France's position is unchanged. There's nothing new on Turkey at European level. Neither the election of a new Turkish president nor the calming words of Nicolas Sarkozy have, in my opinion, altered the situation. The French president's position, opposing Turkey's accession to the EU and in favour of a wider and stronger partnership, has not changed. The analyses which I read of the speech Mr Sarkozy gave in Paris on 27 August are inaccurate. Maybe I was unlucky in my choice of reading. Let us leave the analyses to one side, and consider what actually was said, available in written form.
Mr Sarkozy established a link between relations with Turkey and the reflection he formally asked for on Europe by 2020-2030 (after the new treaty comes into effect, after the agricultural policy has been reviewed and after the new financial perspective for 2013-2020 has been determined). He said: “If this reflection on the future of our Union is launched, France will not oppose the opening of new negotiating chapters with Turkey in the coming months and years, on condition that these chapters are in line with the two visions: either accession or as close association as possible without accession. I do not want to be hypocritical: everyone knows I only favour association. That is the position I have held for years and which I argued for during the electoral campaign. I think that one day it will be recognised as the most reasonable.” He explained: “Of the 35 remaining chapters which have still to be opened, 30 are compatible with association. Five are only compatible with accession. I told the Turkish prime minister: let's deal with the 30 that are compatible with association; then we'll see for the rest”. It seems clear that among the five chapters not to be negotiated are Economic and Monetary Union (and, therefore, joining the euro) and institutional issues (influence with Council, number of Members of the European Parliament, how Turkey features in the European Commission).
Mr Sarkozy added: “If this compromise proposal were to be rejected, I would simply point out that, for the pursuit of discussions, unanimity is required”. In short, France will use its power to block the opening of negotiations on new chapters. The president is confirming, then, his opposition to accession: he will accept that the areas compatible with association are negotiated, but will oppose anything beyond this limit. The softening of the French position, then, consists of agreeing to negotiation of the arrangements for association, on condition that reflection of the future Europe (including, he had already stressed, its borders) is undertaken in parallel.
Questions which remain. There can be no objection to the election of Abdullah Güll to the presidency of the Turkish Republic. All the democratic and constitutional rules were followed. It is perfectly right that the European institutions congratulated him warmly (see EUROPE 9490). Several high-level European figures have even said they thought that his election would help Turkey's accession. How far can this opinion be shared?
Mr Güll belongs to what is usually described as “moderate Islam” and has shown fairness and wisdom as a minister, as, indeed, has the prime minister. But there is nothing to say the attitude of their country will change on important issues such as the military occupation of a part of the EU (the northern part of Cyprus); effective religious freedom, with all faiths having the same rights; the rights of minorities (mainly the Kurds, but others too); gender equality; respect for secularism. The armed forces' attitude on Iraqi Kurdistan and their general leanings (they have openly expressed their reservations about the new Turkish president) are difficult to predict. Something that must not be forgotten: is Turkey a geographically European country which wants to be part of the EU? The response to that question will probably come out of the European reflection called for by Mr Sarkozy.
In the meantime, Turkish public support for entry to the EU has fallen sharply, except among, economic circles, in the city of Istanbul and on the Mediterranean coast. No one denies their “European-ness”; but the rest of the country is different.
Conclusion: recent developments argue for a strengthening of the links between the EU and Turkey, but do nothing to diminish the uncertainty as to its full accession. In my opinion, the opposite is more likely to be the case.
(F.R.)