ENP is an EU policy intending to use the instruments available to the EU to provide a unified approach to neighboring countries of 27 member states. This policy excludes those neighbors of the EU whose eventual membership is already slated. These countries are Western Balkan states and Turkey who are associated with the European Union through different instruments. While South East European Stability Pact is the main source of linkage with Western Balkan states, Turkey, together with Croatia are in the negotiation process for full membership.

A brief conspectus of Turkey’s EU bid:

 In the case of Turkey another instrument, The Association Agreement, has been in existence since 1963 and some of its terms are implemented through its long standing institution. After a preparatory period of ten years, in 1973 with the signing of a series of protocols Turkey’s relations with EEC entered into period of transition to customs union and eventual full membership. During the transition period a number of integration steps should have been taken namely, free circulation of man power and services by 1985, an economic support programme and by 1995 customs union in industrial and processed agricultural goods. Turkey would reduce its customs duties towards EC countries by 1995 to zero and a customs union would come into effect by January 1st 1996. There was very little progress on free circulation of manpower, except for small improvements in the status of Turkish working community already in EU countries. The free circulation of services was not carried by EU and both freedoms remained on paper. Furthermore economic assistance was blocked because of the use of veto right by Greece. The main Institution of the Agreement, the Association Council was deadlocked and Article 25 of the Agreement for the Settlement of Disputes through arbitration was not operable because it required a decision of the Association Council that could only be taken by unanimity rule. In an effort to break the deadlock Turkey applied for full membership in 1987, according to article 237 of the Rome Treaty. EU recognized the eligibility of Turkey, but postponed the decision.  Instead in 1992 the EU decided that time had come for establishing a customs union with Turkey while keeping in mind the Article of the Association Agreement that foresaw full membership of Turkey. While in reality the Customs Union was an automatic outcome of the Association, EU decided it should be part of a separate protocol to be approved also by the EP. The customs union entered into force on January 1st 1996. As Turkey-EU customs union was being developed EU also initiated the MEDA program and Turkey accepted the invitation to participate in this multi-faceted project. However, in December 1995 EU Summit decided that Turkey along with Russia, Ukraine and Southern Mediterranean countries would remain a strategic neighbor of EU closing the door for membership. While Turkey was looking at customs union as a door-opener for full membership EU had apparently been regarding it as the end of the road. Nevertheless, Turkey had still not yet received a yes or no answer to its 1987 application. In the meantime there was a change of attitude in EU because of a large variety of factors and in 1999 Helsinki summit Turkey became a candidate country, to be subjected to the same treatment with other candidate countries. With this decision all other objectives of the Association agreement, except customs union had in effect become inoperative. With its new status Turkey was an odd member of the MEDA, while Malta and Cyprus were slated to become full members Turkey was only a candidate and when membership negotiations were to begin was left in suspense; and the other non EU Mediterranean countries could not aspire to become full members. Eventually, membership negotiations began in 2005 but the terms of reference contained in a framework document were highly ambiguous. Accordingly, the negotiations would be open ended, opening and closing of chapters would be subject to the unanimous approval of all member states, membership would be subject to the absorption capacity of the EU. As a result of failure of Turkey to give even a de facto recognition to the Greek Cypriot administration as the Government of Cyprus[1] 8 chapters out of 35 were closed for negotiations. When a chapter is negotiated successfully it is closed to be re-opened at a later date. One chapter has been closed in this manner. And negotiations on two more chapters were approved in December 2007. However, in a recent speech at the European parliament Mr. Sarkozy has stated that he would prevent opening of five important chapters that would lead to full membership. His attitude and that of the German Chancellor cast serious doubts about the future of the negotiations and membership process. Both leaders speak about a hollow ‘special relations or partnership’ concept. Considering the already developed   EU related acquis of Turkey that include customs union, it sounds more intended for domestic politicking than the expressions of visionary leaders. Although, Turkey is a negotiating candidate and it is not possible to see when this process will lead to full membership, as EU says it is in the hands of the Turks, and the Turks say it is in the hands of EU countries, the reality is that unless there is a major violation of human rights in Turkey the negotiation process cannot be suspended because of the framework for negotiations permits suspension only with the recommendation of the Commission and unanimous approval of the Council. It is true that the negotiation process will be a lengthy one and time frame and bench marks cannot be predetermined unless the international conditions persuade the EU’s leading countries to speed up the process.

However, Turkey’s involvement in European affairs does not depend only on EU. In fact Turkey, because of its membership in NATO, OECD, Council of Europe and many other European organizations as well as presence of several millions of Turkish citizens living and working in EU countries and its customs union and participation in certain aspects of EU activities such as ESDP, is involved in multi-dimensional aspects of European life.

