by brother » Thu Jul 07, 2005 3:10 pm
Columnist Gunduz Aktan comments on the negotiations framework recently finalized by the European Union Commission. A summary of his column is as follows:
“The European Union Commission prepared the negotiations framework document and stated that our membership talks would start on Oct. 3. The document consists of quotations from the results of summits, progress reports and Partnership Council decisions. Therefore, its contents are no surprise. However, this document works against us due to the choice of quotations, the way they were organized and the things which were put in and left out. Likewise, the Western press agrees that it’s too harsh and that it can’t be compared to the process for other candidate countries. The document doesn’t actually say that negotiations will start on Oct. 3. According to Articles 17 and 18, the process of official scanning will start on that date. The commission will probably spread this process out to one year, and real membership talks will only start at the end of 2006 or 2007. From the first line of the document, it states that our membership depends on our success and the speed of meeting membership conditions. However, those who are against our EU membership might hinder our bid. Listing the Copenhagen criteria, Article 2 of the document added a sentence including “minority rights,” in other words, collective rights. However, the Copenhagen criteria on this issue consist only of respecting and protecting minorities. Article 12 states that we will participate in the economic and monetary union, but that our conditions would be separately evaluated for our adopting the euro. Similarly, it says that ‘detailed technical harmonization’ can’t be determined during the negotiations and that this work would be carried out on a date close to membership. These additions give the impression that it aims to impose a burden on Turkey.
The document states that ‘negotiations aiming at membership are open ended,’ but the Croatian document containing the same sentence makes the open endedness contingent on the ‘nature of negotiations.’ Omitting this expression in our document means that we might not join the EU due to reasons outside the nature of negotiations. As if Croatia is completely meeting the Copenhagen criteria, there is no reference to the ‘implementation’ of reforms in the Croatian document. This stance is evidence of the European prejudice against us. Our document includes the famous paragraph of last December’s summit document, which limits our membership or envisages the privileged partnership indirectly, concerning permanent derogation. The Croatian document doesn’t include this. The document envisages possibly restarting negotiations in the light of shortcomings in reforms or new developments in the acquis commaunitaire, at the end of each chapter of negotiations. This situation gives the commission the opportunity to stretch out our membership talks and shows that it acted from the assumption that the membership talks will last a long time. Suspending negotiations in the case of violation of human rights is included in the Croatian document, but the authority was left to the commission en masse. However, in our situation, negotiations can be stopped by the request of only one-third of the commission. In its current situation, the document can easily stretch out our membership talks, move to privileged partnership, or even deny us EU membership. In brief, the basic aim of giving the Oct. 3 date was to ensure our dependence on European structures, even if we can’t join the EU.”
