Frances Resistance to the Membership of Turkey in the EU - Case Study Example

France’s resistance to the membership of Turkey in the European Union 21-12-11 France’s resistance to the membership of Turkey in the European Union Introduction: Since 1963, Turkey has had the privilege of being an associate member of the European Union. (ARIKAN, H. 2006). On 14 April 1987, Turkey officially forwarded an application to accede to the European Union. The events that followed the membership bid, has become a major controversy over the last two decades. Turkey, apart from the ten founding members, was one of the first countries to become a member of the Council of Europe in the year 1949. Furthermore, Turkey was also one of the founding members of The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (JOSEPH, J. S. 2006). Since 1992, Turkey has had an associate membership with the Western European Union. Moreover, Turkey also fulfills its services in the United Nations, as a member of the Western Europe branch of the Western European and Others Group (WEOG). (BELKE 2004). In 1995, a Customs Union Agreement was signed between Turkey and the European Union. At European council’s summit held on 12 December 1999, Turkey was recognized as a candidate for membership in the European Union. Despite the fact that Turkey has contributed tremendously for the welfare of European countries, ironically its accession to the European Union remains at a standstill. Furthermore, France has always resisted Turkey’s membership in the European Union. (JUNG, D. et al 2008). The motive behind the resistance is not entirely based upon religious affairs. Moreover, the resistance has not stemmed due to a single reason, it is however, a cumulative result of numerous underlying issues. This Paper includes an overview on the ongoing enlargement process of the European Union and attempts to throw light at some of the major reasons forcing France to neglect strong Europe-Turkish ties and fiercely resist Turkey’s accession to the EU. The paper also attempts to weigh Turkey’s chances of accession to the European Union. Furthermore, the paper also attempts to speculate on whether France’s resistance is justified. Overview: The long awaited accession negotiations finally opened on 3rd October, 2005. Turkey embarked on a long difficult journey of negotiations and it might take a decade before a decision is finalized. (ARIKAN, H. 2006). The terms of accession and the future benefits that turkey could give to the European Union, if its membership is confirmed, are two issues which have created an unclear and perplexed scenario. (JUNG, D. et al 2008). In order to become a member country, Turkey has to make tremendous efforts to fulfill the Copenhagen Criteria. Firstly, Turkey has to stabilize its political conditions by creating stable institutions which would ultimately guarantee and follow a democratic system and fulfill all the norms of a full European democratic country. Secondly, Turkey must transform into an economically strong country by creating a sound functioning market economy. Moreover, the EU expects Turkey to adopt and strictly adhere to the “acquis communautaire” i.e. a set of EU laws. Thirdly, Turkey must reform its foundation in an effort to fully adopt and implement the political, economical and monetary Laws of the European Union. (TOGAN et al 2005). Opponents of turkey consider the country to be too big and too poor to join the European Union, on the other hand, some opponents consider Turkey to religious to be allowed to become a part of the European Union. Proponents of Turkey consider such opponent claims to be nothing but dubious notions because they recognize Turkey as an economically strong nation. Furthermore, they recognize the fact that Turkey is not bounded by a single religion as the Nation has no official religion thus, the issue of religion should not be treated as a major stumbling block to Turkey’s dream of accession to the European Union. (ENGERT, S. (2010). Turkey’s accession to the EU-A long, troubled journey: Since 200 years, Turkey has been trying to adapt to Europeanness in an effort to prove it’s capabilities to the European countries. Turkish efforts have become more visible to the prevailing forces in Europe since it made its official application for accession to EU. Over the years, EU has been reluctant in admitting Turkey on numerous reasons. Therefore, Turkey’s application for EU membership was not accepted in 1989 on the basis that Turkey was not economically and politically ready to be admitted in the EU structure. (DANSK INDUSTRI. 