A new chapter in Turkish – European Union relations

1923 marks not only the centenary of our Republic, but also the sixtieth anniversary of the Ankara Agreement with the European Union. During this time, our relations have gone through many different phases. The last few years have witnessed a steady decline in these relations. After the presidential and parliamentary elections in May, it is important to develop our affairs with the EU on a new basis.

General situation in European Union relations

After long efforts, Turkey became a candidate for membership in 1999 and started accession negotiations in 2005. However, due to the political obstructions of many EU members and the Cyprus problem, progress could not be made. In 2015 and 2016, there was some improvement in relations with the EU due to the migration crisis, but especially after the 15 July coup attempt, there was regression that could not be overcome.

The EU imposed restrictions on Turkey, citing the decline in the rule of law, politicisation of the judiciary and deficiencies in fundamental rights such as freedom of expression. Likewise, due to the problems in the Eastern Mediterranean with Greece and Southern Cyprus, relations with the EU in all areas have been strained and eventually stagnated. Accession talks have been frozen since 2016. Ankara has not taken the required steps for visa exemption. Efforts to adapt the twenty-five-year-old Customs Union to today’s conditions have also been halted by the EU on political grounds. Dialogue with the EU is rather limited to the EU’s priority areas of migration, climate change, energy, transport and security. There has been no co-operation on foreign policy issues for a long time.

Turkey’s Membership goal

In order to improve relations between Turkey and the EU, some facts need to be recognised. Turkey has always centred its relations with the EU on the goal of membership, even if this target has remained elusive. However, it is not possible for Turkey to join the EU under current conditions.

Even if Turkey fulfils all the requirements in terms of fundamental rights and the rule of law, and if the Cyprus issue is resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, then the unspoken obstacles will appear. The biggest barrier for Turkey is neither the Cyprus problem, nor religion and culture, nor history or geography. Even if all these are valid to a certain extent, the main problem is the size of our population. We currently have a population similar to that of Germany. This means that Turkey should have the same rights in the EU institutions as Germany. Within the EU structures, many issues such as voting rights, the number of deputies in the European Parliament and the number of officials in the Commission depend on population. Therefore, Turkey would suddenly become one of the most powerful members. Most EU members would not be in favour of this.

Enlargement has become a problem

On the other hand, the EU faces a dilemma. Enlargement has so far been the EU’s most successful foreign policy lever. In particular, conditions have been set for the integration of small countries into the EU and their harmonisation with EU policies has been ensured.

The most likely region for the next enlargement on the European continent is the Balkans. The EU has introduced a new definition such as the Western Balkans after the membership of Bulgaria and Romania. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo, North Macedonia and Serbia which broke up from the former Yugoslavia as well as Albania, stand as potential members in the region. However, as a result of the last enlargement, the EU has decided to proceed rather slowly on this issue. Due to policies contrary to fundamental rights and the rule of law in Hungary and Poland, and to some extent in the Czech Republic and Slovenia, stricter criteria are being applied to the new candidates.

After Russia invaded Ukraine last year, Ukraine applied to join both the EU and NATO. Georgia and Moldova followed suit. In response, French President Macron put forward the idea of a new entity called the “European Political Community”, which would include all European countries except Belarus and Russia. In a way, this can be seen as a way to keep the EU candidate countries engaged.

Decision making within an enlarged EU, especially on important issues, has become very difficult. The EU, which has become unwieldy with the entry of new countries, needs to find a way out. One solution to this problem is for the EU to change itself. There is currently only one form of membership. There is no such concept as “full membership”. You are either a member or not. The absence of any other kind of membership leads to many problems.

Different kinds of membership

In fact, the question of different kinds of memberships have been a matter of discussion for a very long time. Every once in a while the idea to differentiate between those who want to integrate faster and those who oppose deepening have come up. Concepts such as two-speed, two-stage, different geometry, à la carte Europe have been put forward. After the attempted invasion of Ukraine by Russia, these ideas are being revisited in many European think tanks and some EU capitals.

If different forms of membership are to be accepted, such a change would require adjusting the EU treaties. Each new treaty or significant amendment to the treaties requires ratification by the parliaments of the member states and in some countries also forces a referendum. The EU is trying to avoid this process, as in the past many treaties have been rejected in referendums, requiring further amendments to the agreed texts.

If different types of associations were to be agreed upon, this could also affect existing members if they so wish. In such an arrangement, the Western Balkans, Turkey, even Ukraine and other countries would be more likely to find a place among the circles of the European Union. Thus, the European continent would have the opportunity to really come together voluntarily, albeit loosely.
It would be more accurate to describe this as waiting rooms rather than second class membership. Again, there will be conditions to be fulfilled. As the conditions are achieved, further steps can be taken.

However, the EU does not seem ready for such a change yet.

What will the future hold for Turkey?

On 13 January 2022, President Erdoğan addressed the EU Ambassadors posted in Ankara and stated that Turkey’s accession remained a strategic goal. No one dares to say that this aspiration has been abandoned. There is a fear that it will be seen as a defeat or, to put it mildly, a failure. But we must get rid of this fear too. It is of course not easy to give up after decades of striving for membership and fulfilling many conditions. But even if we do everything that is required, there will be no membership unless the EU changes its structures. This is the reality.