From the above explanation we observe that the idea of ENP was laid down in the Madrid Summit of December 1995 albeit Turkey at that time was considered also as a neighbor.

Can Turkey fit in the ENP?

Although the accession negotiations have now entered into its third year there are, as I stated above, still some European leaders who insist that a Privileged relations should be established with Turkey to ‘anchor Turkey in Europe.[2]  Therefore, it might be an interesting academic exercise to see if such a linkage could be formed between EU and Turkey within the ENP.

In this respect we should remember that the principle aims of the ENP are to help in the creation of stability and normal conditions in neighboring countries; to support them in their efforts to improve their social, economic and political performances by providing good governance to their people and to support good relations with their neighbors. The Action plans signed with each neighbor country is a bi-lateral exercise while EU also supports multilateralism on a regional basis.

Shared Neighborhood:

Most of the countries that fall under ENP are also Turkey’s neighbors and there are some similarities and parallelism in neighborhood cooperation paradigms of Turkey and EU in this respect. As part of its Association agreement and its implementation Turkey has,  since 1996,  accepted to conform to EU’s commercial policies, has signed free trade agreements with EFTA countries (Switzerland, Norway and Iceland), Israel, Macedonia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Albania and negotiating with the others.

Regional Groupings

Furthermore, Turkey has entered into several multilateral arrangements with some of these countries, namely the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization (BSEC) including Turkey, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Moldova, Russian Federation, Serbia, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Most of the Balkan Countries, as well as several EU member countries, Egypt, Israel, Tunusia, EU itself the United States have observer status in this interesting organization. Furthermore, NATO is also interested, several BSEC members are also members of the NATO and the United States has military bases in Rumania and Bulgaria.

EU could contribute to the development of several multi-national infrastructure, protection of  the environment  of the Black Sea itself, and give support to the Black Sea Investment Bank.

Black Sea and the riparian countries have gained importance especially because of the increasing tanker traffic and pipelines. There are  pipelines bringing Caspian and Middle Eastern supplies to Europe, i.e. the new Turkey-Greece-Italy gas pipeline, and projected NABUCO pipeline, Iran-Turkey pipeline and Baku-Tibilisi-Erzurum pipeline, link Turkey’s neighbors to Europe. To this we must add Baku- Tibilisi- Ceyhan and Samsun- Ceyhan(under construction), Kirkouk-Ceyhan oil pipelines that bring Caspian, and Middle Eastern oil to the Mediterranean. There are other pipeline projects in the Black Sea that are of interest to Europe passing through Ukraine and Rumania to link Russian gas to Europe through another route. Another cooperation institution is no doubt the MEDA program; it seems that when the program was initiated in 1995 EU wanted Turkey to participate in this program, as an alternative to membership in EU. As Turkey has been adamant in keeping its membership prospects open it remained as an odd member in the MEDA program together with Israel. Although twelve years have elapsed since its initiation MEDA has not been able to fulfill its objectives particularly in respect to security, stability, cooperation and good governance in the basin. The enlargement of EU has introduced new members some of whom have little real interest in the Mediterranean. It may be necessary, therefore, for Mediterranean countries to gather around an all Mediterranean Council to address these issues.  In any event conditions and problems of Turkey had little similarities with the Southern members of MEDA. Turkey’s scale of economy, democratic regime, long established and traditional government structures and civil society, democracy and secularism were comparable to most of EU members’. It is probably because of these reasons that Turkey had little difficulty in conforming to Copenhagen criteria and begin the accession negotiation process.

Another regional organization to which Turkey is a member extends from Turkey to the East, that is the Economic Cooperation Organization, included originally Turkey, Iran and Pakistan and it now covers Azerbaijan and several central Asian countries. This organization supports common infrastructure projects and also provides customs facilities to promote trade[3]. It is remarkable to ponder if EU can associate itself with this regional organization, for the time being as part of its global policy and eventually within its ENP system when Turkey becomes a full member.

Turkey as Role Model:

With respect to Turkey’s neighborhood policies the similarities with ENP is not only confined to developing free trade relations with Turkey’s neighbors but also to other areas such as developing reforms and good governance in these countries. Turkey’s calls for reform in these countries that also cover several Arab countries are received with greater appreciation than those demanded by EU; as these demands in many countries are abhorred as reminiscent of neo-colonialism. In fact in those neighbors of Turkey that do not enjoy democratic regimes carrying out reforms at foreign behest  are generally abhorred by the authoritarian governments as interference in their domestic affairs either as genuine interference in their sovereign powers or as a ruse to perpetuate their hard fist rules. (This attitude is also pervasive in many ENP countries). However, the reforms already carried out by Turkey and the excellent results achieved in the past 84 years of the Turkish Republic are followed with empathy in many Middle Eastern countries. As a result Turkish initiatives, both as political facilitator in areas of crisis, as economic donors in times of disaster, as an investor for their infrastructures and industry are welcome not only in ENP countries but also some of the Stability Pact countries in the Balkans.