2004). The signing of the Customs Union agreement between Turkey and European Union gave rise to new hopes of accession but Turkish anti-democratic policies coupled with human rights violation proved to the major stumbling blocks. Such obstacles increased the French reluctance on the prospect of accepting Turkey. (LAKE 2005). At the Luxembourg Summit 1997, Turkey’s candidacy was once again rejected on the basis that the nation’s democracy was extremely volatile thus it was not in accordance with European standards. The EU strongly believes that Turkey desperately needs to consolidate its democracy and stop the violation of human rights. When the candidacy status was granted to Turkey at the Helenski Summit, the EU did not develop a sophisticated mechanism of conditionality in Turkey like it had in other countries. Therefore, European pressures to improve the democratic situation were perceived by Turkey as being unsystematic and sporadic. (USUL, A. R. 2011). Restricted “Freedom of Speech”: Europe has always been concerned about the extent of “freedom of speech” practiced in Turkey. France’s concern over the issue of “freedom of expression” in Turkey was heightened by the charges brought against the acclaimed novelist Orhan Pamuk in 2005. The author won a Nobel Prize in 2006 for his world famous books, My Name Is Red, The White Castle and Snow. Shortly after opening, the author’s trial was suspended because the Justice Ministry did not offer a ruling as to whether the charges against Orhan Pamuk should stand. However, Orhan Pamuk was accused of “insulting Turkishness” under Article 301of Turkey’s Criminal Code because Orhan Pamuk had stated to a Swiss newspaper in February 2005, that nobody expect him has stood up for the 30,000 Kurds and one million Americans killed in Turkish lands. France along with other member States has been known to adamantly defend “freedom of expression” and the accession issue was jeopardized by the scenario created after Turkey’s response to Orhan Pamuk’s claim. Though unintentionally, Turkey had provoked France on a subject it is known to defend adamantly. One of the numerous reasons for France’s resistance to Turkey’s accession to the European Union is the restricted “freedom of speech” practiced in Turkey. France is justified in resisting the accession on the basis of this restriction because the charges against the author reflect the fact that Turkish Law considers it illegal to insult any organs of the State- thereby restricting the full enforcement of “freedom of speech”. (HURD, E. S. 2008). Geopolitical Implications: Another stumbling block in Turkey’s dream of accession is the geopolitical implications of further expansion the European Union. France, one of the founding members, is deeply concerned about the issues which would ultimately surface if the EU is further expanded. Furthermore, the authorities in France are already worried about the deepening concerns of its population over the viability of the European Project. (GRETHE, H. (2004). French President Nicolas Sarkozy is anxious about the implications of admitting Turkey to the EU, furthermore, he believes in defining the borders of Europe. France strongly resists Turkey’s admittance to the European Union on the basis of protecting the Union from further expansion because if Turkey is allowed to accede, it would certainly provoke more Central Asian states to forward an application to accession. Again, France’s resistance is justified because Turkey’s accession would inevitably make Central Asian states such as Georgia, Armenia, Moldavia, Ukraine, Belarus, and even Russia qualify for membership in the EU. Such a condition is not what France wants the EU to get therefore; it is resisting Turkey’s accession in an attempt to prevent further expansion of the European Union. On the other hand, Turkey is located largely located outside Europe. Therefore, France’s resistance is again justified because European Union should not allow the membership of a Country which is largely located outside Europe. Moreover, Turkey is located in a politically and economically unstable and furthermore the region is plagued with conflict, instability and terrorism. (HURD, E. S. 2008). Procedural Issues: Another reason for France to reject the candidacy of Turkey is the procedural issues within the European Union. The procedural issues such as governance issues are proving to be one of the major threats to Turkey’s dream of accession to the EU. France argues that the major drawback of admitting Turkey would be the inordinate amount of voting weight which inevitably would be offered to Turkey in accordance with the structure of the new constitution. According to the new constitution, determination of political representation and voting weight in the European Union would be done solely on the basis of population. Therefore, one of the major reasons behind France’s resistance is that it does not want Turkey to have an inordinate amount of voting weight particularly in the European Council and the European Parliament. (HURD, E. S. 2008). Turkey’s lack of European-ness: Although each of the preceding factors bear immense significance but European resistance to Turkish candidacy is somehow more deep rooted then it seems. The resistance is not only based upon political, economical or even geographical issues but is mediated by even graver issues. Former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing considered the admittance of Turkey in the European Union as the end of Europe because Turkey is