The momentum of the reforms that the government maintained until 2005 has declined due to domestic and foreign reasons. But what’s missing from these criticisms is the EU’s share of responsibility. A concrete example of how the EU has caused efforts to go downhill was pointed out in the article written by Hélène Flautre, who replaced Joost Lagendijk, also known as the “son-in-law of Turkey,” as the co-chairman of the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee.There was an interesting detail in Flautre’s writing. She wrote:
“We had invited Turkish Justice Minister Sadullah Ergin to the latest meeting of the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). I couldn’t believe what I heard from him, both during our conversation before the meeting and during the meeting. The minister was complaining that, despite opening of the 23rd acquis chapter on judicial reforms to negotiations, the EU has not sent the results of the screening process to Ankara although it was completed five years ago. The European Commission, on the other hand, says that the screening was completed five years ago, and sent to the council, i.e., to member countries. In other words, the screening results have been stuck somewhere between the European Commission and the European Council and have not been taken out of a drawer for the last five years. If this was about the opening of a chapter, it would be possible to talk about a ‘political’ maneuver from any member country. No, it was about the failure to communicate the results of the screening process to the candidate country. The Turkish justice minister justifiably asks: “When I introduce the judicial reform package to Parliament, if the deputies ask me, ‘Are you sure that the EU really wants us to make these reforms?’ then what can I say to them?”
I had the chance to speak with Ergin, who met with foreign journalists in Turkey at a meeting organized by the the Medialog Platform, on this matter. He confirmed that the screening of the 23rd acquis chapter, which concerns the judiciary and human rights, had been completed in 2006 but that the results of the screening process had still not been delivered. Explaining that they try to learn which reforms the EU expects them to make through nonofficial means, Ergin reproachfully said: “A portion of the criticisms from the EU are similar to a teacher who criticizes a student for not doing his homework when no homework was assigned. On the one hand, you say that reforms have slowed down; then on the other hand, you don’t send the report which shows what needs to be done. ”
After the justice minister confirmed Brussels’ odd attitude, I decided to speak with a European official whom I believed knew the process very well. He said, “Unfortunately the minister is correct.” The official’s statement added another dimension to the issue. Normally, for every negotiation chapter, the commission needs to screen the current situation in Turkey and then prepare a report, which also contains the benchmarks Turkey must meet in order for the chapter to be opened. This report needs to be approved by the EU Council, where all 27 member countries have an equal say, and then be sent to Turkey. The commission did their part, but the report got stuck in the council. That is because the 23rd chapter is one of the chapters that Greek Cyprus is blocking. Don’t think that Turkey’s judicial reform has nothing to do with the Cyprus issue. This is what the EU’s structure is all about. Finding an excuse to use their veto power was no challenge for the Greek Cypriots. They wanted the commission to incorporate how human rights would be improved in northern Cyprus as well. When the commission refused, saying: “This is a negotiation process with Turkey. What does it have to do with Cyprus?” the process hit a wall, which is what the Greek Cypriot’s ultimately wanted.
Of course, the EU’s delay in sending the result of the screening process on judicial reform is strange and discouraging. But this report is not necessary to know what Turkey needs to do in this area. When we compare Turkey to European countries, our deficiencies in the area of law become crystal clear. After all, Minister Ergin, who gives the impression that he has a strong command over his files even though it’s been only nine months since he took office, brought up the judicial reform package as part of the EU process and showed in a presentation how the high judiciary is organized in each EU country. The reformist picture Ergin painted, which recalled the AK Party’s first years, and his criticism of the EU for not supporting Turkey enough in its reforms during the two-and-a-half-hour meeting, in which journalists from Reuters, The New York Times, the BBC, The Associated Press and Bloomberg attended, was inspiring.
