[ 
.. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 .. ]
[ .. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 .. ]
European Economic and Social Committee “Important decision not only for Turkey, but also for the EU” Summary of the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on EU-Turkey
relations with a view to the European Council of December 2004, signed by Roger Briesch, the President of the EESC and Patrick Venturini, the Secretary-General of the EESC. The EESC has followed developments in Turkey for many years now. Turkey associated with the EC in 1963, applied for membership in 1987, and became a partner of the EU in the Customs Union in 1995.
The EESC… sincerely hopes that the European Summit of December 2004 will be able to conclude that Turkey has met the 1993 Copenhagen political criteria and therefore decide that negotiations on accession will be opened without delay. Turkey has demonstrated for several decades that it has, unequivocally, chosen to turn itself to Europe. Turkey is a country with a secular state with an overwhelmingly Islamic population. It wishes to function as a modern, secular democracy. It is a highly important example for those countries which have a predominantly Islamic population and which want to strengthen their political structures in terms of secularism and democracy. Turkey's accession to the EU would demonstrate the high level the EU has achieved in terms of its pluralism, of its ability to manage dialogue between cultures and religions, and of its role in promoting peace and justice in the world. Turkey is a demographically young country with a strongly growing economy of great potential. It would be, however, incorrect to continue consi-dering it only as a large market for European export or a zone for low cost investment. Turkey has developed during many years a role, on the one hand as a buffer zone and on the other hand as a bridge between the West and the East, but it has never stopped to consider itself as European. If Turkey succeeds in becoming a member of the EU, it could even more directly support the EU activities for conflict prevention, in particular thanks to its excellent relations with the Central Asian region, the Middle East, and the Gulf area.
Introduction Relations between the EU and Turkey are presently, and for the rest of this year will continue to be dominated by the question whether or not negotiations on accession will be opened. The European Summit will take a decision at its meeting in December 2004. That decision will be a decisive event after a period of more than fifteen years during which Turkey has been waiting for a clear-cut answer to its application for membership of the EU... Satisfying them is considered to be an essential precondition for embarking on the route to full membership. The decision to be taken is obviously not only of the greatest importance for Turkey, but also for the EU. So far, the outcome of the monitoring of relevant progress in Turkey by the European Commission has been positive. According to the Commission, results of the reform process have been particularly impressive in the past two or three years. However, significant further progress is necessary as regards the independence of the judiciary, freedom of expression, the role of the army, and cultural rights - the latter especially in the South-East. The European Parliament, in its most recent report on Turkey, makes a similar assessment. It considers that Turkey, despite all the efforts made so far, still does not meet the Copen-hagen political criteria… Turkey has not only realised an impressive programme of legislation, but it has also taken important measures so as to monitor the implementation of this new legislation in practice. General observations It must be clear from the outset that the crucial issues for the EESC to discuss at this point of time are basically the political issues of democracy, rule of law, human rights, and the protection of minorities, as decided by the December 2002 Copenhagen Council.
The economic criteria and the acquis will only be discussed here insofar as progress Turkey has realised with regard to them can be considered to contribute to the strengthening of human rights, of civil society and of democracy. The EESC has carefully taken note of recent relevant information, in particular the European Commission's 2003 Regular Report on Turkey's progress towards accession, European Parliament's Report on Turkey of April 2004 and the Council of Europe's Report on Human Rights on Turkey of December 2003. It shares the general assessment of the reform process made in these reports. It considers the added value of this opinion to be in its views of the political criteria which are of particular importance for the economic and social interest groups…
For the EESC, aspects of particular importance in the political criteria are the respect for human rights (in particular the right to organise and the right to bargain collectively; women's rights and the cultural rights of minorities); democracy, in particular the contribution which economic and social interest groups and civil society at large can make to the political decision making process; freedom of expression, free media; and the role of the army in Turkish society, in particular in economic and social life. The 1999 Helsinki Council stated clearly that Turkey's reform-performances would be measured against the same accession criteria applying to the other candidate countries. In this connection, it should be observed that some countries with whom negotiations on accession have been opened several years ago, apparently did not fully meet the political criteria at the moment when negotiations were opened with them. In some of them, serious discrepancies still persist, even now that they have become members of the EU. One can think in this connection of important elements such as corruption, the independence of the judiciary and the treatment of minorities. Against this background it is important to state that in our opinion Turkey should not only be tested against the same criteria as the other candidate Member States, but also that these criteria will be applied in the same way. In December 2002, when the Council set its deadline for taking a decision on opening negotiations with Turkey yes or no, their decision can only have meant that they thought that at that very moment Turkey had made enough progress to justify the expectation that, if it would make a strong effort in the remaining twenty four months, the remaining shortcomings could indeed be overcome. Had this not been the case, giving Turkey this perspective would have been pointless and unfair. For some of the remaining key problems… two years is a very short period. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that Council cannot have meant that Turkey would be able to fully meet the political criteria by December 2004. If that is a correct interpretation of Council's decision in December 2002, the question is how much progress on which aspects of the political criteria can realistically be demanded of Turkey before negotiations can be started. In the current discussion on the opening of negotiations on accession with Turkey, reference is made regularly to the problem of Cyprus. The positive role Turkey has played in the efforts to find a solution, and the consecutive 65% vote in favour of the island reunification by the Turkish Cypriot community, have to be taken into consideration. Undoubtedly, Cyprus remains an issue of capital importance, both in terms of principles and of political realities. However, if one sticks faithfully and honestly to the decision of the Copenhagen Council of December of 2002 referred to in para. 2.2, the EU cannot make the solution of the Cyprus problem a new condition for opening negotiations as this would mean setting an extra condition ex post. Conclusions and recommendations The EESC considers Turkey a developing democracy, which has made important progress in its efforts to meet the political Copenhagen criteria, especially since December 2002. Turkey should not only meet the same political criteria as other candidate member states before negotiations can be opened; its performance in the reform process should also be measured by the same standards as those used for other candidate member states. Every effort should be made on the side of the EU to avoid even the suggestion of double standards.
The decision of the Copenhagen Council, in 2002, means that the EU at that point of time was convinced that Turkey, by making serious efforts, could satisfy the political criteria within a period of two years. As regards some areas, which have been dominated by long standing traditions and practices, this can only have meant that full compliance with the political criteria by December 2004 is however impossible and that they are rather looking for a critical mass of real progress which would suffice for opening negotiations. Even some of the new member states, which have gone through the full negotiating process, are not fully meeting the political criteria today. In these particular areas, what the EU can and must realistically demand of Turkey is that such credible progress will have been made by the end of 2004 that it can be expected that a "point of no return" will have been passed by then… The EESC insists that the reforms with respect to the reduction of the power of the armed forces in society at large, as well as those regarding the cultural rights of minorities will be continued at the present pace and direction and hopes that no retrogressive development will occur in the future which would jeop