simply not European. French opinion is also shared by former West German chancellor and Social Democratic party leader Helmut Schmidt, who believes that Turkey does not deserve to be admitted in the EU because of its unsuitable civilization and if Turkey’s accession is accepted would inevitably open the door for the accession of other Muslim nations which would ultimately rape the EU of its solidarity and transform the Union into a free trade community. French authorities are also worried about the expansion of Islam in Europe upon admitting a Muslim nation in the Union. The accession of Turkey is stumbling due to such anxieties coupled with political, economical and geographical issues. (HURD, E. S. 2008). Terrorism: France is extremely concerned over the recent episodes of violence such as the murder of Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh and the terrorist attacks on Madrid of 3/11, admitting Turkey would definitely facilitate an inflow of Muslims in Europe which could increase terrorist activities. On the other hand, issues such as conflicts over cartoons being published in the year 2006 and the violence in France that occurred in late 2005 have further exhausted the chances of Turkey’s accession to EU. (HURD, E. S. 2008). Anti headscarf Law of 2004: Certain laws passed in France are viewed as offensive by many Muslim nations including the anti-headscarf law in 2004. The anti headscarf law targets young Muslim girls and prohibits them from observing Hijab in schools. (DISMORR, A. 2008). The enactment of the law was widely supported by the French population. As Turkey is a Muslim state and if it is allowed to admit to the EU, it is inevitable that religious conflicts would arise. (UGUR et al 2004). France is concerned about the solidarity and future implications of admitting Turkey and its resistance is justified. Such cultural and religiously based hesitations are some of the important reasons why France is not willing to accept Turkey’s application. Moreover, France is also concerned about the potential threat the Union could face on admitting a Muslim majority civilization. The prospect of EU suffering from a clash of Christian and Muslim civilizations is too imminent to be neglected and which is why France is ready to neglect the possible benefits Turkey would bring to the EU upon admittance. (GÜNEY, N. A. 2007). France is not opposing Turkish beliefs and religious customs simply on the basis of protecting a Christian Europe. The opposition is mainly because of the clash of two dominant civilizations and its ramifications on the solidarity and prosperity of the European Union. The issue of religious tolerance is still unsettled in Europe. Particularly, Islamic tolerance is still at a premature developmental stage in European Union which is clearly reflected by the frequent conflicts occurring over the veil across Europe. The issue of Turkey’s candidacy has given rise to a series of questions regarding the political stability of Turkey. France is determined to get such questions answered before Turkey is admitted into the EU. One of the major questions is regarding the fact that is Turkey politically and economically ready to be accepted? The answer to the question is not simple enough and which is the exact reason why the negotiation process might take another decade or so to reach its end. (TURKEY. 2007). The debate over European secularism is another reason plaguing the Turkish dream of accession. The Turkish accession will only be successful when France along with other member States acknowledges the tradition of European secularization and the alterations they will have to undertake upon Turkish accession. French authorities are perplexed about this issue because they simply do not consider European Union to be ready to undergo drastic alterations. (HURD, E. S. 2008). Secularist Issues: Apart from political, economical and geographical reasons described above, Laicism and Judeo Christian secularism are also important in determining the fate of Turkish dream of accession to EU. In contemporary Europe, secularist norms and principles do significantly affect and recreate International relations. In Judeo Christian secularism, religious traditions and modern politics are molded according to Judeo Christian norms and principles. (BISCOP et al 2008). Western countries are often praised on their achievement of secularist separation of religion from democratic settlement and politics. However, this might be nothing but an illusion because the issue of Turkish accession is deeply permeated with Judeo Christian Secularism. In Vers un Islam europeen, Olivier Roy explains that Turkish accession to the EU will rejected not because of the democratic failure of Turkish government but due to the fact that Turkish population is not European and the population does not qualify upon the norms of Laicism Foundation. This means that Turkey is not secular enough to be allowed to become a part of the European Union. Such European opinion is based on the fact that Turkish society does not share