The Main Arguments for and against Turkey's entry to the EU - Essay Example

?The Main Arguments for and against Turkey's entry to the EU Introduction After nearly six decades of various attempts to unite the European s through a democratic process, the integration of a new state within the conglomerate has never been as difficult and disputable as is the case of Turkey. Since 1959, when Turkey sent in its application to join the European Union (then known as the European Economic Community), Europe has been pondering over the fact whether a primarily Islamic nation lying mostly outside European geographic borders can really be made a part of the Union. While Turkey and EU have a common past of contractual relationship for many years, which led to the negotiations for accession in 2005, the former has always been perceived as an outsider, with whom Europe established relationships primarily for security reasons. The decision to start official talks on Turkey’s EU membership was made on 16 December 2004, while the accession negotiations started on 3 October 2005. This met with a hurdle, when Austria and Germany asked for permissions to allow ‘privileged partnership’ for Turkey without actually making it a full member. With other member states not agreeing to this clause, accession negotiations started, aimed at a full membership. However, negotiations have been adjourned on many instances since 2006, primarily due to objections raised by Cyprus, which is against Turkey’s accession to the EU membership (Barber, 2009). This is owing to the fact that currently the island of Cyprus is divided, wherein the Turkish troops have occupied its northern part and its ships are denied entry into Turkish ports. Austria and France have also declared their intention of holding a referendum on Turkey's EU membership. Currently, out of 35 accession chapters eight have been adjourned, which has effectively interrupted the membership negotiations. Owing to this, there has been a sharp fall in pro-EU support amongst the Turks, where a majority believe the accession process is biased and close-ended (Sayfa, 2013). A closer study reveals that majority of the EU member states never considered the EU-Turkey relationship as an essential part of the EU integration. Even after nearly five decades of EU’s relationship with Turkey, the perspective did not change, on the other hand the feeling of alienation increased on both sides (Cendrowicz, 2009). While a majority of the Europeans viewed Turkey as an outsider, the Turks felt that Europe as a political entity cannot be trusted, especially after the Treaty of Sevres post WWI, and furthermore after viewing unwillingness on part of the EU to assist Turkey once the accession negotiations started. In this context, the essay analyses the highly controversial issue of Turkey’s integration into the EU, and highlights the main arguments for and against Turkey's entry to the Union. Discussion Hurdles to the EU accession based on legal principles There were six member states that created the European Community for Coal and Steel (primarily states from Western Europe) in 1952, later known as the European Economic Community or EEC (1957), and which is now referred to as the EU. The preamble of the EEC treaty stated very clearly that this treaty aimed at creating a close union among the European people. In the same treaty, Article 237 stated that all European states are eligible to become a part of this Community. This article has since them become the foundation for integration, and is an essential aspect in the political and legal basis of the EU and the Union’s policy to unite Europe. This aspect has been reiterated in the 1993 Maastricht Treaty and had been considered in the proposal for 2004 drafting of the treaty for the Constitution for Europe, ratified by all EU member states. This treaty states in Article I-58 that all European states are free to enter the Union. Thus, here the main emphasis has always been on ‘European states,’ and all contractual provisions become a part of the common law framed by the different European treaties, binding the EU institutions and all member states. While the member states have the right to modify them, in terms of legal provisions related to the EU accession, however this is not an option. Here it can therefore be suggested that as per the legal and fundamental principles of the EU, only ‘European states’ are eligible to become the Community members; hence from the perspective of the EU and the European people, Turkey is not a part of Europe and the Turks not European people. This would make the integration of Turkey to the EU an open breach of the European treaties. Thus, here it can be suggested that controversies associated with Turkey’s application for the EU membership are primarily Europe based and homemade. It is an internal issue where debate revolves around the question whether the EU members respect their various treaties. On this particular contentious issue, the focus shifts from the fact that according to political and legal accordance the EU is not a mere institution for global cooperation with specific aims, like any other international body. In this case, there is a general agreement that fundamental objective of the EU is to integrate all states of Europe, hence logically limiting the unification process to only European territories. In terms of the treaties, geographical borders delineate the EU borders. The south, west and northern borders are clearly distinguished by natural water bodies (seas), while the eastern border is clearly defined through centuries of socio-political and cultural