU countries, there are more people in favour of Turkish accession than against. Second, opposition to future enlargement is related to economic uncertainties and a more general disillusionment with the EU; but eurozone growth is picking up, and the EU is regaining popularity in many places. Third, these prejudices are superficial and largely based on ignorance.

However, boring government public relations campaigns will not overcome prejudice. What Turkey and the EU need to do is to highlight the positive aspects of the "new Turkey": the political reforms, which are bringing it closer to the European mainstream; its dynamic economy and increasingly close business links with the EU; its vibrant culture, including food, music and sports; its attractiveness for holiday-makers; and its (hopefully) constructive and professional approach to EU accession. It is still far too early for Turkey and the European Union to give up on each other.

Average rating
(2 votes)
further links
read on

Michael Lake, The EU and Turkey (IB Tauris, 2005) US, UK

 
Copyright © Katinka Barysch, . Published by openDemocracy Ltd. You may download and print extracts from this article for your own personal and non-commercial use only. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Contact us if you wish to discuss republication. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.

Comments


ianniscarras said:



Tue, 2006-11-28 22:05
It would seem to me that Katinka Barisch's article completely misses the point. In return for beginning negotiations, Turkey took on a commitment to open its ports to trade with all members of the EU, including Cyprus. This it has not done. It is therefore EU credibility that is on the line. Do EU agreements count for anything? Should the EU take Turkey at its word?

In fact the Finish proposal for a deal would have offered a way out for everyone. Cypriot ships would be allowed to dock in certain Turkish ports, trade would flow to directly to at least one port in northern Cyprus, and Varosha would be opened up for use by the owners of property there, a commitment made long ago by none other than Mr. Denktash. In that way all sides would keep commitments made previously irrespective of the outcome of final negotiations.

It beggars belief that this reasonable option has been turned down, it would seem by Turkey. In the circumstance the EU can have no option but to put all chapters of the negotiation on hold. This will prove of great benefit both to Cyprus, Turkey and also Britain.

To Cyprus because negotiations on the final status of the island will immediately reopen, hopefully with a draft proposal that includes such essential features of a deal as cross-determination (or cross-voting), a reasonable security arrangement (EU or NATO) and financial arrangements that would not lead to state bancruptcy in the first few years afer reunification (all unfortunate features or by products of the final draft of the Anan Plan). Needless to say the biggest winners of such an outcome would be the Turkish Cypriots.

It would be beneficial to Turkey because the biggest obstacle to that country's entry into the EU is the role of its military both inside its borders and in its near abroad. A reexamination of the role of the military is essential and must include its role in occupying, and controlling, northern Cyprus. Turkey, like Britain and Greece, used their guarantor status not to protect Cyprus, but to serve their own narrow national interests as seen through the distorting lense of military power. These three countries bare the brunt of the shame for the tragic outcome, and all three must be honest about their guilt and show penance.

And it would be beneficial to Britain because if no unitary solution to the Cyprus issue is found, and the two parts of the country go their seperate ways, the treaties guaranteeing British sovereign bases on Cyprus would no longer be valid and those bases would, in the long run, have to be removed.

All reasons to stand up for EU principle now. Because unless the EU is honest with Turkey, Turkey will never be ready to enter as a full member. And that really would be a pity.

J.C.

m.jamil said:



Wed, 2006-11-29 04:47
unfortunate perception by cypriots, tragically many youth, who identify as "greek" first, then as cypriots ... most older turkish cypriots who lived there before the clash have emigrated, many in uk which offered that as compensation for making a mess while holding the island ... the process for reunification needs time and the courage to overturn current "greek" public opinion by education to counter viscous anti-turk propaganda & by EU to force their acceptance of a divided, but cooperative federal process leading to possible one-state solution. Both EU & UN were cowardly in caving in to ultra-nationalist "greek" campaign ... but this is a sideshow that should not interfere with deeper turkish-eu issues. at this point turkey is more western & progressive than most of the balkan/slavic states, including romania & bulgaria, which are "sleeper cells" for an american trojan horse policy to weaken the eu. bulgarian migrants still pour into turkey to take low paying employment that is better than what is available in their own country. more to come.

modushg said:



Wed, 2006-11-29 16:00
Thank you for the article and the comments. When speaking of the very principle of pacta sund servanda, people always acts extremely -politically- selective and with evident amnesia.

Turkey agreed to extend Customs Union agreement in return for the political promise that the irrational isolation of Turkish Community in the Northern Cyprus will be relieved, if not removed. This isolation is a product of pure political cynicism. If it is Turkey to blame for, then the isolations would have been directed to Turkey. However, it has been the Turkish Community who has been punished, who also punished for voting yes in UN's reunification plan... And it is the Greek Community who has been awarded for voting No in said referanda, and systematically and continuously vetoeing the European Parliament and European Council confirmations and political promises against the isolation of Turkish community.

If such vetoes had not been engineered with the cynicist and thus unethical support of France and Austria, then we would not be experiencing any default by Turkey for not extending the Customs Union agreement.

I hope European Union knows what it has been doing, and that the sacred principle of solidarity among members should not produce results as undermining the very foundations of EU.

EU is not the sole alternative for EU, and vice versa. Such 'politically correct' and cynical moves in the process of accession of Turkey -nowadays seemingly mission impossible task- would only detriment the credibility of EU. Turkey cannot be worse.

husnumurat_1 said:



Wed, 2006-11-29 18:31
Ms. Barysh captures the issue around Cyprus with the Greek rejection of the Annan plan.

From the Turkish point of view, I would agree with the author about the high price of leaving the table. However she fails to mention, that even with the extreme pragmatism of the government, the results obtained is a repeat of disastrous Luxemburg summit. In deed there is a time for leaving the table and it does not seem so far at this point.

From the European side, EU should never forget that it admitted a divided island into its structure against the very own constitution and founding agreements with an ex-convict EOKA leader as a president.

I think what the diplomats really need to acknowledge is that the only place Cyprus can be resolved is within the United Nations. And proposals such as Finnish attempt, would undermine the resolution chances in the future. Dealing with only Varosha, will not solve the Cypriot problem and will make it next to impossible.

Mr. Rehn's expectation of a golden goal from Turkey however is equally matched by the expectation from Turkey, lifting the isolation from the side that approved the unification under Annan plan.

kingstukie said:



Thu, 2006-11-30 15:59
Turkey's entry into the EU should be taken to referendum.

I have a better idea. How about making Turkey the 51st state of the US. If the US government wants them in so much the US can have them!

Cole_2233 said:



Wed, 2006-12-27 23:24
Amen - Kingstukie

The US is asking the EU to make a decision, solely for today�s political/military profit that could have repercussions for hundreds of years in Europe.

Turkey should wise up and form alliances with some of their neighbours to the East and the South of their country, like Jordan, Egypt or the New Iraq. The Turkish will have more in common with these nations on issues like the position of women and religious and social sensibilities.

Buying into Turkey is a little like the internet boom and bust � of a few years ago. Billions were invested in internet, on the grounds that one day, it might be needed, and of course billions were lost, as the thing, which was being invested in did not exist.

With Turkey we should take it as it comes, more one day at a time, if an alternative fuel is invented, for instance, who will look in that direction? At the moment we have a country that is clearly demonstrating its wish not conform to the standards set out by Europe, while on the other side, it is demanding that it should have the absolute right to join it.

A Turkey that doesn�t wish to conform could end up the �special case�, which the rest of Europe might end up having to conforming to.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><b> <i> <br> <p> <div> <img>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
More information about formatting options

Remember to login to have your comments properly attributed

Login or Register to be identified in your comments