Hopes are high that Turkish and European parliamentarians will have something to celebrate at the end of this year. Not so much because the next Joint Parliamentary Committee-meeting will be the 50th of its kind. The European Parliament expects considerable progress in implementing reforms. The Turkish side is aiming at a date for the start of accession negotiations.
Turkey got confirmation of its status of candidate country in 1999, but is the only candidate country which has not started negotiations yet. At the end of this year, ten mainly Eastern European countries plan to finalise their accession treaties to become a member in 2004. Those left behind, certainly Bulgaria and Romania, pin their hopes on 2007. In order to convince its own people that the EU is a desirable and realistic perspective, Ankara is lobbying hard to carry off a date for the starting of negotiations. But prospects are getting bleaker. Public support for enlargement within the current member states is shaky. People start worrying about the costs. Doubts are being raised whether Eastern-European countries fulfil the criteria, e.g. in terms of their human rights record. Seen in this light, Turkey’s membership is one of the distant future.
Should Turkey become a member?
The EU offered the perspective of membership with its association treaty with Turkey in 1964. When it confirmed the candidacy in 1999, Brussels entered into a commitment: provided that Turkey fulfils the criteria, it will become a member. Strategically it is in the EU’s interest to have Turkey on board - the country provides the bridge to the Middle East. Turkey’s membership would also be instrumental to tackle problems of immigration from and via Turkey, of human rights and of the integration of Turks in EU-countries. Having said that, the accession of a Turkey that does not share the EU’s fundamental values would cause great problems to European policy making.
Turkish citizens are mainly in favour of EU-accession. Yet many of them, politicians included, see the political reforms undertaken right now as painful concessions to the EU. In fact, while Brussels does not have a recipe for every Turkish problem, alignment with the EU-criteria would above all benefit the fundamental rights of the Turkish themselves.
Positive developments
Since 1999 the reform process has accelerated considerably. Crucial issues, such as education in the Kurdish language or lifting the death penalty, used to be taboo subjects – now they are being debated. The Turkish parliament has passed a wide range of constitutional amendments, some of which do bring the country closer to the EU. It is now easier to hold public protests and marches and to found non-profit associations. The media is allowed to use languages other than Turkish. The duration of pre-trial detention has been reduced and tougher criteria for banning political parties have been introduced. A positive practical step has been the lifting of the state of emergency in Kurdish areas which will allow people there a greater freedom of movement.
Political criteria
To start negotiations, Turkey needs to comply with the political Copenhagen-criteria - just as all other candidate countries. They imply that a country needs to have democratic institutions. Differences need to be resolved through the rule of law. Human rights must be guaranteed and minorities must be respected and protected. Turkey is ahead of some other candidates as far as the economic criteria of Copenhagen are concerned and in terms of its administrative capacity to take over the acquis. Yet there is still much work to do in complying with the political criteria. A very prominent example is the treatment of the Kurdish population. Right now the struggle concentrates on the right to receive education in their own language. The freedom of expression is, unfortunately, about to be further limited with the new media law. The law allows to fine website owners for publishing critical comments and creates favourable conditions for media tycoons at the expense of small media. Another pressing human rights issue is the living conditions in Turkish prisons. Although there has been a gradual improvement, the Council of Europe’s Anti-Torture Committee still considers ill-treatment of persons in pre-trial detention a great concern.
More fundamental are the changes needed in Turkey’s political system. The army has a say in all matters of security in the broadest sense, thus even education and culture when they are linked with, for instance, the Kurdish question. Many Turkish people believe that, as long as the danger of Kurdish separatism has not been removed, the army is the only guarantor for peace and should therefore be involved in politics. In order to respect the primacy of democratic institutions and the rule of law, however, Turkey should scale down the army’s interference. Related to this is the wish of the EU to see more pluralism in Turkey. Many Kurdish and Islamic parties are being banned for threatening the integrity of the state. The European Parliament hopes that under the changed circumstances of the new party law the lawsuit against the Kurdish political party Hadep will be dropped.
Conclusion
If Turkey complies with the Copenhagen-criteria, it will become a member of the EU. Contrary to what some of my European colleagues suggest, I am convinced that there is no question of an unbridgeable cultural divide. I can understand that Turkish reformers would like to see a date for the start of negotiations. I am afraid, however, that if the necessary reforms have not been accomplished by that time, the date will be used as a deadline by opponents of Turkey´s accession. Turkey and the EU are better advised to work along a realistic roadmap which remains flexible enough to keep the door open should reforms take more time.
Dutch MEP Joost Lagendijk (Green-EFA) is Co-chairman of the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee
Ute Seela is policy advisor of the Dutch GreenLeft