Fatma Yilmaz Elmas USAK Center for EU Studies printable version send your friend

Tuesday, 20 October 2009

The European Commission has published the 2009 Progress Report on Turkey. The report, in which the Commission evaluates Turkey’s progress in preparing for EU membership in regards to previous year, gives place to both critiques and encouragement for policies in progress. 

Regarding the current Turkish activism in the region, it is obvious that the most praised issue in the report is the developments within the framework of foreign policy. In this sense, relations with the South Caucasus, in particular with Armenia, take place in the Report in relation to the visit by Turkish President Abdullah Gul dated September 2008. The Protocol signed by both the Turkish and Armenian sides in order to improve bi-lateral relations seems to be left out of the Report whereas the number of working and high-level meetings for the normalization of bi-lateral relations is welcomed. Besides, emphasizing Turkey’s constructive role in the Middle-East peace process, the Commission values Turkey’s efforts to bring Afghanistan and Pakistan closer. Turkey’s contributions to the EU-led military/police missions in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo within the framework of the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) are mentioned in a good way. However, the Commission reproaches Turkey because of its objection to EU-NATO cooperation since the objection leads to many problems for EU-NATO cooperation, notably in the context of civilian ESDP missions.

For the political criteria, judicial reform, changes in constitution, freedom of expression and civil-military relations are dealt with in detail. It is possible to see the Commission’s criticisms in one hand on judicial impartiality and efficiency, in the other hand support for constitutional reform whose debates has gone up and down occasionally. In comparison with last year, the Commission just mentioned the Ergenekon Case but this year goes through in details instead. It says “this case is an opportunity for Turkey to strengthen confidence in the proper functioning of its democratic institutions and the rule of law”. Also the Commission stresses the importance of proceedings in this context fully respect the due process of law, in particular the rights of the defendants.

In addition to the aforementioned issues, before the Report was published, there was an anxious waiting in Turkey in the context of relations with Southern Cyprus in regard to regional issues, international obligations and responsibilities emanating from the implementation of Additional Protocol. Based on the Council’s decision of December 2006, questioning Turkey’s responsibilities on whether the implementation of Additional Protocol is in practice or not and even a warning for a possible sanction was expected. This is basically because the Council’s decision of December 2006 envisages the suspension of eight chapters due to the proper implementation of Additional Protocol by Turkey. It was also declared by the Declaration of 21 September 2005 that the developments in regard to the implementation would be followed. Why the year of 2009 is important lies behind this decision since the Council called the European Commission to give place to this issue in its annual progress report. Thus, the future of the negotiations entered a new phase due to the Cyprus issue, on the condition that the negotiation process would be evaluated once again. In a sense, the decision gave Turkey time until the end of 2009.

If one analyzes the Progress Report, one can easily see that the Commission stresses both the Cyprus issue and adherence to the Additional Protocol. The Commission evaluates Turkey’s responsibilities emanating from the Additional Protocol under the titles of both regional issues and international responsibilities and negotiation chapters. In this sense, the Commission first points out the Turkish attitude towards the ongoing negotiations about the Cyprus issue and then refers to the Additional Protocol. Accordingly,

“Turkey continued to express public support for fully fledged negotiations between the leaders of the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities under the good offices of the UN Secretary-General aimed at a fair, comprehensive and viable settlement of the Cyprus problem within the UN framework, in accordance with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and in line with the principles on which the Union is founded.”

However, as underlined by the Council Conclusions of 8 December 2008, Turkey is expected to support ‘actively’ the ongoing negotiations and to take ‘practical’ steps to contribute to a viable settlement of the Cyprus issue. In this framework, it is emphasized that the EU will continue to follow up and review progress made on issues covered by the Declaration of 21 September 2005, in accordance with the Council decision of December 2006.Thus, despite an emphasis on its decisiveness to review Turkey’s progress about Turkey’s responsibilities coming from the Additional Protocol, it seems that contrary to expectations the EU does not define 2009 as the last year developments are to be followed up. Nevertheless, it is necessary to wait for the conclusions of the following December Summit for a possible decision whether there become any sanctions or not. However, at least, the language of the Progress Report seems not to give a message for any kind of sanctions because of the (non)implementation of the Protocol by Turkey, except the continuation of the Commission’s position on the Cyprus issue.

Under the sections in which each negotiation chapter is dealt with one by one, the Commission uses same terminology in the end for each:

“[e.g. Financial Services (one of the eight)] is one of the eight chapters covered by the conclusions on Turkey adopted by the Council (General Affairs and External Relations) on 11 December 2006 and endorsed by the European Council on 14/15 December 2006. As long as restrictions remain in place on the free movement of goods carried by vessels and aircraft registered in Cyprus or whose last port of call was in Cyprus, Turkey will not be in a position fully to implement the acquis relating to this chapter.”

Therefore, emphasizing ongoing negotiations between the parties of the issue and depicting the existing situation, the Commission prefers not to have a concrete attitude towards Turkey. Instead, it seems that the Commission leaves ground for the Council’s initiative in the December Summit.

The Commission gives place to the Cyprus issue in the Strategy Paper 2009, which was published at the same time as the Progress Report. The Commission in the Strategy Paper clarifies its expressions, and instead of saying necessary it says, “it is urgent that Turkey fulfils its obligation of full non-discriminatory implementation of the Additional Protocol and makes progress towards normalization of bilateral relations with the Republic of Cyprus”. Moreover, it is among the ongoing debates that this expression and similar sharp expressions were added the Report at the last minute with the support of Greece and intervention of Greek Cypriots.

Even so, due to the port issue, it is apparent that the Commission does not go beyond the sharp expressions for Turkey’s suspended responsibilities. This situation can be explained as the sign that the Commission cannot face up to the possible risks and cost of leaving Turkey outside. Not only for the bi-lateral relations between Turkey and Southern Cyprus, the EU also cannot display a clear position in the sense of being pro- or con-Turkey while enlarging vs. deepening debates continue. The EU, which cannot absorb the 2004-2007 enlargements yet and has battled problems of legitimacy, cannot be said to be ready to take in Turkey. Besides, the EU similarly cannot shoulder a scenario in which Turkey would be unstable by shifting on to another track from the Western one or falling behind in reforms. This is because, as emphasized within the ESDP perspective under external relations in the Report, the EU has needed Turkey’s activism in the region and its credibility in terms of Turkey’s stable structure for the EU’s own border and economic securities. Therefore, at first the EU is in need of overcoming its indecision about Turkey through impartial calculations.

To sum up, the Commission’s attitude of making the Council give a decision in December 2009, in a sense is based on the fact and aspiration that the issue is currently in deadlock owing to the national interests and uncompromising attitudes of the member states in general, and they have to be engaged now for the solution by considering the priorities of European integration. This is basically because the Commission, an EU institution responsible for the EU’s interests, has to refrain from pioneering the decisions that call into question the EU’s credibility due to national incompatibilities like that of Southern Cyprus and national populist attitudes like those of France and Germany. Now, it is the Council’s turn… Let’s see if both the ambiguity about the future of the EU and unbalance over national-Union interests will end up with a final and clear conclusion of December Summit like harsh sanctions along with sharp expressions? Most probably, ‘no’!

Fatma Yilmaz-Elmas

USAK Center for EU Studies