In an effort to affirm the primacy of politics and that of the elected parliament and legitimate government (see this column yesterday), the European institutions have been very clear about the current turn of political and judicial events in Turkey. Prime Minister Erdogan is committed to respecting the secular nature of the state, the multiparty setup, freedom of expression and the other conditions necessary for a democratic system to function. If these conditions are respected, the proof will be there to see that a real difference exists between what is known as modern Islamisism and that of a fanatic Islamism, such as the one we see in action elsewhere.
Necessary requirements. These positive observations in my opinion, however, do not change the possible and problematic accession of Turkey to the European Union. Democratic countries that respect freedom are everywhere and this is not a sufficient reason for becoming a member of the EU. Accession also implies other conditions, such being a geographical part of Europe, accepting all the different Community rules and provisions and the EU's “capacity of absorption”.
While awaiting next month's EP plenary debate, the parliamentary report by Ria Oomen-Ruijten is, from this point of view, an essential document (is summarised in EUROPE 9648). It is above all, in the interest of the country itself that it modernises, reinforces democracy and expands freedoms. If it does so, just for opening the doors of the EU, we could be led to doubt the country's sincerity and commitment. Most of the report focuses on what Turkey still has to do to fulfil the accession conditions and makes a specific reference to getting rid of the penal code that threatens the freedom of expression (the most recent Turkish winner of the Nobel peace prize was almost subject to these provisions), the explicit and definitive pre-eminence of civilian over military power, the application of customs union provisions to all member states of the EU (when one member state, Cyprus, is currently being excluded from it).
The European Parliament is right to insist on these points and on the others still pending. Even the supporters of accession believe that years and years of negotiations will be required for this to be put into practice. Olli Rehn, the Commissioner responsible for negotiations, has just affirmed that accession could be envisaged for 2020 on the obvious condition that Turkey pursues its reforms.
For Turkey itself. I share the opinion of those who believe that accession does not represent the right solution because it is, above all, inappropriate to Turkey itself. The geographical situation of this large country, its specific interests and foreign policy requirements indicate that Turkey has no reason to have its hands tied in the common policies and institutional mechanisms of the EU, with which it is already united through exclusive links (customs union!) and which are likely to develop further.
It is not the EU of today that ought to be considered but rather, the EU in a dozen or so years, way after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. At that moment, the EU will need its own energy policy, including the practically non-existent or inefficient external wing of this policy (it's an example of having to wait for another development again). The essay by Ali Ayata (who was writing in the European Library supplement to EUROPE 9619), affirms that Turkey is involved, “geographically, ethnically and politically with the problems in Iraq, Iran, the Armenians, Azerbaijan, the Persians, Cyprus, Greece, Bulgarians, Russia, Tajikistan, Syria and Islamic Fundamentalism”. These are not, for the most part, European problems. It will be impossible for EU foreign policy developments to meld with Turkey's positions on all of these dossiers. Turkey needs its autonomy. We only need to cite one example: the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan and the impact of such a development (inevitable in the long term) on the EU's energy policy and the Kurdish problem in Turkey. I am well aware that this position is not shared by everyone. The president of Slovenia, Danilo Türk, believes that reservations about Turkish accession are down to “political difficulties and cultural prejudice” and that, “the EU needs Turkey”. This is a personal opinion and does not reflect the current position of the EU presidency in any way.
It is true that EU developments could go in the opposite direction to that of cohesion and common policies. In such a hypothesis, Turkey may well find its place. This is in fact how Michel Rocard justified his support for accession: in an intergovernmental and watered down Europe, why shouldn't Turkey have its place? I don't see myself as being part of such a perspective. It it happens, this column will no longer have any sense to it. Fortunately, this is not yet the case.
(F.R.)