Turkey formally began accession talks with EU on October 3rd. The common view is that the negotiation process will be a long way full of barricades, drawbacks and stress. On the other hand, the anti-EU circles in Turkey claim persistently that Turkey, which was given a 15-year negotiation period, will bump the wall at the end of this process with no membership in hand. Well, will Turkey really be disappointed? Is EU really bamboozling Turkey? Why not membership today? What if it was granted today? What does an EU with a full member Turkey mean? We tried to answer these questions with EU experts; Dr. James Ker-Lindsay, Director of Civilities Research from Nicosia, Cyprus, Dr. Teemu Palosaari of The Centre for European Studies (CESUH) at the University of Helsinki, Prof. Nick Sitter from Centre for European and Asian Studies Department of Public Governance, The Norwegian School of Management and Dr. Jorge Nunez Ferrer from Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels, and Alan Cafruny, Professor of International Affairs at Hamilton College, New York, reflected what the picture was on the other side of the Atlantic.
Let's use our imagination. Suppose that Turkey became a full member of the EU, TODAY, under the current conditions! What positive and negative aspects (both for Turkey and the EU) would take place?
Lindsay: The key consideration would have to be the question of freedom of movement. Even if Turkey joined today it is likely that the same sorts of limitation on the movement of workers that have been imposed on the ten new member states would also be imposed on Turkey. In this sense, many of the worst fears many people in Europe have about the sudden arrival of millions of people from Turkey would not happen. In my view, the biggest problem would actually come from decision making. One of the more noticeable things about Turkey is that it continues to adopt a zero-sum approach towards negotiations. Issues are fought over and you either win or lose. The EU does not work in this way. Instead, compromise is the name of the game. I think that it will take time for Turkey to get used to this. If Turkey joined today, I think that we would see some very major rifts opening up and severe deadlocks on many issues.
Palosaari: If we look at the previous enlargements of the EU (and its predecessor European Community, EC) we can see that the accession of new countries has always been part of the political play of that time. Especially during the 3 first enlargements (UK, Ireland, Denmark 1973; Spain, Portugal and Greece in the 1980s)) the official criteria that applicants had to meet were not too clearly defined. For instance, the membership of UK was in a way more a result of the changes in power politics between the big European states, and the East/West confrontation played a role too, rather than the result of a systematic accession process. This political dimension was even clearer when Spain, Portugal and Greece joined. The Commission had actually advised against the accession, since the economic criteria for membership were not met, but the member states overrode this argument, mainly because they wanted to support the democratization of these ex-military regimes. After that the membership criteria were defined better and the fourth (1995) and fifth enlargements (2004) took place according to the Copenhagen Criteria. Because the accession criteria are now clearly defined and they have been used twice in practice, it is very difficult to see that any country could any longer join the EU unless all the criteria are met and the accession process systematically passed. But if - as you say - we imagine that Turkey became a member today, the explanation would probably relate to really large-scale current political issues in world politics. Perhaps a terrorist attack by foreign fundamentalists in Turkey directed against the Turkish governmental system that they regarded "too un-religious" could have raised a wave of political sympathy in Europe which led to the accession? Or perhaps the deepening of the EU integration process had slowed down so dramatically that further enlargements were needed in order to show that integration still proceeds in some way?
Sitter: That is a very large leap of imagination, for three good reasons. First, by the EU's membership criteria, Turkey does not yet qualify (apart from the political and economic situation, not to mention the Cyprus question, think of the need to get Turkish legislation aligned with that of the EU and the capacity to implement all EU law). Second, opinion polls indicate considerable public opposition against such enlargement any time soon, and after this summer's referendums in France and the Netherlands the member state governments have to be even more sensitive to this than usual (see polls cited by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4307700.stm). Third (and this I think is the answer to your question), it would not be possible to operate the EU as it currently operated with Turkey as a member state today. This is not only because a) the decision making rules have to be adapted (think of the debates at Nice over changing voting rules to prepare for the last enlargement); but also because b) it would not be possible to keep up the EU's redistributive policies for very long; c) Turkey would presumably be hit quite hard if it had to incorporate all EU social, environment and other production-related regulations and standards overnight (other enlargements have included adjustment periods); and because d) it difficult to imagine Turkey jumping past the new member states in the queue to join Schengen, EMU and full labour market access Turkish membership would help make a two-speed EU a more permanent reality than it already is today.
