There was no shift in the official positions during Tuesday's EU-Turkey Association Council session and the two parties reaffirmed what they had been repeating for years. On behalf of the EU, the president of the Council, Dimitrij Rupel, and European Commissioner Olli Rehn confirmed that accession represented the shared objective but said that they expected Turkey to speed up reforms and put an end to the restrictive regime it has been applying to one member state (Cyprus). Speaking for Turkey, the Turkish minister for foreign affairs confirmed that his country regarded accession as the only objective to be taken into consideration and that the slow pace of negotiations is not only due to certain delays in reforms but also a result of the fact that the EU is blocking the opening of several chapters for political reasons - an allusion to the French veto on opening negotiations in sectors where accession would be the only possible result, such as participation in the institutions and budget (see EUROPE the day before yesterday). Nothing new then in the official positions. Things are developing differently if we consider the real evolutions which, on the contrary, are substantial and are going, in my opinion, in the direction of wisdom. They involve the setting aside of impractical or inappropriate solutions and involve a serious rethink about the intermediate formulae existing between full accession and complete abandonment.
EU's domestic reasons. Europeans who have misgivings about Turkish accession expressed and explained the reasons behind their reservations, which are domestic to the EU itself. To my knowledge, it was Sylvie Goulard, the president of the European Movement/France, who clarified this position best of all. A national referendum or a no vote from a member state at the Council of the EU rejecting accession at the end of negotiations should be avoided because “the Turkish people should not be humiliated” and Europe should not forget that in December 2004 and October 2005, European heads of government unanimously decided to open negotiations. A veto should not be used to amend this decision but rather, there should be common reflection about the possibility of accession and its consequences. According to Ms Goulard, “there are solid reasons for not making this accession concrete. The strongest arguments in this sense are not geographic and even less so, cultural. Countries in Europe already count among their nationals and foreigners living on their territory, millions of Muslims. The question of the compatibility of Islam and the values of the enlightenment has not been a question of foreign policy or EU enlargement for a long time. The major objection is linked to the nature of the European Union”. Turkish accession “is bound to upset the entire balance. Never before has a new member state had such a big population but, at the same time, a contributory capacity that is so much less on a long-term basis than any other country of the Union. What would be left of the European project once this immense country has been introduced to the institutional game? How would the continuation of ambitious and common policies be funded? Countries that are most in favour of Turkish accession refuse to increase the Community budget. How can European citizens who reject Europe being reduced to a market shorn of its demanding social objectives be reassured?” The result of Turkish accession would be “the watering down of Community ties and the abandonment of certain goals. Hello Turkey, adieu the Common Agricultural Policy, adieu the policy of national solidarity, adieu social Europe and adieu Europe of the citizens”.
Preparing the alternative. Sylvie Goulard is calling for a debate on these fundamental issues, “not at the end of the process, not just in France, but with the whole EU27, and well before the signing of the accession treaty”. The result should not be any kind of weakening in the links between the two parties, because Turkey is a strategic partner for Europe: “a privileged partnership, with substantial depth to it, based on relations of trust, is completely conceivable and desirable”.
A position quite close to this has arisen in part of the European Parliament and Jacques Toubon has given his interpretation of it. He shares the analysis of rapporteur Ria Oomen Ruijten and the urgent recommendations in her report addressed to Turkey, but he believes that it is illusory to believe that “our untiring pedagogy can change Turkey. There is a contradiction between this big country, this great people and the advancement of the European project”. In his opinion, Turkey's evolution is “in contradiction with the principles of integration, the delegation of competencies and shared sovereignty which make up the European Union. Let's stop deluding ourselves…Instead, let's define a sustainable partnership structure that enables Turkey to play its role of regional power and allows the EU to pursue the construction of its identity”.
Tomorrow, I will indicate the reasons why, in my opinion, such an evolution is preferable, even indispensable, for Turkey itself. (F.R.)