past. During Cold War European unification ended, and during this time, the allegorical ‘Iron Curtain’ segregated the continent into eastern and western zones, thus removing all requirements for a geographical delineation of Europe. However, in the current socio-political context, it is essential to review the founding principles of all EU policies and especially the definition pertaining to the limitations brought in by geographical borders. The geographical restrictions, as legally defined in the European unification policies, is not a question pertaining only to legal matters and it must necessarily encompass aspects of socio-political, cultural and historical facts of the entire region. The next section examines the arguments for and against Turkey’s entry into the EU. Arguments for and against Arguments for: One key argument in favour of Turkey’s accession to the EU is that the integration would result in positive economic effect, since Turkey has an abundant and inexpensive flow of energy resources, raw materials, human resources, while providing opportunity to access its large and open markets. Turkey’s geographic location in the Middle East makes it a critical corridor for energy resources, for the European market. The Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline would help Turkey to access the Azerbaijani oil and bring to the Mediterranean coastline through Georgia. Majority of the oil-rich Asian nations are also planning to transport their natural gas and oil reserves via Turkey to various parts of the Europe (Sedat, 2005). Economists feel that both the EU and Turkey would benefit more if they liberalised their trade services instead of further merging their goods. A Customs Union member from the mid-1990s, Turkey already conducts more than 50% of its commercial activities with the EU (Barysch, 2005). Simultaneously, Turkey is also in a position to offer new economic opportunities for the EU market and foreign direct investment sector, owing to the former’s immense potential for rapid growth and development (Hughes, 2004). In this context, Y?lmaz claimed, “It is often forgotten that Turkey’s political integration into the EU demands a sustainable and stable economic development in the first place – in the spirit of Jean Monnet’s concept of political integration through economic integration”(Y?lmaz, 2008, 22). While negotiations were under process, Turkey opened its market and privatised various public sectors related to investments and services, creating a huge potential for the European business groups. Similarly, Turkey’s process of privatisation remains incomplete, thus offering greater opportunities for an increase in FDI. With adequate legislative acts and establishment of an effective infrastructure, coupled with Turkey’s membership of the EU, opportunities for foreign investments within Turkey would be manifold. Turkey’s economy is more dynamic than any other current EU member state, while its large population, with an increasing percentage of the population coming under the working age group, gives Turkey a clear advantage against the European nations (Belke, 2005). Furthermore, underuse of human labour, especially amongst women and in rural areas, holds a large potential for a wide-scale increase in manufacturing activities related to services and various industries (ibid). Another benefit derived from Turkey’s accession to the EU is an integrated global economy and international relationships. As Y?lmaz claimed, “with Turkey as a member, the EU would be closer to the region in which Turkey has already indisputable geostrategic importance. This would help Brussels to lish political and economic bonds that would bring it strategic advantage not only with the countries of the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean region, but also Russia, the South Caucasus, and Central Asia. The economic argument is that Turkey is one of the new emerging markets with a very high economic growth rate” (2008, 17). Economic and socio-political progresses in the different neighbouring states clearly show Turkey’s significant and strategic geopolitical location. Providing Turkey with the EU membership will undoubtedly be a strategic decision that will have significant effect on Europe’s future. It will alter the Union’s pro-Christian image and help in delineating its future structure. By bringing in a secular Islamic nation into the EU would clearly show that Europe is not adverse to accepting diversity in religion and culture. Turkish accession to the EU would also help in modernising Turkey, bring in reforms and work towards stabilising the entire area between the EU and the Middle East. Otherwise, Turkey could come under the influence of the military forces or the religious fundamentalists (Eaglesham, 2004). EU accession is also expected to bring together various groups within Turkey’s socio-political fabric that are at conflict with each other, but view Europe as a substantial goal. Thus, allowing for Turkey’s accession would prove beneficial for both the EU member states and Turkey. Arguments against: Here the main debate revolves around the question, whether Turkey as an EU member can have a negative impact on the European Union. The main problem highlighted by those against Turkey’s accession is the size of the country. Turkey is a large State with more than 73 million citizens, which will undoubtedly produce a significant effect during voting in the EU institutions, by getting almost equal number of votes as Germany, which is the Union’s primary paymaster (The Economist, 2007). However, unlike Germany, Turkey is predominantly