So, what should we do? The EU frequently raises not only fundamental rights or the rule of law, but recently also the tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean. Mutual trust can only be built through long-term efforts. In response to Turkey’s gradual softening of its policy due to economic reasons since late 2020, the EU has been restrained. On the other hand, the EU’s view of Turkey has become more open. Although the December 2021 European Council conclusions state that Turkey is a candidate, these statements remain in words and Turkey is no longer considered as a candidate in the real sense. Principles such as fundamental rights and the rule of law, which used to be a priority, are only mentioned in passing.

As Turkey is now seen as a third country for the EU, it will not be easy to build the desired trust.

On the other hand, Turkey should demonstrate its respect for the rule of law by implementing the announced reforms in the field of justice and fundamental rights as soon as possible, in particular the judgements of the ECtHR. Here, unfortunately, we are not honouring our commitments.

The past provides many clues for the future

It must be acknowledged that throughout the last sixty years, there have been missed chances and narrow points of view on both sides. Our relations have gone through various phases and experienced several breaking points. We should also recognise that we have reached this point because of our own errors. The main mistake was not to act together after Greece’s application for EU membership in the 1970s. At the same time, some of the EU’s decisions and actions undermined confidence. The EU did not invite Turkey to any summit from 2004 until the migration crisis broke out in 2015. High-level dialogue became non-existent. The behaviour of German and French leaders towards Turkey as we began accession talks alienated Ankara. The three breaking points of our distrust towards the EU were the 1997 Luxembourg European Council conclusions, the 2004 Cyprus referendums and the 2015-6 migration agreements.

EU countries are not uniform and there are always differences among them. Even the behaviour of the countries can change according to the governments and the situation at the time. Even if there are exceptions (such as Greece, Southern Cyprus or Austria), there is no country that is consistently anti-Turkey, nor is there a country that always supports Turkey. These vary according to interests. In any case, no country should be expected to consider Turkey’s interests and provide support for this purpose. Therefore, Turkey has to think about its own interests without needing the support of any other country.

Since the goal of membership for Turkey will not be realised unless the structure of the EU changes, a steady focus on cooperation in other areas will eventually lead to rapprochement and a relationship free from tension. Pursuing an increasingly distant membership and being in a demanding position leads to inequality. If membership is not going to be realised, why should we fulfil some of its requirements that are not in our interest?

Future challenges

There is global unrest, and both the European Union and Turkey are affected. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia directly concerns both parties. In addition, the ongoing competition between the United States and China in a number of fields has become a topic of discussion, which could lead to armed conflict. The developments in the Middle East and Africa, as well as India’s rise in South Asia, present both challenges and opportunities for cooperation.

On the other hand, in addition to traditional foreign policy matters, transboundary issues such as climate change, health concerns, cyber threats, artificial intelligence, and international terrorism, new opportunities in space, in which countries cannot resolve on their own, will define the future. There is nothing more rational than realising a genuine cooperation between the EU and Turkey in light of these developments. Nonetheless, it appears that this obvious fact is not fully understood.

Suggestions

In conclusion, unless Turkey and the European Union make a serious assessment of the future, relations will continue in an unproductive manner. One side has to take the initiative. Turkish foreign policy is often reactive. If we want progress, this calls for a change and a road map needs to be drawn up by Ankara. To reiterate, choosing a relationship other than membership would be more realistic in the current circumstances, as well as being more equitable between the parties.

• It is in the interest of both sides to work out what we want and what we are prepared to do in a practical way and then address these with the EU, thus reducing tension and building a sustainable relationship. In this framework:
• Even if the ultimate goal of membership is not abandoned, accession talks should not be pursued by recognizing that membership cannot be realised under current conditions. In this way, relations will become more equal. Otherwise, some EU countries will continue to make demands at a bilateral level using negotiations as leverage.
• Democracy must be protected, freedom of expression, independence of the judiciary, rule of law must be ensured and judgements of the ECtHR must be respected.
• Turkey must take steps to ensure visa exemption. In this respect, the remaining six benchmarks should be fulfilled and then the EU should be asked to comply with its commitments.
• The EU should be reminded to fulfil its other commitments in the 18 March 2016 statement such as activating the Voluntary Humanitarian Admission Scheme.
• Efforts should be made to develop trade relations that take into account all possibilities, including the updating of the Customs Union. A roadmap for this, covering public procurement, services and agriculture sectors, was agreed by both sides eight years ago, but even this needs to be revised in the light of developments since then, such as the green transformation and the digital economy.
• There should be regular dialogue at certain levels and areas, especially in foreign policy. There should be genuine efforts to cooperate within the framework of common regional and global interests.
• There should be closer cooperation in the field of defence.

Ultimately, a sustainable relationship will benefit everyone, as long as it is realistic. Taking a holistic perspective of the future is the only way to make the most of such an opportunity.