EU has disappeared from the front pages in Turkey

02 Apr 2012 - 09:45
Last week I visited Istanbul and Ankara to find out more about the state of the EU debate in this candidate for EU accession. I met with government officials, politicians, civil activists and media representatives. One first impression was that EU membership is no longer on top of the national agenda. It has disappeared from the front pages and the annual progress reports of the European Commission about the state of the negotiations do no longer receive the enormous attention that they were given in the past. The accession process has come to a standstill and the Turks blame the European Union for that. Many of the 35 negotiating chapters have been blocked by the EU since 2006. This is partly due to the Cyprus issue but also at the insistence of France that does not want to talk about those policy areas that have a direct link to EU membership - its government wants to give Turkey a privileged partnership and nothing more. Of the chapters opened only one - science and research - has been closed so far, meaning that Turkey officially meets the criteria for implementing EU policy. Concerning Cyprus, the Turks keep blaming Brussels for not allowing the Turkish Cypriots to trade freely and for giving too much leverage to the Greek inhabitants of the island. That the EU justifiably demands that Turkey recognises the state of Cyprus, does not convince them. In Ankara they are not in the mood for concessions. The Turkish people seems to have lost trust in the EU and a number of its member states, that they suspect of bad faith. Why give in on Cyprus while there is no guarantee at all that this will lead to successful negotiations? Why start making concessions on chapters such as competition or social policy, that in principle can be opened, when they get nothing in return? What they regard as islamophobia of public opinion in Western Europe and the negative attitude of some member states makes it in their view highly unlikely that an eventual accession treaty will ever be ratified.

A different Turkey with new priorities

The Turkey that asked for candidate status in 1999 and for the start of negotiations in 2004, is no more, and it looks like priorities are different now. Led by the AK party of Prime Minister Erdogan, the country has changed enormously and gained a lot of self-confidence. First and foremost as regards the economy with high growth rates and hardly touched by the financial and economic crisis that started in 2008. Many Turks gleefully point to the financial problems inside the EU. At the same time, however, the economy of the country shows vulnerabilities with a growing balance of payments deficit and a construction boom financed with cheap short term loans. Experts say that a collapse of the economy - something that has happened before - is, nevertheless, highly unlikely because of the structural reforms introduced after the last economic debacle.

Although the influence of Brussels has diminished, the reform process continues. European standards are considered to have an intrinsic value and this is one of the reasons why a separate Ministry for European Affairs was set up. But some contested issues remain in the areas of the freedom of expression and the independence of the judiciary. Many journalists have been detained under the anti-terrorist laws because they are suspected of support for the PKK - only writing an article about this organisation can land a journalist in jail. Detention periods can be long - and not only for journalists - because of an enormous backlog of cases pending trial. The opposition accuses the government of interfering too much with the judiciary and of having taken control over all appointments in this area. They see this as a signal that the AKP suffers from authoritarian trends comparable to the ruling party of Russia. Others reject this view and blame some missteps of the AKP on the arrogance of a party that has been in power far too long. Authoritarianism is part and parcel of Turkish political life and tradition with strong leadership and a lack of internal party democracy.

The Prime Minister recently made several speeches in North Africa where he praised the Turkish model of a secular state and a religious society. Not even the opposition suspects him of wanting to introduce a reference to Islam in the constitution, but some worry about his religious conservatism and his views on the role of women.

Presently a commission with representatives of the four parliamentary parties is drafting changes to the constitution in a surprisingly open process of consultation. It attracts a lot of public attention. Will the four parties be able to reach a compromise on the most burning issue: the definition of Turkish citizenship? All people living in the country are considered Turks according to the present text. Should this be deleted and replaced with a more neutral formula or should the minorities be mentioned specifically? The party representing the Kurds lobbies for a reference to its people which would open the way for full language rights - and not only in the Kurdish areas. Millions of Kurds live outside their region of origin and a devolution of power - giving more autonomy to the regions - would not help them. The nationalists in the Turkish Parliament will almost certainly oppose such a change to the constitution. So it would seem that this issue will not be solved since the commission can only propose amendments by unanimity.

A positive agenda?

So in addition to sagging relations with Brussels, domestic issues turn away attention from EU accession as well. One gets the impression of two big ships drifting apart. At the same time, nobody wants to burn bridges and stop the negotiating process completely - EU membership remains a strategic goal of Turkey. The European Commission and the European Council have recently proposed to develop a positive agenda of activities circumventing the problems with the negotiations. To quote the 2011 progress report of the Commission: " The Commission will work to launch a new virtuous circle in the accession process with Turkey. Based on a pragmatic approach and incorporating concrete steps in areas of common interest, a joint understanding of constraints and a search for progress in Turkey's alignment with the EU, a fresh and positive agenda should be developed, to enable a more constructive and positive relationship.

This agenda should cover a broad range of areas, including intensified dialogue and

cooperation on political reforms, visa, mobility and migration, energy, the fight against

terrorism, the further participation of Turkey in Community programmes such as "Europe for citizens", town twinning, as well as trade and the Customs Union with the aims of eliminating ongoing trade irritants, seeking closer coordination in the negotiations on free trade agreements and exploring new avenues to make full use of the EU's and Turkey's joint economic potential. Alongside the accession negotiations, the Commission intends to enhance its cooperation with Turkey, in support of the country's efforts to pursue reforms and align with the acquis, including on chapters where accession negotiations cannot be opened for the time being. The Commission will continue informing the Council as soon as it considers that Turkey has met relevant benchmarks."

In Ankara they react to this new approach with scepticism and wonder if this agenda should not include more concrete points like steps into the direction of visa liberalisation. The Turkish government has concluded the negotiations about a readmission agreement and, in return for its ratification, demands the same treatment as was given to other candidate countries like Serbia. The EU is only willing to start a visa dialogue and first wants to see the readmission agreement fully implemented. In Ankara this is seen as another example of an unfair treatment of Turkey. Many in Brussels see possibilities for closer cooperation on foreign affairs issues, in particular with regard to the Southern Caucasus, North Africa and the Middle East. The Turks are not against this, but cherish their independent role. This is the reason why they align themselves less and less with EU foreign policy statements which other candidate countries do most of the time. Here we touch upon a fundamental change in the behaviour of Turkey: the country is no longer prepared to be the junior partner of the EU. The Turks want equal treatment which in their view means no double standards and no undeserved criticism. As a consequence, they try to be tough with the EU which is exemplified by their refusal to deal with the Cypriot government when it will have the EU presidency in the second half of 2012.

The positive agenda proclaimed by the EU is a clever attempt to keep doors open and to continue the process of Turkish approximation to the EU. But for the resumption of the real negotiations a political breakthrough is needed. Bots sides, however, point to the other to take the first step.