Turkey: why some of ‘the jury’ are still talking about talks

Date: 30/09/04

Two MEPs give their views on the probable 6 October recommendation to begin accession talks with Ankara. Although their arguments are different, both have their reservations

Turkey does not currently fulfil the criteria for EU entry and talks on its accession should not begin for some time, argues Elmar Brok

WE ARE in a situation now where Turkey has to prove that in practice it can fulfil the political criteria for EU membership.

But after the recent visit of Enlargement Commissioner Günter Verheugen it is clear that Turkey does not fulfil the criteria, even on paper.

There are two issues that we need to address. We could propose that we should look at the case for opening negotiations with Turkey in two or three years.

But there is also the question of the ability of the EU to enlarge further. And I have my doubts there, too.

It would be helpful if all those countries that want Turkey to be a member of the EU said that Turkey should enter a new European Economic Area.

Turkey could then, step by step, take on board the acquis communautaire and we could see how much progress it had made in ten years' time.

We had a similar procedure in place for the accession of Finland, Sweden and Austria.

We have rules and we have to apply them as we have done in the past.

For example, in 1997, EU heads of state and government decided not to open negotiations at that time with Slovakia because its Prime Minister, Vladimir Meciar, was violating the rule of law.

Two years later, it was decided we could open negotiations with Slovakia.

I am not arguing that we should stop the procedure with Turkey. But we should postpone the decision.

The recent controversy over the possible criminalization of adultery shows that within premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan's party there are quite different views. Some members come from a more Islamic grounding than others.

This is typical of the kind of political fights that you have in such a system and shows us why we should wait and see what the future developments will be.

There have been people who have said that the religious direction of the country makes it difficult for Turkey to have a European vocation.

But that is not the point. I do not agree with French former president [and chairman of the Convention on the future of Europe] Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's suggestion that Turkey is not part of Europe.

This has nothing to do with religion. It is a question of applying the criteria. We are in a process in which Turkey has been given the status of a candidate country for EU membership, so we have to go through with the normal procedures. This would be exactly the same if a Christian country such as Ukraine was a candidate.

There are, of course, discussions within the European Commission at the moment about the economic costs of Turkey's accession.

And it would be helpful to have figures about these costs as they relate to the ability of the Union to enlarge still further.

There are also discussions about Turkey not being given full freedom of movement in the labour market and not fully taking part in the structural funds [regional aid] and the Common Agricultural Policy. But such proposals would not work in practice.

If Turkey wants to become a member of the EU, it has to have the same rights as other members. If we believe that Turkey cannot have access to these funds, then we should postpone the decision.

If Turkey does join, then the issue of enlarging the EU to include other countries, such as Ukraine, would be posed, inevitably. I get the feeling that there is a degree of mendacity about this whole discussion. No one is prepared to take the bull by the horns.

• German Christian Democrat Elmar Brok is chairman of the European Parliament's foreign affairs committee.

Talks with Ankara should pave the way for a referendum on whether the country can join the Union, writes Joost Lagendijk

THE Turkish government has scored a terrible own goal with the controversy over adultery. How could it not expect to raise eyebrows in the European Union when it tries to put a reference to adultery in the penal code, even when the rest of the package is OK?

Whatever you think about adultery, it is a private matter and it should not be in the penal code.

On top of that, the timing was really bad. Turkey should not take risks just ahead of a European Commission report and a European Council decision on whether negotiations for membership should commence. I was surprised the government made such an error at this time.

On the other hand, I also think that there is a danger of things being blown out of proportion. It now seems that adultery is no longer the key issue. But I still find issues like whether torture takes place in police stations and whether the Kurds really have the possibility to have their own radio stations much more important.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan is under pressure from the conservative wing in his Justice and Development (AK) Party to prove that he is a good Muslim. The conservative wing has been threatening to leave the party and establish another. That is probably why he tried to appease them with the adultery thing. Part of the reason that the conservative wing in the AK Party has been pushing for this is that they would not mind if a decision on opening negotiations was not taken at the December EU summit.

Unfortunately, Erdogan has played into the hands of those who have always been against Turkish entry to the EU. They say 'we can't trust this guy because deep down he is an Islamic conservative'.

The penal code, adopted by the Turkish parliament on 26 September, has very many good things - it comes out clearly against honour killings and grants us many other things that we asked for. If Erdogan really wants to deal with adultery, then he should do so in civil law, although I would advise him not to do it at all.

The Commission should also be reasonable. It should deal with what has happened in the past two years in Turkey, not with what has been in the newspapers in the past two weeks.

The basic mistake that Agricultural Commissioner Franz Fischler has made is that he says that the agriculture policy will cost too much in the future if we let Turkey in.

What I would say is that there are many reasons to change the EU agriculture policy and the accession of Turkey is an additional one.

I know that the Turks do not like the idea, but I believe there should be an EU-wide referendum on Turkish accession. This should not be at the beginning of the negotiations because there has not yet been any public discussion and there is a lot of prejudice against Turkey. There was no organized referenda on enlargement just before 1 May, even though we were on the brink of letting ten new countries into the EU.

So I would be in favour of saying 'now we are starting negotiations and we think it will take ten years'. After five years, we should have a public referendum because we will see the result of negotiations then.

The entry of Turkey would not be the same as the entry of Slovenia or Malta, with all respect to those two countries. It is a different cup of tea; it stirs strong emotions in member states. I want to stop this perception among the public that politicians decide all these things over our heads.

• Dutch Green MEP Joost Lagendijk is co-chairman of the EU-Turkey joint parliamentary committee

Two MEPs give their views on the probable 6 October 2004 recommendation to begin accession talks with Ankara. Although their arguments are different, both have their reservations.