common cultural and religious grounds with European society which is precisely the reason why European secularism would never be able to anchor itself in Turkey. As a result, French authorities argue that the essence of European democracy can never be established in Turkey. Judeo Christian secularism is based on the assumption that Full secular democracy can only achieved in a society where the heritage of Christianity is dominant. In accordance with this statement, Turkish society will not be able to attain Christian secular democracy because 97% of its society is Muslim. On the other hand, laicists consider the opposition of Turkish accession on the basis of religious and cultural issues is unjustified. Laicist opinions about the relationship between European identity and Turkish accession are completely different from those of Judeo Christian secularism. (NAS 2008). Laicists do not regard Turkey to be practically incapable of complying with European cultural and constitutional standards; it has just not matured enough to be able to withstand such a responsibility. However, Turkey can become a member when it meets the European cultural and constitutional standards. Turkey must demonstrate its cultural and economical integrity to become a part of the European Union. (HURD, E. S. 2008). Additional Criteria: In every respect, Turkey’s dream of accession to the EU is an extraordinary dream. The accession is not merely about the entry of Turkey in the European structure but it is more about the profound effects Turkey’s membership will have on the structure of the European Union. (UGUR et al 2004). The material and ideational components of Europe will inevitably be affected by Turkey’s accession. This is the major reason why France is hesitant in accepting Turkey solely on the basis of Copenhagen membership criteria. (TOGAN et al 2001). Apart from the Copenhagen criteria, French authorities weigh Turkey’s chances of accession on a number of additional criteria. Accordingly, France is resisting Turkey’s accession because the country has simply not been able to qualify on the additional criteria. One of the major additional criteria is the cost of Turkey’s accession. Secondly, France is also extremely concerned about the perceptions of Turkey’s Europeanness and the effect of Turkey’s accession on the internal dynamics in the EU. Thirdly, France is also anxious about the amount of material benefits that Turkey is expected to bring upon its accession. (BALKIR et al 1993). As a founding member, France is also concerned about the solidarity of the Union and it has to decide whether the Union has the capacity to integrate more members. The current context of the EU politics has further aggravated the situation. The inclusion of “permanent safeguard clauses” including the restriction on the free movement of individuals between the member states and structural policies adds more uncertainty to the prospect of Turkish accession. Moreover, the situation has been further plunged into uncertainty by the negative national referenda on the ratification of European Constitutional Treaty in France and Netherlands. The ongoing expansion of the EU has come to halt due to the fact that the Union’s deepening process has slowed down. (ARVANITOPOULOS, K. 2009). Turkey’s lack of progress towards attaining EU principles and norms: Turkey has insufficiently progressed towards qualifying on the Copenhagen membership criteria and this has proved to be another major barrier in its accession. The membership has been complicated by Turkey’s insufficiency and has heightened the French resistance by decreasing the prospect of Turkish capabilities of attaining Europeanism. Moreover, the unsatisfactory result of the latest annual Commission evaluation report of turkey has increased European hesitation to Turkish accession. (ARVANITOPOULOS, K. 2009). In accordance with the report, Turkish progress in ensuring full civilian supervision over the Military has not been able to achieve European standards. Furthermore, the parliamentary oversight over defense expenditures has also been underscored. In addition, the cultural diversity is not European in any way. Keeping these facts in view, it is clear that France’s resistance is justified because Turkey’s slow progress in attaining European standards and failure to protect the rights of the minorities are issues that are too prominent to be neglected. More importantly, France realizes that Turkey’s democracy is too volatile and this fact cannot be denied. The volatility of Turkish democracy is mirrored in the political situation of the Country. The political assassinations and threats of military intervention in the political matters are two of the major problems that reflect the failure of Turkish government in attaining European standards. The failure is also heightened by two recent cases which surfaced recently, demanding the abolishment of the governing justice and Development Party and the Democratic Society Party. On the other hand, the growing skepticism about Turkey’s membership has