In Turkey, the visa matter is often discussed in the context of a customs union. People who have to travel frequently to EU countries for business have set their hopes on the courts of these countries. Because apart from its social and political effects, the EU’s strict visa regulations toward Turkish citizens create asymmetrical costs for businessmen, and there is no compensation mechanism for this.Every reference to a customs union brings the Cyprus protocols to mind. It is perhaps useful to remember that Turkish ports were once wide open to Greek Cypriot vessels and at that time no one was doing anything to resolve the Turks’ visa problems, either. Besides, a customs union agreement seems to have reached its optimal limits and now creates trade distortions. The EU signs free trade agreements with third countries, such as Mexico, Brazil and South Korea, while Turkey remains excluded from this process for the simple reason that it is not yet a member. To put it more concretely these countries conduct tax-free trade with the EU, but Turkey is still subject to these taxes, which creates unfair competition.
Applying travel restrictions to a candidate country is not bizarre per se as it was the case for many other candidate countries. However, if some people want to maintain these restrictions forever under the form of permanent derogations, this is against EU law and logic. Are they saying, “Turkey can join in, but the Turkish people can’t”? Maybe the idea of eliminating visa requirements or the sake of not creating additional institutional complications for the EU, they don’t want to admit three new member states, but they want to compensate for this by opening the gates to these countries’ citizens, admitting them into the EU on an “individual” basis.
Abolishing visa requirements is basically done for economic reasons. But it’s unlikely that the EU has major economic expectations from these countries. Visa-free travel is also useful for stimulating social interaction. It seems the EU isn’t worried about social interaction with these countries, maybe because they have relatively small populations which are not, by the way, considered Middle Eastern. Naturally, the EU will never put it in these terms, so they are not accused of having double standards.
In fact, the EU does have double standards, especially when it comes to the Mediterranean basin. Here is the paradox: on the one hand, the EU seems willing to play a strategic role, but on the other, it lacks the necessary vision to do so. The mentality behind the policy “Let the Serbs in, but keep the Bosnians out” or “Let’s admit Greek Cypriots, but leave Turkish Cypriots on the threshold” is a way of saying “We want the Mediterranean basin without Turkey in it.” Turkey is aware of this atmosphere, and that’s why it is working on eliminating visa requirements with Syria, Egypt, Libya and Lebanon. The EU’s positions force Turkey to develop creative solutions that make the EU strongly feel the pressure of choosing between gaining or losing Turkey. Maybe the time of cost benefit analysis has come.