a developing nation where the GDP per capita (PPP) was $15,200 in 2012, which is estimated at less than 30% of the EU average on an average estimate (CIA, The World Factbook, 2013). At an average estimate, this would translate into providing almost EUR 9-12 billion annually by the European Union members as monetary aid to Turkey (Hughes, 2004). While Turkey has a strong agricultural workforce (almost equivalent to the total number of farmers from other EU members), which ensures a significant effect on the Union’s Common Agricultural Policy, on the other hand it reports low percentages of women workforce. On integration with the EU, Turkey would add only 2% to the total GDP of the EU, while an increase in economic growth would not be more than 0.3% (Hughes, 2004). This negative financial impact is a major issue that worries those against Turkish membership, where it is claimed the accession would result in an unnecessary overload on the EU budget, leading to disputes within the Union. Another argument given against Turkish EU membership is the effect it would have on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of Europe, since Turkey shares its borders with geopolitically volatile nations, such as, Syria, Iraq and Iran, making it essential to bring in new concepts and approaches that might be in contention with current EU priorities. There are also fears expressed regarding the impact that the accession may have on the various EU’s bodies and systems. It has also been claimed that the accession would influence future membership plans, wherein experts predicted that other nations, such as Morocco, would also apply for EU memberships (The Economist, 2007). In this context, the former French President Nicolas Sarkozy in a press meet stated, “I want to say that Europe must give itself borders, that not all countries have a vocation to become members of Europe, beginning with Turkey which has no place inside the European Union…Enlarging Europe with no limit risks destroying European political union, and that I do not accept” (TurkishPress.com, 2007). Another point of criticism is Turkey’s poor human rights record and its weak democracy. Turkey’s democratic changeover remains incomplete, with continuing reports of human rights violations mainly against the Kurdish minority, along with occupied territories of northern Cyprus by Turkish armed forces. While Turkey had shown willingness to make legislative reforms with an objective to fulfil the Copenhagen criteria, the implementation of these new acts remained inconsistent (Kubilay, 2013). However, recently the will to reform has been waning, primarily due to persistent unwillingness on the part of the Europeans to provide Turkey with the Union membership. Some prominent State heads, such as, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy have openly opposed Turkey’s EU membership, which has resulted in Turkey showing less commitment while implementing important reforms, which in turn has raised fresh doubts in the minds of the Europeans. Thus, the entire process has taken the form of a vicious circle. It is for this reason the EU must advocate effective implementation of legislative reforms (and not remain restricted to mere adoption of new laws) before accession, Therefore, Turkey must necessarily carry out more economic and political reforms and their effective implementation to meet EU standards. Another argument given relates to Turkey’s Islamic majority, owing to which it cannot be made included within mainstream Europe that is predominantly Christian (Moore, 2008). Along with this, various polls show that European citizens are not in favour of Turkey’s accession. In 2011, a survey revealed that nearly 71% of the citizens of the UK, Germany, France, Austria, Italy, the Czech Republic, Spain and Poland were against Turkey's membership (PressTV, 2011). Many European nations opposed the accession, as for example, Austria and Germany that has always been seen as supporting a Christian Europe against the Islamic Turks (Pravda.ru, 2010). Summary of the main Arguments for and against Turkey's entry to the EU Arguments pro Arguments con Turkey acts as a geographical and political connection between Asia and Europe. It shares common borders with some of the largest oil producing nations in the middle east, thus holding implications to act as a powerful balancing factor (energy corridor) in a socio-politically volatile area, adding to Europe’s economic and border security. There are large religious and cultural differences between the European nations and Turkey. Besides this, currently Turkey has a weak and immature democracy that remains turbulent in terms of religion and politics. Politics in Turkey involve a constant struggle between Islamists and authoritative military rule. There are frequent reports of human rights abuse. All these factors act as strong barriers to Turkey’s accession of the EU membership. Both anti-EU factions within Turkey and the EU members use these factors as key elements in their arguments to prove their stand against Turkey gaining the Union membership. Turkey is a fast developing market, with a liberal economic system already in place, hence holding huge potential for the EU economy. Recent reviews show dwindling public support against Turkey joining the EU, where the Turks feel EU-Turkey relationship is not founded on principles of mutual interest and cooperation. There are views that EU is enjoying more benefits from this relationship while displaying a complete lack of willingness to help Turkey in solving problems. The political machinery in Turkey partly matches those