Turkey as a Neighborhood ‘facilitator’:

 Turkey takes part in many international efforts to create a peaceful environment in its region. In the Southern Caucasus, it takes part in the Minsk group of OSCE trying to solve the current conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia and has organized several bi-lateral meetings between Azeri and Armenian leaders; and despite the fact that Turkey has no diplomatic relations with Armenia it has promoted the membership of that country in BSEC; tens of thousands of Armenian workers find employment in Turkey. In the Middle East Turkey has  participated in many of the peace search efforts in the Arab-Israeli conflict beginning with the participation in the Palestine Conciliation Commission in 1948 along with the US and France to the meeting organized in Ankara in November 2007 between Palestinian President Abbas and the Israeli President Shimon Perez. Turkish troops are part of the Unifil II in the Lebanon and in many other parts of the world[4].

There are two countries which are adjacent neighbors of Turkey that makes Turkey a vulnerable country in the eyes of several European commentators. It is true that the fundamentalist regime in Iran as well as its resolve to develop a nuclear arsenal has caused great worry in the EU countries and US as a possible threat to peace in the region. However, although Turkey is adamant in its respect to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it believes that through negotiations and other measures that United Nations may decide to take, Iran may be persuaded to fully cooperate with IAEA. In this respect Turkey’s powerful military establishment provides an additional insurance. Iran’s fundamentalist zeal is also not seen as a serious threat to Turkey because for the past 84 years of secular Republican system and its well established institutions and constitution it not vulnerable to such fundamentalist zeal.

Regarding Iraq, the turmoil that followed US occupation seems now in the process of calming down and the US and Iraqi factions seem to have begun to realize that Iraq should stay united, and sectarian and ethnic differences should not be the dominant factors in shaping the future of Iraq. The US and Iraqi authorities are now cooperating with Turkey to terminate the existence of PKK terror encampments in Northern Iraq.

Turkey’s EU neighbors:

In discussing Turkey’s neighborhood I have to make a reference to Turkey’s relations with her EU neighbors namely Cyprus, Greece, Bulgaria and Romania.

The last two new member countries have a traditional relationship pattern with Turkey which may be expressed as liberal in many senses. In Bulgaria there is a Turkish minority of around one million that is more than ten per cent of the country’s population. Except several cases of hostility by some extreme nationalist Bulgarian elements and institutions, Bulgarians of Turkish origin are a well established and well integrated Community in their country and they take part in the national and local administrations.. A significant number of the members of this Community carry two passports- Turkish and Bulgarian-and they form an economic, social cultural bridge between the two countries.  In the case of Romania, Turkish companies have many sound investments in that country with which we practically have no bi-lateral problem.

With respect to Greece, our relations are based on both the realist and liberal paradigms; while we have almost excellent trade and cultural relations it has always been difficult to resolve the existing disputes in the delimitation of the continental shelf, territorial waters and air space in the Aegean sea, and from time to time a small accident may explode into a major crisis between the two countries. Nevertheless, in recent years Greece seem to support Turkey’s membership in the European Union.

As regards Cyprus we have a serious problem. While Turkey and Cypriot Turks have demonstrated their willingness to accept a United Nations plan prepared in consultation with EU, the Cypriot Greeks have rejected the plan in the knowledge that they would any way become a member of EU and have the opportunity to block or slow down the progress of Turkey’s accession process. This has unfortunately come true.

Conclusion

I have tried to outline the relationship patterns and problems of Turkey with its neighbors. In many areas they show a similarity with overall lines of ENP, but also reflect differences that arise because of geography and regional characteristics of countries involved. It is clear however, that as Turkey’s integration with the EU progress, the main lines of Turkey’s policies will become more harmonious with the principles of ENP as the difficulties with neighbors will be attenuated within overall framework of European structures as Turkey participates in the inner workings of EU in an integrative manner.

 In 2004 a settlement plan for Cyprus was prepared by UN Secretary General Mr. Kofi Annan foreseeing the establishment of a joint Cyprus government with the participation of the Turkish and Greek Cypriot states. This plan was worked out by UN in cooperation with EU and warmly applauded by the international community. However, the Greek Cypriots rejected the plan, while the Turkish Cypriots approved it. The result was that Greek Cypriot Government became a full member and all significant improvements of relations between EU and Northern Cyprus was subjected to Greek Cypriot veto.

---