MEPs split over bid to bypass Greek cash veto Turkey

Date: 25/06/1998

By Mark Turner

SPLITS are already appearing within the European Parliament over efforts by the Commission and national governments to bypass Greece's veto on financial aid to Turkey.

“I cannot accept the ending of the veto, even if all other governments agree that the funding should be released,” British Conservative MEP Edward McMillan-Scott, the Parliament's rapporteur on Turkey, told European Voice this week. “I do not think we can do that: it would set a precedent.”

However, Dutch Socialist MEP Pieter Dankert, a Turkey expert on the Parliament's budget committee, said he was “rather positive” about the prospect of the institution agreeing to a solution, as long as Ankara fulfilled promises to restore the right of free speech currently banned under its anti-terrorism laws. “We need to get this problem of the money out of the way,” he said.

At last week's Cardiff summit, EU leaders called on the Commission to push ahead with a new European strategy “to prepare Turkey for membership” and table “any proposals necessary for its effective implementation”.

Commission officials insist they need time to reflect. “We are at the stage where we are looking at all the options to see what is feasible,” said one.

But insiders believe that the Cardiff summit almost certainly implied that funds earmarked for Turkish economic and social development would need to be unfrozen - a move which would be opposed by Greece while Turkey continues to threaten its borders in the Aegean.

Analysts say the only obvious way around the unanimity requirement would be to base future financial aid to Turkey on EU development rules (Article 130w), which require only qualified majority approval.

However, since it is unclear whether Turkey qualifies as a developing country, experts fear such a move would be challenged in the European Court of Justice.

Furthermore, national governments would still need to approve the decision unanimously if the Parliament did not give its assent. “We would undoubtedly need Parliament approval if we were to go ahead with this,” Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jacques Poos told European Voice at the summit.

McMillan-Scott argues that instead of legal chicanery, there should be an open Council of Ministers' debate on the issue, with Greece publicly submitting its reasons for blocking the aid.

“Let's open the debate up a bit, and inject some transparency into the proceedings,” he said.

Dankert, however, claims it is “not unusual” for the EU to find creative legal solutions to otherwise intractable problems, although he has doubts about the use of Article 130w.

Supporters of the move warn that if the EU does not find some way of releasing the funds, it could miss out on a window of opportunity that appears to have been opened by Cardiff.

Ankara said afterwards that it “appreciated” efforts by the UK presidency to restore normal relations, and that the decision to start screening and refer to Turkey's candidate status was “positive”.

Despite these moves, however, Ankara added that the Cardiff conclusions were still “not sufficient” and that its objections to its treatment at last December's Luxembourg summit remained.