Next week, we will know the results of the European Parliament elections and will probably have read many articles on the expected effects. This year has been a critical year for the whole world, including Europe, which is deeply affected by the global financial crisis.
The effects of this crisis will be more long-lasting than those of the coming elections next weekend. One of the common results of these two events is the debate on Turkey.
With the elections ahead, populism showed its face once again, and Turkey’s accession has become at least an implicit campaigning topic this time. The limits of the EU were rediscussed, as if there were anything new to discuss, and Germany played an active role in heating this debate. Something similar can be expected in the coming national elections in Germany in October. European Policy and Turkey’s full membership will play a more important role than before in these difficult times of financial chaos.
As for Germany, my main observation is that there is an increased campaign to raise the participation in the elections. The elections are emphasized as a matter to every citizen, thus heating the debate on Turkey’s results by saying that Turkey’s entrance matters to everyone and by increasing the fear of losing jobs or of more and more Turks coming to Europe – as was the case with the proverbial Polish plumbers before Poland’s accession.
According to the latest poll results the Christian Democrats will be the winners of the elections. Of course, one could ask “how would this affect Turkey’s accession process?” Should we expect dramatic changes? Today, with Christian Democrats in the majority, the talks continue, so why should they not – at least in some form - in the future? There is the dramatic slow-down in negotiations, the reasons for which one could discuss for hours. But the talks are continuing, so why are we still talking about the EU’s enlargement capacities?
Hans-Gert Pöttering, the Head of the EU Parliament, recently declared once again his opposition to Turkey’s accession. His statements as the head of the EU’s organ of democratic representation are more symbolic than any other. They call for the intensification of the public perception that there is a democratic gap in the EU, divergence between the Commission and Parliament.
The only alternative for the worsening of the current situation could be that the accession talks are stopped altogether. This scenario has been likely since 2006 when eight chapters were suspended because of the dispute on the Cyprus issue. The statement on the revision of the situation after three years has made 2009 a very critical year for EU-Turkey talks, although there are different views that say 2009 cannot be seen as a deadline. Yet, this adds to the uncertainty within the context of the populist politics of the EP elections and of the crisis.
What is certain is that there is no deadline for this debate on Turkey’s accession and this results in a lack of enthusiasm on both parts. What is certain is that one does not need shortsighted visions on this long road and thus should leave populist statements aside.
Will we be talking about the same thing before the next EP elections? The problem is the answer to this question, “Yes, we might”. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has recently stated that EU membership is Turkey’s strategic goal. What is the EU’s strategic priority and goal with respect to Turkey? Does it even have one?
Edited by Kaitlin MacKenzie