degraded the ability of Europe to persuade Turkey to accept, adopt and enforce European norms and principles. According to some analysts, the major threat to the success of Turkey’s accession is the Turkey’s sui generis democracy. (ARVANITOPOULOS, K. 2009). High European Standards: The prospect of Turkish accession is further complicated by European Expectations regarding the achievement of international benefits. One of the reasons why European Union has extensively utilized the ongoing enlargement process is to obtain maximum foreign policy objectives. France is concerned that whether it would be able to achieve maximum out of admitting Turkey or it will only end up disintegrating the solidarity of the European Union. (ARVANITOPOULOS, K. 2009). An important role has been played by Turkish-Greece relations and Cyprus problem throughout the evolution of Turkish-European relations. These two interlinked issues have been further complicated upon the accession of Greece to the European Union in 1981. Therefore, Turkish Greece relations will also significantly affect the outcome of accession negotiations. The Issue of Cyprus: The issue to Cyprus problem and the Turkish dream of accession to the EU was highlighted when both the countries officially expressed their desire for membership in the European Union. Currently, the best candidate for membership is Cyprus both because of its ideal economic and administrative excellence. Out of the two candidates, without doubt Cyprus is more prosperous and its chances of yielding future benefits upon accession are greater than that of Turkey. Furthermore, Cyprus possesses administrative structures which are in accordance with European standards. Therefore, in terms of economic, political and administrative status, Cyprus is better able to adopt and enforce European Laws and principles. Naturally, France is more inclined to accept Cyprus’s candidacy rather than Turkey’s because of the obvious reasons. Turkey is a huge country and is not wealthy as the European nations. (ÇARKOĞLuet al 2003). Turkey’s economical condition has not flourished significantly over the past few years which only serve to add fuel to the fire of resistance to Turkish accession. French authorities are justified when they argue that Turkey is simply not ready for the European Union. Turkey’s accession would only be successful if it demonstrates its eagerness to reduce corruption and enhance its market economy to be compatible in the EU single market. (BURRELL et al 2005). Part Islamic, Part Western Culture: On countless occasions Turkey has been declared as not suitable for Europe by President Nicolas Sarkozy. He has clearly stated that current Turkish soceity has no place in the EU. His words clearly indicate that Turkish society will only be admitted if it adapts to European culture and become a part of its secular democratic institutions. (FLAM, H. 2003). France is legitimately concerned about the possible ramifications of Turkish Islamic orientation under the Justice and Democratic Party. The current situation in Turkey does not persuade Sarkozy about the prospect of Turkish embracement of Europeanness. Another major challenge that is reinforcing French resistance is the possible changes EU would have to make in order to address the political, economical and administrative weaknesses of Turkey. Turkey has a low level of human capital and there are low levels of quality of life in rural areas. Moreover, Turkey offers poor opportunities for non agricultural employment which has increased the unemployment rate over the past few years. Such Turkish weaknesses will definitely need a strong welfare program. (BURRELL et al 2005). Over the past two decades, numerous cases of mass violations have occurred in Turkey reflecting the failure of the government in safeguarding the rights of its citizens. The state authorities ignored the violations and showed no willingness to resolve the matters. In accordance with the Human Rights Association report of 2009, more than 2950 individuals were killed in Turkey in 2008 by unknown perpetuators. In addition, extrajudicial executions claimed the lives of 2310 individuals. The extent to which the human rights are violated in Turkey cannot be fully analyzed because a number of cases are either not reported or are erased by the authorities. Due to excessive external pressure a parliamentary commission was organized in 1993 and entrusted with the job of researching the killings caused by unknown perpetuators. Unfortunately, the parliamentary committee dissolved within two years. The reasons for the dissolution of the committee were vague which degraded Turkey’s image in front of the European countries. (GROVER, S. C. 2010). Human torture is widespread in Turkey. In 1971, Amnesty International recognized the prevalence and systematic use of torture in Turkey. (TORTURE IN TURKEY.1984). In 2004, Gunter Verheugen, Commissioner for Enlargement of the European Union evaluated that systematic torture was no longer prevalent in Turkey. Soon after the evaluation was made