Brussels, 29/06/2005 (Agence Europe) - After an “animated and political” debate that will have lasted over two hours as predicted, the European Commission suggested to the Council on Wednesday the legal framework on the basis of which accession talks with Turkey should begin on 3 October this year. The negotiating brief proposed by the Commission, which has still to be approved by the Council, contains no surprises: The aim of the talks is accession by Turkey, no more no less, but this is an “open ended process, the outcome of which cannot be guaranteed beforehand” as accession does not systematically follow talks. If Turkey is not able to take on board all the obligations inherent to membership, then the EU should ensure that it is despite it all “anchored” in European structures as far as possible, the Commission says.
If Turkey meets the last condition set by the EU (the signing of the additional protocol to the association agreement, which should be done in coming weeks), negotiations may begin on 3 October, “as was unanimously decided by the Heads of State and Government of the Union”, Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn told the press. “The EU is a community of commitments. We stick to our words, as this is a question of credibility. The reasons at the base of the decision by the European Council of December 2004 are still the same: we need a Turkey that is stable and democratic. It is in our own strategic interest”, he said. Negotiations will be a “long and difficult journey”, but the negotiations process will encourage Turkey to continue with and intensify its reforms. “The negotiating process is as important as the result”, Mr Rehn said. In its negotiating brief, the Commission naturally does not put forward any duration for negotiations, except in a reference to budgetary implications: Given that Turkey's accession should have substantial financial consequences, negotiations will only be concluded after establishment of the financial perspectives for the period after 2014, it said.
“This is the most rigorous negotiating brief that the EU has ever had” for negotiating accession by a candidate country, the Commissioner told reporters. “We have learnt lessons from the last enlargements” and made changes compared to the negotiation mandates for earlier enlargements. Thus, it will be more difficult for Turkey to open -and even more difficult to close - negotiations on the 35 individual chapters, as the Commission and the Member States will no longer be content with just commitments and promises by a candidate country (for example, concerning the adoption and the implementation of the EU body of law), but they will want to see real and tangible progress before provisionally closing a chapter. To this end, the Council (on the basis of a proposal from the Commission) will adopt “benchmarks” for opening and closing each negotiating chapter. These benchmarks, that will take into account the weaknesses noted by the Commission in its regular annual reports on Turkey, will be regularly communicated to the Turkish party that will be invited to react and inform the Commission of the latest progress made. “We shall focus less on words and commitments and more on deeds”, Mr Rehn explained. Also, the Commission proposes that Member States set up an “emergency brake” allowing for accession talks with Turkey to be suspended at any moment in the event of “serious and persistent breach” of the principles of freedom, democracy, human rights or rule of law. In concrete terms, the suspension mechanism will be triggered at the Commission's recommendations or that of one third of Member States - a recommendation on which the Council should enact by qualified majority after having heard Turkey's point of view. The Commission also provides for the possibility for the EU to call for “long transitional periods, derogations, specific arrangements or permanent safeguard clauses” in areas that are particularly sensitive, such as the free movement of workers, regional policy or agriculture. On the subject of permanent safeguard clauses, the Commission specifies that this will be an option “permanently available” for member nations that consider it necessary, rather than an option imposed by the whole of the EU.
Progress in accession talks will depend on Turkey's capacity to comply with the Copenhagen criteria (political and economic criteria and the ability to implement the Community acquis), but also on its “unequivocal engagement” to develop “good neighbourly relations” and to help resolve the problem of Cyprus in the context of the principles proposed by the United Nations. Turkey should also progress in harmonising bilateral relations with all EU Member States, including the Republic of Cyprus,, the negotiating brief states.
On Wednesday, at the request of several of its members, the Commission added a paragraph to its draft text recalling the importance of the fourth Copenhagen criteria (often forgotten), namely the EU's absorption capacity. “Enlargement should strengthen the process of continuous creation and integration in which the Union and its Member Sates are engaged. Every effort should be made to protect the cohesion and effectiveness of the Union. In accordance with the conclusions of the Copenhagen European Council in 1993, the Union's capacity to absorb Turkey while maintaining the momentum of European integration is an important consideration in the general interest of both the Union and Turkey. The Commission shall monitor this capacity during the process of negotiations”, the negotiating mandate reads. How, when the time comes, can the Commission measure whether the EU still has the necessary absorption capacity to take Turkey in? “Personally, I believe that the term absorption capacity refers mainly to the budget available as well as to the Union's ability to take decisions”, Mr Rehn said.
Elmar Brok reproaches Commission with not taking
public opinion on enlargement into account
Today's decision shows that the European Commission “is not doing its duty, which is to bring Europe out of its crisis”, the chairman of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs, Elmar Brok, commented in a press release. The CDU elected member reproaches the Commission with not having drawn any conclusions from the feelings expressed by the public on the subject of continued EU enlargement, for having mistakenly analysed the situation in Turkey concerning torture, rule of law, religious freedom and the rights of minorities, and for having ignored the recent military clashes in the south-east of Anatolia. “Turkey is our partner and must have a European perspective”, the German MEP said, adding: “I trust that at least one Member State in Council will pull the hand brake on and thus block the Commission's proposal”.
European CSU member Markus Ferber was of the view that Turkey's membership is not realistic, and the Commission recognises that the outcome of talks with Ankara is open-ended. In his view, therefore, the Council must now be “logical and modify the negotiating brief” by making preferential partnership a “concrete option”. A similar reaction came from European UMP members (President Chirac's party) who are also part of the EPP-ED Group. Speaking on their behalf, Alain Lamassoure considers that the Commission “has not borne in mind what has happened” in the EU and Turkey since the European Council of 17 December 2004. Mr Lamassoure said Turkey is persisting in its “unacceptable refusal to recognise the Republic of Cyprus” and the “main common point between the no-vote victory in France and the Netherlands (on the Constitution) is the people's hostility to Turkey's candidature”, a feeling that is shared in at least half a dozen other Member States. In the Greens/EFA Group, the German elected member (of Turkish origin), Cem Ozdemir, prefers to hail the Commission's initiative to launch cultural dialogue between the European and Turkish civil societies.