The EU’s negotiations, or rather non-negotiations with Turkey, turned out to be tricks, jeopardising the EU’s reputation and respectability. What the Germans and others don’t seem to realise is that they expect more from Turkey than they do from themselves, writes Dr. Petra Erler.

Dr. Petra Erler is managing director of the European Experience Company GmbH in Potsdam and served as Head of Cabinet of the former EU Commissioner Günter Verheugen in Brussels.

This article was translated from German.

“In the enlargement negotiations, Chapter 19 on social policy deals with all questions regarding the adoption of EU law by applicant countries in this area, ensuring that future member states fully comply with Community law.

For several years now, the progress of negotiations has clearly depended on applicant countries having to meet so-called opening benchmarks, in other words specific requirements formulated by the EU.

Anyone wishing to delay the negotiations or set the bar extremely high has to get creative with regard to these opening benchmarks, as in the case of Turkey and Chapter 19.

Unlike other chapters, this chapter is not being blocked for political reasons. Opening this chapter would thus send a strong signal of the willingness of both sides to advance Turkey’s accession process. However, it is precisely this willingness which seems to be lacking.

Trade union rights

In chapter 19, the EU requires Turkey to comply with ‘EU standards’ as well as conventions no. 87 and 98 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) before accession talks can begin. These conventions include important trade union rights concerning, inter alia, the right to organise and the right to strike.

At first glance, one is tempted to genuinely thank the Commission and the member states leading the negotiations for addressing this important issue and thus also influencing the situation in Turkey for the better. After all, only a minority of Turkish workers are organised in trade unions.

On second look, however, one begins to wonder what exactly is meant by “EU standards”. A closer look at the Commission’s screening report on Turkey shows that this actually refers to articles 5 and 6 of the European Social Charter, which have not yet been ratified by Turkey.

Sobering comparison with EU member states

Anyone who concludes from this that all EU members have ratified the articles mentioned would be mistaken. Spain and Germany have issued statements on this. Four other member states have not made commitments to all sections of these articles.

There’s also the issue of the revised European Social Charter which was implemented in Turkish national law in 2007. Although this revised Charter has long been signed by ten EU member states including Germany, it has not yet been ratified, let alone implemented.

With regard to the ILO conventions, it could be argued that once a state has entered into international obligations it must fully comply with these obligations. One has to agree with that, and the ILO has indeed criticised Turkey for the poor implementation of the conventions mentioned above.

ILO criticises right to strike in Germany

However, the ILO has expressed serious criticism as to the German understanding of who is allowed to strike and who is not. So what are the factors that define an EU standard? Moreover, why is this addressed under the section “adoption of the acquis” rather than in the part covering the political criteria? And why is the full implementation of these important rights considered the basis of the negotiations rather than the result?

Don’t the Germans and others realise that they demand more from Turkey than they do from themselves? Or is simply that no one bothered to address the issue, relying blindly on the Commission, which is probably more than willing to consider the enforcement of international treaties as Community law. Did all this happen on purpose? Was it designed as a provocation?

As it happens, Turkey did not complain and complied with the EU requirements. The legislative provisions were critically revised and updated in 2012 by the social partners. By consensus.

And once again Brussels is not satisfied.

It is a lesson for all those obliged to conduct negotiations they do not wish to have or doing so without paying attention. No one seems to care that such tricks jeopardise the EU’s reputation and respectability.

via The EU’s non-negotiations with Turkey | EurActiv.

Although a member of numerous regional and international organisations, Turkey is still not in the EU, despite negotiations dating back some 50 years. A columnist wonders if the the country has missed its chance to become anything more than an auxiliary to US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Öztin Akgüc

Since the beginning of the 1960s, Turkey has planned on joining the European Union. At the time when this process began, the union, which was then called the European Economic Community, had only six members. Today Turkey is still involved in accession talks with the European Union, which now has 27 members and will shortly welcome a 28th with the inclusion of Croatia [on July 1].

Since 1969, has also been a member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Islamic Development Bank. At the same time Turkey has joined a wide range of other international organisations like the OECD, and the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC), of which it was a one of the principal founders. Of course, it is also a member of NATO and, it seems, flirting with the idea of joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

In view of this context, you might assume that Turkey was very much an active player in world politics. But is this the true story? In any case, I am one of those who, right from the start, argued that Turkey could not join the European Union.

Regardless of how you view the Union and the integration process, you have to admit that both of these concepts have to be based on shared values. Given that Estonia, Lithuania, Romania and Bulgaria are part of the EU, and now that Croatia is about join, it is worth wondering: why should Turkey not be a member of the Union?

Combatting Moscow’s influence

In my view, these countries became members of the EU for reasons that are first and foremost political. In the early 1990s in the wake of the collapse of the USSR and the end of Comecon [the economic organisation of the Soviet Bloc], the view was that it would be necessary to regroup these countries in a structure to prevent them from being reabsorbed by Moscow’s sphere of influence.

The structure best suited to this purpose was the European Union, and this policy was encouraged by the Clinton administration. Croatia, which was close to Germany, played a critical role in the breakup of Yugoslavia. That is the reason why I believe that it really deserves its place in the European Union. On the contrary, there is no political reason to justify Turkish accession to the EU. And even if Turkey is flirting with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, even if it claims that it amounts to a viable alternative, everyone knows it will not be possible. Moreover, some consider the idea to be a political joke.

The reality of its political role is that Turkey acts as a second class subcontractor for the United States in the Middle East. The lack of political awareness in large sections of society, the calibre of Turkey’s politicians, the quality of its media, the capacity and the level of our entrepreneurs and civil servants have unfortunately all helped to confine Turkey to this supporting role.

‘Second-class subcontractor’

We should not delude ourselves with terms like co-president [an allusion to Turkey’s co-presidency of the Greater Middle East Initiative launched by George W. Bush, which was the subject of intense criticism in Turkish nationalist circles], but rather take stock of this sad reality. I use the term “second-class subcontractor” because I cannot find a better one to describe our situation with regard to the largely preferential treatment accorded to Israel.

For as long as large sections of our society have yet to develop a greater awareness of their citizenship, we will continue to be beguiled by empty notions about ourselves, but the situation of our country will not change.

ON THE WEB

Original article at Cumhuriyet tr

OPINION

Really never?

“Turkey will never be part of the EU,” announces the headline of an article recently published in the German tabloid Bild. But “what Bild does not realise is that the word “never” does not feature in the lexicon of the EU,” says Milliyet, which points out that the EU has kept the Turks waiting without saying if their patience will ever be rewarded. For the Istanbul daily,

We have now reached a point where the central question is no longer ‘Will Turkey ever be be a member?’ but rather ‘Does Turkey still want to become a member?’

However, the newspaper continues —

Political decisions in EU member states, which are linked to the economic situation in those countries, will have a decisive impact on Turkish accession. […] The major fear in Ankara is that the trend of ‘letting citizens decide’ will become standard practice in the negotiation process.”

via Turkey: Accession impossible | Presseurop (English).