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 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. 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. 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.
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.