Nunez Ferrer: Maybe I lack imagination, but I personally do not like these kinds of speculations, they are detrimental. Giving a false image of what enlargement actually is. The enlargement process is a long adaptation period in which the candidate country gradually adopts the rules of the EU and sets up the structures to implement EU rules and programs. It is an important period of building a level of understanding and trust with the EU which is crucial for the functioning of such a diverse setting. It is simply necessary. An immediate entry today would be very detrimental for both sides, with Turkey unable to implement the EU policies to start with, including the EU structural and agricultural programs. Then the entry of Turkey, which I support, needs an adaptation of mentalities on both sides; it is a major historical event, a change in a long history of conflict. The start of negotiations is crucial, because it is through these negotiations that the basis for a good membership is built. If the negotiations had started years ago, accession today would probably be easy. Let me compare with the Central and Eastern European countries. They entered in 2004, 15 years after the break-up of communist rule in these countries. At that time, they did not look like possible members for many if not most EU citizens. Ideas of strengthened partnership etc., not unlike today's ideas for Turkey, were common. Now their membership is taken for granted. After 15 years of engagement and serious negotiations the situation changed and nobody remembers the calls to keep them out. I expect something similar today with Turkey, if negotiations are done with honesty and in a spirit of partnership, then membership will become natural. In 15 years I expect very few to remember the tensions of today.
And what kind of EU picture pops up in your mind when you see Turkey as a full member (not today, in a general manner, when the fulfilment by Turkey of the requirements for membership is realised…)?
Lindsay: Turkey 's membership of the European Union will undoubtedly have a major effect in terms of the power alignments in Europe . At this stage, power has tended to be concentrated on Germany, France and Britain, with Britain acting as the balance when issues of difference arise between Paris and Berlin. Taking on board Turkey will certainly have an effect on this power alignment. Quite how this will work is unclear. Will Turkey and Britain form a counterweight to the traditional Franco-German alliance, or will it generate more complex alignments that change on an issue by issue basis. Also, the geographical emphasis of Europe will alter. Thus far, power has tended to be congregated in Northern Europe. Taking on board Turkey will naturally see Southern Europe take on a greater role. In this sense, there might even be a new alignment in the form of Turkey leading the Southern European states.
Palosaari: I find it quite surprising how little the accession of the Central and Eastern European countries actually changed the everyday EU politics. That gives reason to expect that Turkey's accession would not cause any drastic changes either. The biggest changes would have to happen in EU's external policies, as new tools for neighbourhood policies with new regions would be needed. In "domestic" EU politics I see a more tolerant EU where cultural and religious prejudices could be abolished by cooperation and dialogue in very practical levels.
Sitter: While my own assessment is that Turkey is likely one day to join the EU, I would hasten to add that this is some time off, after considerable transition periods. The lessons from the last enlargement were that both the EU and the candidate states have to adapt considerably. It is also important to see Turkish membership in context: enlargement to Turkey is not likely to come on its own, there are several other states eager to join as well and the modifications to the EU that enlargement to Turkey means would also make it possible to take on other new members. I can imagine at least three key sets of reforms. First, the EU will need to change its decision making rules if it is to accommodate new big member states. This will be difficult, and raise questions about democracy, transparency and subsidiary all over again, not to mention member states' relative votes. An EU with turkey in it may become much more supranational (majority decision making) in a few key areas related to the single market, but I would expect the states to retain more power over many other areas and this would mean that European integration would be less 'deep' than it is today. Second, the EU's policies will need serious reform, particularly the redistributive policies (regional and agriculture) cannot operate with big new member states (there is already much debate about this after the last enlargement). Third, an EU that includes Turkey would be a two-tier EU, at least for the foreseeable future. This would consolidate the trend we have today, where not every state takes part in EMU and Schengen and there are long transition periods for labour mobility. I suspect many such transition arrangements will be used in future enlargements too. In short, a wider EU that includes Turkey could well be a less deep EU and a two- or multi-speed EU with more flexible patterns of participation. The EMU states might form a core group that pushes integration further on their own.
Nunez Ferrer: I see Turkey as an essential part of the EU, increasing its influence and security. If Turkey and the EU complete enlargement in a spirit of trust and cooperation, membership will be good for the EU and for Turkey. At this stage the necessary level of trust still needs to be built. This is normal in each enlargement, but given the size of Turkey, the geo-strategic significance and the historical burden, this process is heavier. I think both sides need to learn to collaborate and trust each other, and the enlargement negotiation is the mechanism.
