What the EU report shows Ankara

Turkey, with all its problematic differences and diverse social fiber, will not get equal treatment

By Burak Bekdil - Kathimerini English Edition

Just before dawn every day, hundreds of Turks are seen camping in front of the consular section of the German Embassy in Ankara — men, women, children sleeping on the pavement, brewing tea, or cooking breakfast. The usual crowd on Paris Street has created a small industry of mobile merchants who rent out filthy blankets and pillows, sell food and drinks and even offer services — translations, paperwork and all that. The campers of Paris Street are there every day to queue for a German visa.

The campers may not have been quite aware of the bigger-than-usual newspaper headlines since last Thursday, but these days the Turks are full of hopes — hopes for a better future. They are too dizzy to see the veiled “otherness” in the Commission’s report that may keep them at a distance from the club they hope to join in the next decade or so. The man in charge of the EU’s enlargement, Guenter Verheugen, was probably wrong when he said, a couple of weeks ago, that the Commission’s report would contain a few surprises. It did not.

The report could not have pleased everyone, and it did not. But from an objective point of view, it reflects a general realism, including this veiled otherness.

First, the Commission’s report diplomatically asserts that Turkey is a “special candidate” and that it will remain so. In reality, too, Turkey is “too special” to fit into the standard category of candidates. In practice, the idealistic notion of equal treatment of all candidates is a nice wish only. Turkey, with all its problematic differences and, most importantly, diverse social fiber, will not be treated equally. All that sounds discriminative, but it’s also realistic.

Second, the report, by recommending the start of formal membership talks with Turkey, admits realpolitik — that the accession negotiations are the only plausible way forward if the EU cares about transforming Turkey from a school bully into a good boy. Dismissing the naughty boy from the school could only turn him into a genuine vagabond in the neighborhood with entirely unpredictable behavior.

Third, there are several hints in the report that the Turks may be behaving too hastily to celebrate the big victory. Inevitably, the accession process will be too painful. It will too often come to the edge of collapse as Ankara and Brussels discover in time how difficult it would be to bridge their social/political differences. The negotiations will not be negotiations. For negotiations, there must be two sides participating. In Turkey’s case, it will be mostly a take-it-or-leave it format. There are still too many EU politicians who secretly hope Turkey will behave less obligingly and, therefore, there should be good reasons to say thank you, but no; or even better if Turkey itself gave up.

The cliche minority rights issue is too facile to apply to a country like Turkey, where human rights abuse is common but not discriminative, i.e. there are rights abuses for everyone, not only for minorities. It is a fairy tale to expect a decent treatment of minorities when no one else in the country has the privilege. Once again, the EU has given the wrong message that it only cares about Kurdish rights — and that no one really cares if all the others suffer from a rich menu of mal-governance.

And, by the way, the report’s reference to the Kurds as “minority” is both factually wrong, according to the Treaty of Lausanne, and has displeased both the Kurds and the Turks. A Kurdish activist condemned the reference by saying that the Kurds were the principal founders of the Turkish republic, which was true. The EU may suggest a revision of the Treaty of Lausanne so that the definition of minorities may be based on ethnicity rather than religion. But, before doing so, the use of a language against an international treaty which is still valid does not look legal or European.

Moving on from the minority gaffe, the report recommends that Turkey lowers the electoral threshold for parliamentary representation to 5 percent from the present 10 percent. This is, by all means, useful advice. But the EU says it makes this recommendation to make sure “minorities are represented in Parliament.”

If the EU does not secretly wish that a Greek Orthodox, or an Armenian or a Jewish party should have seats in the Turkish Parliament, why a recommendation for a Kurdish party? Rights, yes; but politics along ethnic lines sounds too racist and, naturally, too un-European. To grasp the silliness, just imagine a pan-Turkish party in the heart of Germany where there are about 2 million Turks.

Likewise, the report unrealistically praises the judicial reforms, perhaps Turkey’s most imminent need if it is to transform itself into a real European democracy. Just one example, ironically timed, tells it all.

When the Turks were too busy waiting in excitement for the green light from Brussels, the police force silently arrested Sedat Peker, perhaps Turkey’s most well-known mob leader and a Gray Wolf, along with his two brothers, three lawyers and some 30 hit men. Apparently, Mr Peker had been tapped for about half a year and the bug had revealed his very intimate contacts with senior officers, judges, police chiefs, politicians and bureaucrats.

A heavy crimes court in Istanbul sent Mr Peker et alia into custody, but a duty judge ordered their release — a verdict which, according to Mr Peker, most surprised himself. The chamber of judges convened the same day — after the mob leader’s release — and this time ordered his arrest, but by then the mob leader had already vanished into thin air. Fortunately, Mr Peker was kind enough to deliver himself to justice the next day.

The story of Mr Peker’s arrest/release/re-arrest is yet another example of how unpredictable the Turkish judiciary can be. The trouble is, there are more than 30 million court cases in Turkey, and most injustice goes unnoticed as there are not many people as well known as Mr Peker.

The EU bigwigs would do Turkey a great favor if/when they notice that Turkish courts are a treasure if they are looking for human rights abuses. Otherwise, they would find themselves in a bizarre position of defending human rights for a specific ethnicity only. The guardians of human rights should be able to understand at once that human rights are not indivisible.