What do the competing parties say about EU membership?
Relations with the European Union are not even an electoral issue in the July 22 campaigns. Political parties think twice before mentioning EU. Let alone the EU— there are no other topics than the presidential race, secularism, terror, funerals of soldiers, flag and nation. The EU is included only in foreign policy sections of the party election programs. Therefore, no one talks about industrial, commercial, financial, educational, judicial, environmental, medical, and democratic gains, all in all the many benefits of a better social and individual life that will come along with EU membership. What is most cared about while writing about EU membership is, “Turkey, a leader country” and “our honor and pride.” Most opposition parties take the floor with a quick word on the EU subject, just like the past coup organizers who used to pledge, “we are loyal to the NATO and CENTO” in the first statement they issued on the radio following a military coup. The main opposition Republican People’s Party’s (CHP) intentions for EU membership contradict its anti-EU stance adopted during 2005-2006. Even today, the CHP’s negative attitude about a symbolic issue such as the abolishment of Article 301 in the Turkish Penal Code is a clear indicator that the CHP, like many parties, is selective about adaptation to the EU requirements. On one side, the CHP accuses the government of not sufficiently protecting the rights and interests of the country (snobbish language of “submission”) and demands more willpower. However, when the reasons of these critics are examined closely, one realizes they are entirely nationalist and conservative reasons. The CHP in the end wants a EU that is an à la carte EU, and wants certainly not more but less harmonization with the EU.
The other party expected to be in the Parliament again, the MHP, contains EU relations to the section of foreign affairs in the last three pages of its program. EU is viewed solely from a point of view of international political power struggle. Following the party’s well-known epic remarks, the MHP articulates the suspension of the EU talks just the way EU wants, saying, “both parties need some time to think during a strategic deliberation period to make a well meant, realistic and sound evaluation in the subject.”
In the Democrat Party’s (DP) program, the EU issue is also evaluated under the section of foreign affairs. The party introduces two action plans though: “We will have deliberations with the nation regarding EU relations. In order to do that, we will convene an enlarged European Union forum with the participation of representatives from all political parties, civil society organizations, democratic mass organizations and academic institutions. We will decide as a nation about the content of our relations with the EU in this forum. We will extend an invitation to the EU for a summit to discuss EU-Turkey relations as the sole agenda item. In this summit, we will ask for change in the “open-ended negotiations” the Justice and Development Party (AKP) agreed on.”
Though the intention seems constructive, there is no sign in the DP program of what would happen if the summit ends up in a dead end. However, we learned from the party official in charge of EU matters in a program broadcast by the CNBC-e channel that the DP will suspend negotiations in this case and might seek conciliation on a privileged partnership formula, a second-class status advocated by France and Germany. That is to say, a kind of throwing the towel! It is uncertain whether the DP cares enough about the consequences on the economy of the unilateral suspension of negotiations.
Do we really need the EU?
A common stance in the majority of party programs is, “we don’t need the EU; we can do it by ourselves.” This is music to ear, vanity, a flattering remark that never corresponds to the realities of the country. How fast opinion makers and politicians underestimating and trifling with EU relations forgot that Turkey looked like a third world country before the processes of the Customs Union in 1996 and candidacy of 1999. Without EU dynamics entering into synergy with the country’s own resources, this land will barely change and, on the contrary, will most likely be hurled—isn’t it obvious? Is there a more solid indicator of that than the April 27 military ultimatum? Because of the interest and confidence Turkey attracts today, investment capital pours in; however, how long will this continue without having the anchor of the EU as the guarantor of political and economic stability?
Finally, the AKP with its good deed, i.e., its EU performance during 2002-2004 and its bad deed, i.e., slowing down EU-related activities since 2005, is still the only party with a positive approach to the EU. Those who think they are opposed to the EU performance of AKP should pose a unique question to them: Why on earth did you put the brakes on EU reforms after Dec. 17, 2004? The opposition has no such question to ask because they don’t have such prospects or vision regarding our EU membership. Apparently, the EU-related activities will be on the shoulders of the AKP, independent MP’s and the Democratic Society Party (DTP), likely to provide support to the AKP while being outside the government. However, this time one should take the salient lack of interest regarding Turkey on the part of some important EU members into full consideration.