seen in western Europe. Turkey being a developing nation, a large percentage of its population fall below the poverty level, and this would prove to be an unbearable financial burden for the EU (as for example, flow of immigrants from Turkey, allocation of special funds for Turkey) Including Turkey into the folds of the EU would show that the latter is an inclusive group and does not comprise of only Christian nations, and is able to function amidst religious and cultural differences. Turkey’s large population would ensure that it becomes the second most powerful nation within EU, hence, creating a bias during important decision-making processes. Conclusion From the above study, it can be summarised that the EU’s legal provisions do not permit accession of Turkey into the Union. Furthermore, there are various debates that revolve round the historical, socio-political, cultural and religious differences between Turkey and Europe, which highlight the uncertainties and instabilities that may arise due to these differences, in case of Turkey’s accession to the EU. Current reviews reveal that public opinion in most of the EU member states is against Turkey’s accession to the Union, while in Turkey public opinion polls show that EU membership is no longer considered as highly coveted. A closer study shows us that existing differences between the EU and Turkey are more associated with their political and economic nature hence can be better dealt with an increase in interaction holding a greater scope for integration of Turkey into the EU, through an objective form of membership, instead of pressuring Turkey into isolation. In order to integrate Turkey with the EU, first Turkey’s political, social, cultural and religious diversity must be acknowledged by the EU. Secondly, there must be a conscientious and conscious support from the EU member states towards this process of accession. If the EU fails to address these aspects during the crucial period of accession negotiations, the process of integration between Turkey and the EU will become untenable. On the other hand, greater cooperation between the EU and Turkey would help to create a scope for better opportunities in bridging the socio-political, cultural and religious divide with considerable economic and security based implications that have a global bearing. References Barber, T., 2009. Cyprus adds obstacles to Turkey EU accession. Ft.com, Available at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e62670a6-e421-11de-bed0-00144feab49a.html#axzz2hJL0CSgd [Accessed 10th October 2013] Barysch, K., 2005. The Economics of Turkish Accession. Centre for European Reform. Available at http://home.aubg.bg/faculty/didar/ECON%20402/economics%20of%20turkish%20accession.pdf [Accessed 7th October 2013] Belke, A., 2005. Turkey in Transition to EU Membership: Pros and Cons of Integrating a Dynamic Economy. Perceptions. Available at http://sam.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Ansgar-Belke.pdf [Accessed 8th October 2013] Cendrowicz, L., 2009. Fifty Years On, Turkey Still Pines to Become European. Time world. Available at http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1920882,00.html [Accessed 7th October 2013] CIA, 2013. The World Factbook - Turkey. Available at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html [Accessed 10th October 2013] Eaglesham, J., 2004. Turkey 'key to EU-Islam relationship. The Financial Times, LONDON / 23 March 2004. Available at http://www.freedom-for-ocalan.com/bulletin/2004/eMarch24.htm#2 [Accessed 8th October 2013] Hughes, K., 2004. Turkey and the European Union: Just another Enlargement? Exploring the Implications of Turkish Accession. European Policy Summit of 17 June 2004. Available at http://www.sant.ox.ac.uk/seesox/michaelmas04/turkey_report2004.pdf [Accessed 10th October 2013] Kubilay, A., 2013.  The AKP's Foreign Policy, Turkey's Reorientation from the West to the East? Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin. Moore, M., 2008. In France, Prisons Filled With Muslims. Washington Post. Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042802560.html [Accessed 9th October 2013] Pravda.ru, 2010. Germany's Merkel Opposed to Turkey's Full EU Membership. Available at http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/29-03-2010/112764-merkel-0/ Available at [Accessed 8th October 2013] PressTV, 2011. Europeans against Turkey in EU: Poll, Available at http://www.presstv.ir/detail/216662.html [Accessed 9th October 2013] Sayfa, A., 2013. New Eurobarometer poll results show a drop in Turkish support for the EU. Hurriyat, Turkish Daily news, Available at http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/4713737.asp?gid=74 [Accessed 9th October 2013] Sedat, L., 2005. Turkey’s EU Membership’s Possible Impact on EU’s External Economic Relations. The Journal of Turkish Weekly. Available on http://www.turkishweekly.net/columnist/1219/turkey-s-eu-membership-s-possible-impact-on-eu-s-external-economic-relations.html [Accessed 7th October 2013] The Economist, 2007. The EU's most effective foreign-policy instrument has been enlargement. But how far can it go? Available at http://www.economist.com/node/8808134 [Accessed 10th October 2013] TurkishPress.com, 2007. Sarkozy: Turkey has no place inside the European Union. Available at http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=159133 [Accessed 7th October 2013] Y?lmaz B., 2008. The Relations of Turkey with the European Union: Candidate Forever? Center for European Studies Working Paper Series: 167, Available at http://aei.pitt.edu/11789/1/CES_167.pdf [Accessed 7th October 2013] Read More