Even though it has been described as “neither harsh nor lenient,” the report makes a number of references to serious warnings and criticisms. The only positive element underlined in the report is the success of the government in its struggle to eliminate torture.Confidently enough, the EU once more complains about the slowing down of reforms in Turkey. According to EU officers, the reason for the backlash is the impact of the current friction between the military and civilian institutions on the reform process. The second point underlined in the report is the failure to create a proper environment in which freedom of expression is enjoyed by all. The EU cites the lawsuits lodged in relation to violations of Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), which criminalizes certain actions and statements alleged to insult Turkishness.
It should be noted that I strongly support the abolition of Article 301 because I suffered enough from state repression in different forms in prison during the Sept. 12 military coup. As a writer who was prosecuted 11 times, I cannot be supportive of a legal instrument that restricts enjoyment of freedom of expression. But I also have to ask this question: Why have I and other writers failed to attract the EU’s attention? Why don’t EU officials charged with monitoring Turkey’s record in the field of fundamental rights and freedoms consider coming by to ask us for our views on the exercise of freedoms and liberties in Turkey?
An important point on Article 301 is the eagerness of those who seek global recognition and deliberately commit actions considered a crime under the TCK because they are aware that even if they are prosecuted under Article 301, the EU will support them. For this reason, while some writers, including myself and others who share a similar worldview, feel like walking through mine fields in the existence of Article 301, those who are ambitious for cheap fame rely on the same instrument as a means to achieve their goals.
The progress report also recalls that the military is still influential in matters falling in the sphere of civilian politics. This is true. But is the EU not at least partially responsible for this? If there was a general belief that the EU will admit Turkey in the event of its fulfilling the accession criteria, will the military still consider being influential in civilian politics?
Of course the conditions of non-Muslim minorities should be improved. Besides, recognition of non-Muslims as minorities is not meaningful at this point; they should be entitled to the same rights as those given to others as citizens. The demands of Alevi citizens should also be taken into account. They should be able to establish their own places of worship and be represented in the Religious Affairs Directorate if they so desire. I cannot help but ask this: Do the non-Muslims constitute the only group whose rights are violated in Turkey? What is the case with the majority, the Muslims? Do EU officials think that they have adequately addressed their issues?
The report also includes an article irrelevant to the Copenhagen criteria. Under this article, negotiations will not be initiated in eight chapters unless Turkey opens its ports and airports to Greek Cypriot vessels. Is this fair?
Another thing neglected in the 2007 Progress Report is the headscarf ban. The report seems to have failed to notice the issue. However, it is the biggest test for the EU that determines its sincerity. If there has been a steady decrease in public support for Turkey’s membership in the EU, the only reason is the constant indifference by the EU to the fundamental rights and freedoms of Muslims in Turkey.