public the Human Rights Association protested and provided evidence which clearly contradicted the Commissioner’s evaluation. The “Palestinian hanging” practiced in Turkey has also hailed tremendous protests from the Human Rights Association. The European Court of Human Rights declared in the 1996, that Turkey was guilty of violating human rights by using the technique of “Palestinian hanging”. The recent report of HRA reveals that human torture in Turkey has increased since the year 2005. Furthermore, the incidence of death in custody has also increased since 2005. The HRA reports and studies reveal that most of the prisoners in custody are severely tortured and most of the deaths occur due to torture or starvation. Therefore, it is clear that Turkey has been violating human rights since many years and to make matters worse the state authorities have not exhibited willingness to remedy the situation. The chances of Turkish accession to the EU are definitely thin if Turkey does not rectifies the situation in the near future. The Turkish torture in Cyprus has further threatened Turkish accession to the EU. (GROVER, S. C. 2010). Keeping the current situation in view, France’s resistance in accepting Turkish candidacy is justified because if Turkey does not try to stop human rights violation then it simply does not deserve to be in the European Union. Conclusion: Due to the above mentioned reasons, it is quite obvious that Turkey’s candidacy is an unusual one. The chances of its accession are like an open end process, therefore only time will decide the course of events. (ALEXANDER et al 2008). The prospect of Turkish accession to the EU is surrounded by numerous anxieties which only serve to complicate the matters and increase uncertainty. (ÖZBUDUN et al 2009). As described above, there are numerous reasons which are forcing France to resist Turkey’s accession. In 1987, Turkish candidacy was rejected because of the lack of basic motivation needed for compliance with European norms and principles. In 1997, Turkish candidacy was not accepted because the democratic situation of the country was very volatile. The European Union will never accept Turkey if it does not show significant process over the next few years. Europe has always supported and enforced the “Freedom of Speech”. (REITZ et al 2007). In turkey the “freedom of speech” is restricted as demonstrated by the charges brought against the acclaimed novelist Orhan Pamuk. The matters are further worsened by Turkey’s lack progress in attaining and enforcing European norms and principles. Some analysts claim that Turkey’s lack of responsiveness is to the skepticism surrounding the prospect of accession and it is unjustifiable to consider that solely Turkey is to be blamed. As it cannot be denied that the EU failed to act as an influential external actor in modifying and consolidating the democratic situation in Turkey. (KAŹMIERKIEWICZ et al 2006). On the other hand, Turkey did not show the progress needed to influence the EU to act as an external welfare actor. Turkey did nothing to remove the obstacles hindering its accession but it merely made some partial improvements which were certainly not enough to satisfy France. On the other hand, EU failed to organize a sophisticated mechanism of conditionality. The absence of mechanism of conditionality merely deteriorated the chances of Turkish accession because EU was not able to monitor and regulate Turkish democracy. (MOGHADAM 2005). Another pressing issue is the fact that Turkey’s accession would inevitably make Central Asian states such as Georgia, Armenia, Moldavia, Ukraine, Belarus, and even Russia qualify for membership in the EU. Such a situation could be disastrous and might transform the EU into nothing except a free trade community. (Financial Times 2002). Matters are further complicated by the fact that Turkey is not located within Europe and France is adamant on defining and adhering to the Union’s European borders. Furthermore, Turkey’s internal political situation and democracy is quite volatile which is clearly mirrored by the threats of military intervention and occasional political assassinations. The prevalence of systematic torture across Turkey has further increased European resistance. Moreover, the lack of Turkish interest in rectifying the current situation of human rights violation has without doubt increased uncertainty regarding the prospect of accession. (BOGDANI 2011). On the other hand, Turkish economy is not in accordance with European standards. Keeping all these reasons in view, it is not difficult to interpret that the issue of religion alone is not mediating French resistance to Turkish accession. It is true that France is concerned about the religious issues which would ultimately surface upon Turkish accession, keeping in view the recent events and the subsequent enactment of Anti headscarf rule in 2004. However, it is dubious to consider that religion alone is responsible for French hesitation over Turkish accession. It is true that Europe has a secularist foundation but still it is not justifiable to say that France’s resistance solely has a religious motive. (LAKE 2005). Rather, the resistance is a cumulative effect of numerous integrated reasons and issues which would ultimately take several years to resolve; therefore, time alone will decide the fate of Turkey’s dream of accession to the European Union. References: HURD, E. S. (2008). The politics of secularism in international relations. Princeton, Princeton University Press. ARVANITOPOULOS, K. (2009). Turkeys accession to the European union: an unusual candidacy. Berlin, Springer. BURRELL, A., & OSKAM, A. J. (2005). Turkey in the European Union: implications for agriculture, food, and structural policy. Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK, CABI Pub. ÇARKOĞLU, A., & RUBIN, B. M. (2003). Turkey and the European Union: domestic politics, economic integration, and international dynamics. London, Frank Cass. USUL, A. R. (2011). Democracy in Turkey the impact of EU political conditionality. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon [England], Routledge. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10416517. ARIKAN, H. (2006). Turkey and the EU: an awkward candidate for EU membership? Aldershot, Hampshire, England, Ashgate. JOSEPH, J. S. (2006). Turkey and the European Union: internal dynamics and external challenges. Basingstoke [England], Palgrave Macmillan. JUNG, D., & RAUDVERE, C. (2008). Religion, politics, and Turkeys EU accession. New York, Palgrave Macmillan. TOGAN, S., & HOEKMAN, B. M. (2005). Turkey Economic Reform and Accession to the European Union. Washington, DC, World Bank. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=459511. ENGERT, S. (2010). EU enlargement and socialization: Turkey and Cyprus. London, Routledge. DANSK INDUSTRI. (2004). Turkey and the EU: perspectives and opportunities. Copenhagen, Dansk Industri. DISMORR, A. (2008). Turkey decoded. London, Saqi. UGUR, M., & CANEFE, N. (2004). Turkey and European integration: accession prospects and issues. London, Routledge. GÜNEY, N. A. (2007). Contentious issues of security and the future of Turkey. Aldershot, England, Ashgate. TURKEY. (2007). Political reforms in Turkey. Ankara, M&B Tanıtım Hizmetleri ve Tic. Ltd. TOGAN, S., & BALASUBRAMANYAM, V. N. (2001). Turkey and Central and Eastern European countries in transition: towards membership of the EU. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave. BALKIR, C., & WILLIAMS, A. M. (1993). Turkey and Europe. London, Pinter. FLAM, H. (2003). Turkey and the EU: politics and economics of accession. Munich, CESifo. (2002). Turkey: banking, finance, investment and EU candidacy. Financial Times. ALEXANDER, Y., BRENNER, E. H., & KRAUSE, S. T. (2008). Turkey terrorism, civil rights and the European Union. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN= ÖZBUDUN, E., & GENÇKAYA, O. F. (2009). Democratization and the politics of constitution-making in Turkey. Budapest, Central European University Press. MOGHADAM, R. (2005). Turkey at the crossroads: from crisis resolution to EU accession. Washington, DC, International Monetary Fund. BOGDANI, M. (2011). Turkey and the dilemma of EU accession: when religion meets politics. London, I.B. Tauris. GRIFFITHS, R. T., & ÖZDEMIR, D. (2004). Turkey and the EU enlargement: processes of incorporation. İstanbul, İstanbul Bilgi University Press. LAKE, M. (2005). The EU & Turkey. London, Federal Trust for Education and Research. REITZ, A. E. (2007). Labor and employment law in the new EU member and candidate states. Chicago, American Bar Association. KAŹMIERKIEWICZ, P., & BAJT, V. (2006). EU accession prospects for Turkey and Ukraine: debates in new Member States. Warszawa, Fundacja Instytut Spraw Publicznych. UGUR, M., & CANEFE, N. (2004). Turkey and European integration: prospects and issues in the post-Helsinki era. London, Routledge BISCOP, S., & LEMBKE, J. (2008). EU enlargement and the transatlantic alliance: a security relationship in flux. Boulder, Lynne Rienner Publishers. NAS, T. F. (2008). Tracing the economic transformation of Turkey from the 1920s to EU accession. Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff. GRETHE, H. (2004). Effects of including agricultural products in the Customs Union between Turkey and the EU: a partial equilibrium analysis for Turkey. New York, Peter Lang. LAKE, M. (2005). The EU and Turkey: a glittering prize or a millstone? London, Federal Trust. BELKE, A. (2004). Turkey and the EU on the costs and benefits of integrating a small but dynamic economy. Stuttgart, Inst. für Volkswirtschaftslehre. AKÇOMAK, I. S., & PARTO, S. (2006). How "black" is the black sheep compared to all others? Turkey and the EU. Maastricht, UNU-MERIT, Maastricht Economic and Social Research and Training Centre on Innovation and Technology. GROVER, S. C. (2010). The European Court of Human Rights as a pathway to impunity for international crimes. London, Springer. TORTURE IN TURKEY. (1984). Amnesty International documentation on torture in Turkey. New York, NY, Amnesty International. Read More