Each to his or her own. The European Commission's report summing up the state of play with negotiations with Turkey has provided all observers with the opportunity to lay emphasis on the element closest to their heart. The result of this has been desperate reactions, confirming the various positions and concerns, rather than timely and objective reactions to the Commission's report.
The European Parliament is a case in point. In yesterday's edition of the bulletin, Marina Gazzo devoted an entire page to the stances of the various political groups or the MEPs individually. In each case, on the basis of the Commission's analyses, some of them criticised the Commission (in fairly lively language, in some cases) for not having taken position in favour of calling a halt to negotiations: this is particularly the case with members of the EPP group, especially German members. In the view of most of the Socialists, on the other hand, the suspension of negotiations would be completely inappropriate and Turkey's accession remains the only acceptable option. The reactions of the Greens were more mixed, whereas other groups were even more virulent, going as far as the appeal on the part of one Italian member to "slam the door in Turkey's face".
The reactions of other movements or pressure groups conform to the same principle: each one bases his or her evaluation on which aspect concerns him or her directly. The most typical example is the stance taken by the European Armenian Federation, which pulls no punches: "Report fails to address Armenian genocide- Commission refuses to suspend negotiations". Following a reasonably objective summary of the contents of the report, the Federation accuses the Commission of "failure to (...) address Armenian issues, particularly (...) Turkey's denial (of the Armenian genocide)", adding that this is a "setback in terms of the credibility of this European institution".
The Commission committed. I could continue with quotations. I will, however, just observe that the Commission, far from shaking off its responsibility for taking a stance, has made it quite clear that it requires of Turkey the "full and non-discriminatory implementation of the additional protocol to the Ankara Agreement", adding that if Turkey fails to fulfil "all of its obligations", the Commission will make "appropriate recommendations before the European Council of December", which is just a few weeks from now (see our bulletin from two days ago for Albin Birger's summary of the Commission's report). It is as it should be that the Commission is waiting for the results of negotiations underway between the Finnish Presidency and the Turkish government on the question of Cyprus, and for the initiatives announced by Mr Erdogan on the revision of the article of the Constitution on freedom of expression, before putting together any recommendations which could very easily prove to be null and void; but it has made a formal commitment to take position before the middle of December. I would also stress the fact that whilst certainly critical, the Commission's report was not as radically negative as were sometimes claimed. The conclusions of its strategic documents state that "Turkey continues to sufficiently fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria" and has continued to make progress in its economic reforms, pointing out, however, that "the pace has slowed down". The Commission believes that "additional efforts" are needed on the freedom of expression, the rights of non-Muslim religious communities, women's rights, union rights and civil control of the army. On the other hand, it takes the view that Turkey is already a "functioning market economy".
An erroneous approach. After these comments, which aim to shed light on the facts beyond emotive reactions, I would personally like to add that I do not like the way in which the Turkish dossier has been approached. Each time, emphasis is laid on such and such a specific point, which is presented as the key element of the negotiations. But it seems quite clear to me that if the Turkish government decidedly wants negotiations to make progress, it will make the necessary last-minute concessions to avoid breaking them off each time, after having negotiated them hard. This was the case with the process of the last Nobel Prize and other cases before that; it will also be the way with the case of Cyprus and the revision of the Constitutional standard on freedom of expression (Mr Erdogan has already made approaches on this subject). What will they say then, those who oppose Turkish accession, will they acknowledge the fact that the current obstacles have been overcome, whilst waiting anxiously for the next lot?
For my money, the procedure needs to be far more global and political. What we need to assess jointly, between the EU and Turkey, is the appropriateness and feasibility of accession in itself, taking account of such elements as the transfer of power this will bring with it, the repercussions on the cultural and, later, political autonomy of the Kurds, possible developments with secularity if the power of the military is radically curtailed. For its part, the EU must assess its ability to integrate Turkey (see this column yesterday), including the sustainability of its agricultural and cohesion policies. A little global vision, please, without ruling out the possibility for mutually satisfactory alternative solutions. (F.R.)