And how do you evaluate the performance of the current leading party, AKP for its EU struggle? What can you say taking its Islamic origin into consideration?
Lindsay: I think that many observers have been surprised and impressed by the way in which the AKP has managed its EU membership strategy. Across a wide range of areas, it has managed to show an ability to challenge long-held national positions and take the country in a new direction. We have seen this over the Cyprus issue, over human rights reforms and with economic performance. While much still needs to be done, the signs so far have been very encouraging. In terms of the AKPs Islamic roots, I am sure that there are still many who believe that the Party maintains another agenda that sees the process of EU accession as being a chance to make reforms that will allow greater religious freedom. Now that the EU membership talks have started we shall soon see if this is the case. Similarly, the process of EU accession talks will also reveal just how aware people in Turkey are about the specific requirements of membership. It has often been said that EU accession negotiations are not negotiations at all. It is a process whereby countries must accept the changes demanded of them. This will come as a surprise for many in Turkey and it is likely that the government will come under a lot of criticism for not taking a tougher stance towards the EU. This will be the real challenge for the AKP. Will it be able to explain this to people and fight off criticism from the opposition parties?
Sitter: I don't have sufficient knowledge of Turkish politics to comment much on the AKP, except to point out that it seems (from a European perspective) to have made some moves that were particularly ill-advised given its goal of EU membership and which could hardly fail to attract criticism. The party's Islamic origin need not be a problem as such (there are many "religious" parties in the EU), the key question is how they handle high-profile issues such as human rights questions, the Cyprus issue and perhaps also the Armenia issue, which is salient in France. A final comment relates to the goal of full membership: while the goal for full EU membership is understandable, it is also some time off, and it would mean joining an EU that does not look like it does today. Given that the market seems to play a more important role than redistributive policies in redistributing wealth across the EU, perhaps it would be advisable to focus on gaining access to the single market first? The European Economic Area has not been popular among accession states because they tend to see it as an alternative to the EU, but Sweden, Austria and Finland all used it as a stepping stone towards full EU membership.
Nunez Ferrer: I have not followed the party performance in detail, but the fact that this historic agreement to start negotiations has been achieved under this party deserves praise. I do not like the question on the Islamic origin. The issue is not if a party is Islamic or not, but if it accepts the EU principles of democracy, equal opportunities and human rights, the famous EU Copenhagen criteria for all members. It is normal that in a Muslim country, Islamic ideals may inspire politicians, like Christian ideas inspire politicians of EU countries or Zen Buddhism, a Japanese political party. It is part of your culture, and cultural tolerance and diversity is a pillar of the EU. Depending which historical horizon we take, Christian catholic rules of the past would also clash severely with the EU democratic criteria. There are EU parties that have names like Christian Democrats or Christian other etc. They might have the name due to some of their basic ideals, but they accept the democratic rules. Instead of looking at the inspiration of parties or their name, we have to judge their credentials for what they say and what they do on the ground.
'EU with Turkey will still be under the American/NATO umbrella'
Alan Cafruny (Henry Bristol Professor of International Affairs, Dept. of Government, Hamilton College, New York)
“I do think it is likely that Turkey will eventually become a member of the EU, but that is quite a few years away and so not of course under current conditions. The EU would demand quite a lot in the way of political reforms, especially in the area of human rights. Assuming these reforms, on the positive side for the EU of Turkish membership would be the establishment of a larger market with significant potential to open up further trade and investment in the Arab world. Turkey would also of course benefit from closer economic integration, by increasing trade and investment, and also by facilitating and routinizing labour migration. The political implications are more complex and ambiguous. Turkish entry will promote political stability throughout the Balkans. It will make it more likely that the former Yugoslav republics also gain membership more quickly (eg. the compromise with Austria that led to Croatian membership talks). It will also help to reduce tensions between Greece and Turkey, and in the long run to facilitate a resolution for the Cyprus problem. At the same time, however, Turkish entry would make it impossible to develop any sort of "core European" strategy. Turkish accession has for a long time been the goal of the United States and the UK. It strengthens NATO's position in the EU, and therefore consolidates Atlanticism rather than any sort of Gaullist vision of Europe as a counterweight to the United States. So, with reference to the second question, the sort of Europe that includes Turkey resembles much more the Anglo-American vision of a large free trade association with loose cooperation still under the American/NATO umbrella.
Ali Çimen, İstanbul
25 October 2005, Tuesday
Click here to read the interview on TodaysZaman
Click here to return to the main menu
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder