European Union and Turkey - Essay Example

HOW THE EUROPEAN UNION AND TURKEY HAVE CHANGED TO SUIT EACH OTHER The admission of the Turkish republic into the European union has undergone some serious debate over the past few years and many events have taken place since 1987, when Turkey made its first ever attempts at gaining membership of the union. However, in order to facilitate the entry of Turkey into the group, both sides have had to undertake a number of steps. In the case of Turkey, the prime focus has been to initiate reform efforts in a number of areas so as to achieve the required eligibility status for the membership. On the other hand, the European Union has been constantly monitoring the progress made by Turkey and has been affecting legislations and concessions that would help encourage Turkey hasten the process of reforms that would help speed up its pace of induction into the club. This literature review will aim at describing the various changes that both sides have made over the years in order to demonstrate the progress made by the other side and will also focus on the factors that have influenced the necessity of such decisions. The initial focus will be on understanding the aspects on which the European Union is set to gain by allowing Turkey to obtain membership. This is deemed important in view of the current as it would serve as the reason for many of the changes initiated by the European Union itself. The first question that arises to mind over this issue is as to what does the enlarged European Union stand to gain as a result of Turkey's admission The best possible answer that can be offered within a political perspective is that the inclusion of Turkey as a member would do away with the long standing image of the European Union as an exclusive Christian Club1. Moreover, the proposed inclusion would also help the union in projecting itself to the rest of the world as a model for tolerance where multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic peoples contribute to the welfare of one another. Secondly, the Union also stands to gain from the vast military and security assets that Turkey possesses. Moreover, in spite of having deficiencies at the moment, the inclusion will provide a Turkish economy that has shown a lot of potential and promise. The presence of Oil reserves and a highly qualified workforce would assure the union of a strengthened European economy that is in a better position to take on the challenges faced by it2. The European Union, on the other hand, is very eager to accommodate Turkey into its group and for this, the latter is supposed to achieve credible standards on a number of fronts, for which efforts have been initiated by the Turkish Government since the past few years. The European Union insists that Turkey needs to initiate the necessary actions not for pleasing the Union, but for its own good. The need for reforms has arisen from the fact that Turkey has been having problems in areas such as Human rights, public administration, governance, internal security. Most importantly, Turkey has been in the process of improving its relations with other European Countries with whom it has had long standing territorial disputed. Additionally, changes have also been made to the regulation of the local economy so as to upgrade it to the minimum base standards as perceived by the European Union3. However, in spite of vast changes, there have been certain areas where the European Union has not been satisfied with Turkey's efforts, which has resulted in criticism of some of its efforts and policies. This has resulted in the Union taking some tough measures to ensure that the country takes the best possible action in the future. the specifics of all of these shall be discussed in the forthcoming paragraphs. CHALLENGES BEFORE THE EUROPEAN UNION The major challenges that the European Union faces with respect to Turkey's accession to the union are the fact that a majority of the people are poor, the primary religion is Islam and the country apart from being large, possesses vast and untapped potential on a number of fronts. These deficiencies on the part of Turkey were a long standing hindrance in the country's path towards gaining EU membership since a number of years. However, with continued assurance, formal negotiations in the direction of Turkish membership to the Union began in 2004. This means that it could take at least a period of ten years before Turkey stands to obtain full membership of the Union. The first and the foremost area that the European Union needs to concentrate on is with making constitutional amendments that will allow it to encourage the interests and the progress of the would-be members of the enlarged union including Turkey. This, the union has been taking care of by allowing economic and agricultural subsidies to these potential members. During the initial years, there was a lot of opposition both from within and outside the EU on the consideration of Turkey as a potential member given its economic backwardness and a host of other issues that the country was entangled with. However, despite these initial hiccups, the European Union pressed ahead with a determine approach to include Turkey and accepted the Turkish candidacy for accession in the Helsinki conference of 1999. In order to gain such membership, the Turkish government was supposed to take a number of steps that had been put before previous candidate states4. Surprisingly, Turkey succeeded in initiating every reform that was listed in the requirements package within a short span of 5 years, thus making it an eligible candidate for future negotiations by the start of 2005. one of the most serious problems that has been existing in the region since a long time has been the territorial dispute over the island of Cyprus, over which the country has locked horns with Greece since many years to such an extent that the island has been divided into two separate regions administered individually by each of these countries. However, Turkey succeeded in establishing a positive opinion for itself when it accepted a settlement plan with Greece during the same period5. This plan, known as the Annan plan, had been welcomed by the Turkish side, but was rejected by the Greeks, thus signifying a substantial change in stance on the part of the Turks, who had since then maintained a tough stand on the issue. TURKEY"S JOURNEY SO FAR With the acceptance by the Helsinki summit of 1999 for the consideration of Turkey as a former potential member of the European Union, the Turkish Government was supposed to take some steps known as the Copenhagen political criteria. This criterion outline a series of standpoints on a number of issues that concern any country, which is supposed to be achieved by a country seeking membership through reforms, in order to make itself eligible for future negotiations as an eligible member. In 2000, the country was still beset with a number of internal problems that were seriously being looked upon by the EU, the prime ones among them being the issue of human rights abuse and the treatment of the country's ethnic minorities, especially the Kurds. In its annual report of 2000, the European commission was critical of Turkey's efforts and accused it of relying on military force for controlling most of the regions6. The commission made further effort when it published a roadmap in late 2000 outlining the short and long term reforms that had to be initiated by Turkey if it were to be considered for accession negotiations. In response to this report, the Turkish government clarified its stand by way of the National programme for the adoption of the Acquis. This was an attempt by Turkey to project itself as a nation that was largely self tolerant towards the country's minorities and instead chose to issuing promises on issues such as minority and fundamental rights for citizens7. This effort by turkey to cast itself did not go well with the EU and was dismissed immediately as being to distorted from the changes required for the existing ground situation. However, Demirok (2001) has said that the national programme clearly stated that Turkey was absolutely serious on fulfilling the Criteria more than anything else as it promised new opportunities for almost every sector of the Turkish economy. In the long run, as is evident from its policies in the subsequent years, it has become evident that the country understood that the prime task of the EU was to set forth standards and measures that were supposed to be fulfilled by candidate states that were serious about obtaining membership8. After having realized its earlier mistakes and in order to make up for it at the earliest, turkey issued the first reform package within a short time during the same year. This consisted of nearly 34 amendments that had been made with a view to fulfilling the short term goals that had been outlined by the European Commission in its report earlier during the same year. Most of these amendments had to do with improving the quality of human rights in the country. Most important among these was the provision of the fundamental right allowing people to express their views in a non-violent and non-disruptive manner. Subsequent reform measures brought in the much needed change that was felt for preventing courts from using the Law for the struggle against terrorism from being used to subdue free political expression. With additional reform packages, the Turkish government made similar developments by abolishing the death penalty later in 2002 and provided benefits for non-Turkish minorities. With a change in the government in late 2002 and with the establishment of a moderate government at the centre by the AKP, a shift was made in the reform efforts, which were now concentrating on economic changes that would help enhance Turkey's chances of accession9. Most importantly, the new government showed increased commitment and willingness to make the necessary changes in the least possible time so as to start negotiations by adopting a moderate stance on negotiations with the EU. However, in spite of the above-mentioned changes, the commission, its annual report of 2002, still expressed that Turkey hadn't achieved the minimum level required for accession negotiations and that there was much more that had to be done. The change in the mindset and willingness of the new Turkish Government and the seriousness shown by it in the right direction was well received by the Union and is evident from the European Council in Copenhagen's appraisal of the same10. In order to build on the existing momentum, the Turkish government issued a set of reform packages during the first half of 2003 that were aimed at providing major breakthroughs on the political scenario. Apart from doing away with the anti-terrorism law that was being used incorrectly to quell free expression of political thoughts, efforts were also made to encourage the growth in use of languages other than Turkish. Television, radio and schools were permitted to use and teach in languages such as Kurdish, Greek and Armenian, which had until then seen as anti-national and disruptive. The National Security Council that was considered to be hairline in thought and approach owing to its massive powers, was stripped of most of them and turned into an advisory commission allowing the parliament instead to take control over military governance and defense spending. In the midst of all these reforms, the single largest reform that came into effect was the provision of additional rights for minorities and the conversion of death penalty for Kurdish insurgents into prison terms. Reforms were also made towards granting more rights for women and encouraging tolerance towards all religions11. The European Union noted the reforms initiated made by Turkey and praised it especially in the area of local government, where the country had made special efforts to ensure the reduction of corruption by enacting special laws this regard and ensuring that they were properly implemented by providing for the requisite channelizing of manpower. Sweeping changes were made to facilitate a change in control of the military in the hands of the popular government and the functioning of the judiciary was made independent12. These changes and the constant display of commitment towards membership by Turkey served as the basis for the recommendation by the European commission for considering Turkey for accessing negotiations in its Communication to the Council and the European parliament in early 2004. however, after having learnt from past experiences, the Commission also stated in its report that the negotiations had to take into account whether these changes were vulnerable to change over time and therefore, it advocated the need for the Union to see if these reforms had been made with a sense of sustainability. Therefore, the commission expressed that the negotiations had to take these aspects into consideration and monitor the nature of effectiveness of all reforms over a considerable period of time. Apart from reflecting positively on the reform process undertaken by the Turkish Government until then, the commission also stated that in order to encourage further change, it was indeed necessary to invite Turkey to the negotiation table and motivate it to take on from there. With the submission of this report, Turkey was formally invited for the negotiations on 17th December, 200413. THE PATTERN OF TRENDS AS PERCIVED BY OTHERS The examination of the trends and the consideration of the changes and reforms that have been initiated by Turkey since 2000 in response to the continued reviews by the European Union by way of the European Commission has been seen to follow the pattern of the theory proposed by Schimmelfinning et al that suggests that use of reinforcement by way of reward. According to them, the foundation for reforms has stemmed from the fact that Turkey has had to deal with comparatively minor problems that has pose minimal danger to the government14. Their research says that the in spirit of these efforts, much of it is being done to project itself in a better way before the European Union. However, the research also points that the some of the efforts have indeed achieved their intended objectives and by virtue of being under constant monitoring by the European Commission and given the increasing seriousness of the Turkish Government in this regard, it seems imminent that the changes affected are here to stay for a long time in the future. Thus, Schimmelfinning's research has come to a conclusion that Turkey can neither be praised overtly for its efforts nor can it be criticized in any way for the progress of its reform efforts, which according to them have been quite steady and quick. In similar vein, the research effort of Ugur has followed a slightly different path at looking at the nature and pattern of reforms and has acknowledged that magnitude of reforms as demonstrated by Turkey between 2000-2002 has been the largest and most prominent since 1970. The research done by Ugur has also helped in underlining the role played by the European Union in the reform process. According to him, the European government has all along maintained strict and indirect control over Turkey's reform process in a number of ways that have been listed below15: Given the outcomes of earlier negotiations on many aspects and the numerous policy reversals that were witnessed, especially on issues such as the dispute over Cyprus and the issue of rights for ethnic Kurds, the European Union, by way of the Copenhagen Criteria for accession, has helped in ensuring that the Turkish Government never went back on any implemented policies. Moreover, it helped influence all major decisions in the interests of all sections of the Turkish society by weighing them against Turkey's chances of making it to the EU membership. The European Union has further acknowledged the fact that the changes and the reform process is necessary so that the country is brought on par with other member nations on certain pre-defined aspects. This, the Union maintains, is necessary to eliminate all existing imbalances to the farthest extent possible, and serves as the basis of the Copenhagen criteria. Thus, the union maintains that the reason for reform process is as a result of external constraints that must be satisfied altogether. The European Union has also ensured that the reform process undertaken by any candidate follows a legitimate process wherein the interest of all the stakeholders concerned is undertaken in a legitimate and transparent manner. This is evident from turkey's efforts in understanding the importance of providing opportunities to ethnic minorities and assigning facilities to them. thus, this point as outlined by Ugur emphasizes on the need for considering all societal demands and the factors that influence them. The research and the proposed analysis framework by Ulusoy has suggested that turkey is undergoing a rather delicate process of transformation, wherein a number of factors and constraints need to be taken care of. First among these is the fulfillment of all internal and external political, economic, social and security based constraints that Turkey has been facing in the recent past. Apart from this, Turkey also has the additional concern of improving its image as a reliable, legitimate and worthy candidate for accession by the EU. However, he further goes to say that the recent changes do not go hand-in-hand with the ideals on which the Turkish republic was formed in 1923. Ulusoy has analyzed Turkey's reforms by combining two theories into a singular framework. The Moravcsik's analysis of the Human rights regime in post-war Europe and Risse's study of the communicative action in world politics served as the foundations for Ulusoy's study1617. In 2002, the AKP party (Islamist Justice and Development Party) came into power. This party which was considered to be pro-European was attributed to a number of reform initiatives that were made in an effort to increase the prospects within the country from an economic and political standpoint. The Turkish government's clear seriousness in accession to the EU first became visible when it accepted the initiation of a process to pave the way for a unified Cyprus. This was clear when the AKP led government accepted the famous Annan plan for Cyprus. The flexibility and the seriousness on the part of the Turks became imminent when this plan was accepted by them, but faced a roadblock when it was rejected by the Greek side of Cyprus. The government was also successful in ending a long running period of inflation, when it was brought down to a mere 6% from a staggering 75%. But, many people were surprised when Greece was the first nation to have accepted and supported the acceptance of Turkey into the EU. The agreement from the Greek side was that though turkey was behind the EU on politically, economically and socially, it firmly believed that with an extended help from other EU members and through the Union itself, it could do well to achieve quite a lot in a short time to be treated on par with other European nations. The EU was also quick to note the developments made by turkey and other measures such as abolition of capital punishment and provision of more human rights to the population meant that opposition from countries such as Austria to grant Turkey with a status lesser then full membership were simply turned down by the EU and everyone voted solely in favor of staring negotiations aimed at providing full membership status to turkey. This strongly points towards the willingness and commitment on the part of the EU as a collective unit in the current context. On an individual basis, there were a number of instances where there was opposition from individual members of the EU. There has been reluctance on the part of certain member states such as Austria to allow Turkey full membership status to the EU. There were also cases during certain times where the EU felt that the Turkish government had become slow in its reform process. but several warnings of stalling the process motivated Turkey to accelerate its reform process, thereby helping it complete the first round of negotiations by June, 2006. as of now, the earliest entry date for Turkey has been set at 2013. this is the date when the six-yearly budget of the EU will come into force (2013-2019), which is why Turkey will have to wait until then even if its awarded member status before that. As per Moravcsik's findings, one of the first changes in the move towards obtaining full membership of the EU results way back in 1989 when turkey for the first time allowed its citizens to file petitions before the European Human rights Commission (ECHR). This move, which shows the inclination of the Turkish system to incline towards a European Structure has been shows as a major shift in Turkish foreign policy during those times and has been acknowledged as the turning point in turkey-EU relations. The permission of filing petitions has in itself questioned the occupation of Cyprus by Turkey itself. Gunduz (2001) has observed that in the present situation and given the pattern of change, it is clear that the no aspect of the Turkish governance System including its judiciary, and the constitution is devoid of influence or supervision by the European System18. It is also evident from the research that Turkey, being a predominantly Islamic republic was wary of the rise of fundamentalism in the Middle East and was serious about eliminating the problems that could lead to rise of similar trends within the country. In an attempt to thwart this, the Turkish prime minister requested the EU for granting Turkey into the Customs union of the EU. After much internal and external debate that weighed the pros and cons of the available options, the customs union was formally adopted by 1996, thus ushering in the first wave of economic reforming within Turkey19. All in all, Ulusoy concludes that the application of the combined framework to Turkey's case has not been able to fully explain the use of 'Conditionality', which has for long been the European Union's main tool towards compelling accession candidates towards initiating reforms. The analysis has further concluded that the pattern of reform suggests that the there were roles played by both sides that paved the way for reforms. Ulusoy further argues that the reason for the continued pace of reforms was further propelled by the changes brought in on the aspects of human rights by the Turkish Government and has helped in molding socialization within Turkey on the lines of the European model. The continued communication between the governments of Turkey and the EU and the increasing pressure from local and transnational human rights groups has helped further the cause of the Turkish reform process. Moreover, the country has witnessed enough bloodshed as a result of ethnic strife predominantly with the Kurds that has exhausted much of the state machinery. Thus, it can be seen that a number of factors apart from the pressure from the European Union have contributed to the reforms20. TRENDS IN THE RECENT PAST As is evident, Turkey has been in formal negotiations with the European Union for accession since 2005. as part of this, it is likely to take at least a decade before Turkey could be admitted as a member of the EU, during which time it is supposed to fulfill a number of additional criteria in coordination with improving upon the areas where reforms have already been made. Significant among these has been the EU's demand for recognizing the island of Cyprus as an independent republic that would require Turkey to withdraw its military forces from the region. This requirement, which is a part of the Ankara protocol, is being seriously viewed by the EU as the baseline for future negotiations with the Turkish side. However, the European commission, as part of its annual report of 2006 has expressed that the pace of reforms has become slow and has voiced its concern in this regard. The report has warned that a lack of seriousness on the Ankara protocol would not help further the ambitions of Turkey's ambitions in joining the EU, which could even lead to it being stalled completely21. Another issue that is currently being negotiated is the recognition of the 1915 Armenian extermination campaign as a genocide, which has been set as a 'precondition' for Turkey's membership. Though, this is not a part of the Copenhagen criteria, EU members stress on turkey doing it as they believe it would help Turkey recognize and accept its past. It has also asked the Turkish government to grant access to researchers to state archives and other resources that hold information on the genocide. The EU argues that this is necessary so as to encourage Turkey to establish friendly relations with Armenia and establish full fledged relations with the country on all fronts. Keeping in view of the existence of the 'Talat pasha committee', the union has asked Turkey to abolish it22. Significant among current times has been the criticism from various members of the European Union on the slowdown of the pace of reform process by the Turkish government with specific references to the sluggish pace of implementation of the 9th installment of the reforms package. Members expressed that there were still curbs on freedom of expression with special reference to the article 301 under the 'Turkish penal code', which prohibits insulting Turkishness. The rule has been used for preventing criticism of the government and has been called for removal or change by the EU. Being a Muslim nation, Turkey has not been acting well enough in showing and encouraging tolerance towards other religions. Predominant among its china-like policies has been the confiscation of churches and other religious establishments, which the EU acknowledges, must be released. In view of this, the Minister for European Affairs, Paula Lehtomaki, had the following to say23: "We also share your views on Turkey's limited progress in such crucial fields as fundamental freedoms and human rights. Even if Turkey has made significant progress compared to the situation five years ago, further tangible reforms are necessary especially in the areas of freedom of expression, freedom of religion, cultural rights, women's rights, and combat against torture and ill-treatment. In the revised Accession Partnership, most of these issues are defined to be among the short-term priorities that Turkey needs to meet without delay." Thus, it can be seen that the European Union and Turkey have been playing their individual roles in helping and guiding each other to facilitate the entry of the latter into the elite group. The European union has been playing its role in facilitating the upgradation Turkey to the minimum standards as laid out by the Copenhagen agreement and has been advising Turkey on how and when to achieve them. Turkey, on the other hand has been making constant strides towards ensuring that the necessary reforms are made so as to ensure that the necessary standards are attained that would make it eligible for full membership. The research by numerous experts has demonstrated that the factors governing the pattern of reforms have not been limited to the influence from the EU, and have in fact been affected by a number of internal and external factors and constraints from Turkey's perspective. Though, the recent trends have shown slight sluggishness on the part of Turkey, it is expected to be back on track with constant feedback from the European Union through various mediums. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1) Senem Aydin (2004), the self-definition of Europe: where does Turkey stand Turkish Policy Quarterly, Volume 2. 2) Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (2004), Honoring of obligations and commitments by Turkey, Report Doc. 3) Harry Flam (2004), Turkey and the EU: politics and economics of accession. Institute for International Economic Studies, Stockholm University. 4) Kemal Kirisci (2004), How would Turkish membership affect population movements and social integration within the EU. Wilton Park conference in Istanbul 5) The European Policy Centre (2004), Turkey's accession to the EU: how prepared is the Turkish economy EPC Dialogue in cooperation with ARI. 6) Demirok (2001), How could the relations between Turkey and the EU be improved. Basel: Europeainstitut der Universitat Basel. 7) Tanlak (2002), Turkey EU relations in the post Helsinki phase and the EU Harmonization laws adopted by the Turkish grand National Assembly in August 2002. Sussex European Institute. 8) Gunduz (2002), interview with Gunduz Aktan. Ankara. 9) EU (2006), European Parliament critical of slowdown in Turkey's reform process. Found at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/027-10972-268-09-39-903-20060922IPR10896-25-09-2006-2006-false/default_en.htm. 10) Christopher Hill (2002), The Geo-political Implications of Enlargement. London: Routledge. 11) Svetlozar Andreev (2004), Theorizing Enlargement: The EU Enlargement Eastwards and European Integration Theory. University of Odense. 12) Amikam Nachmani (2003), Turkey: Facing a New Millennium: Coping with Intertwined Conflicts. Manchester University Press. 13) Barry M. Rubin, Ali arkoglu (2004), Turkey and the European Union: domestic politics, economic integration, and international. London: Routledge. 14) Harun Arikan (2006), Turkey And the EU: An Awkward Candidate for EU Membership. New York: Ashgate. 15) Nathalie Tocci (2003), EU Accession Dynamics And Conflict Resolution: Catalyzing Peace Or Consolidating Partition in...New York: Ashgate. 16) Schimmelfinning et al (2003), Costs, Commitment and Compliance: the impact of EU Democratic conditionality on Latvia, Slovakia and Turkey. Journal of Latvia, Slovakia and Turkey. 17) Ugur (2003), testing times in EU-Turkey relations: the toad to Copenhagen and beyond. Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans. 18) Moravcsik (2000), the origins of Human rights regimes: democratic delegation in Postwar Europe. International organization. 19) Risse (2000), Let's argue: communicative action in World Politics. International organization. 20) Ulusoy (2005), Turkey reform effort revisited. European University institute. 21) Sedat Lainer, hsan Bal, Mehmet zcan (2005), European Union with Turkey: the possible impact of Turkey's membership on the European Union. London: Barnes & Noble. 22) Halil Ibrahim Salih (2004), Cyprus: Ethnic Political Counterpoints. University press of America. 23) Mehmet Ugur (2004), Turkey and the European Integration: : Accession Prospects and Issues. London: Routledge. 24) Lenore G. Martin, Dr Dimitris Keridis (2003), The Future of Turkish Foreign Policy. Massachusetts: MIT press. 25) Alon Liel (2005), Turkey in the Middle East: Oil, Islam, and Politics. Boston: Lynne Rienner. 26) EU (2004, 2003, 2002 & 2001), Report of the independent commission on Turkey. European Commission. Read More