Rule of law, ‘Ergenekon’ and membership negotiations
by
HELENE FLAUTRE*

EU increasingly losing focus

As I have a closer look at Turkey’s case file and its membership process, I see that the EU is increasingly losing focus in this “polarization over Turkey,” which is essentially a healthy process. Indeed, despite their deep-running contradictions with respect to Turkey’s membership, even the advocates of the “privileged partnership” idea acknowledge the importance of Turkey for the EU. That’s why they lend support to the negotiations even if they tend to regard them as “open-ended” and they know that a Turkey which develops in economic and democratic terms is in the interests of Europe, irrespective of its membership or not. All political groups agree that Turkey, if democratized with accompanying welfare, will not only secure its inner stability but will also serve as a model for stability in its region. For this reason, Mrs. Angela Merkel and Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy believe that the negotiation process is an important tool, target and compass in Turkey’s democratization process. But despite this common awareness, unfortunately, it is not possible to say that the EU is not able to use the negotiations as an effective tool in its Turkey policy. Going even further, one can assert that Washington is a much more consistent player than Brussels in many respects, even lacking such tools as membership negotiations. Let me try to explain the above sentences and criticism with the help of an example.

Turkey is being shaken with trials and investigations that not only determine the fate of the country but also require the extensive imagination one would need in detective novels, such as the probe into “Ergenekon,” the Sledgehammer (Balyoz) coup plan, etc. These trials and investigations are important not because their respective indictments penetrate deep into the military or make its top-ranking commanders subject to probes, but because they closely relate to the place of the military within the Turkish state, the foundations of the rule of law and the civilian-military relations in the country. No doubt “Brussels” is closely monitoring the “Ergenekon” probe and the ongoing trials. The European Commission and the European Parliament made mention of these trials and investigations and demanded that the legal process be maintained with determination until the cases are resolved. Both the commission and the European Parliament view the clarification of the “Ergenekon” issue with the due process of the law as a chance for Turkey. In fact, it would not be wrong to say that the biggest benefit of the clarification of the claims by impartial courts will be for the military. Because no institution, including the military, can function smoothly while there are serious accusations against it. Thus, it goes without saying that the functioning of the rule of law has acquired a special importance. In all respects, it is perfectly normal for the Turkish general public to watch the said trials and investigations with increased interest, given the fact that the country has seen three military coups and a number of military interventions during the last 50 years. We, at the European Parliament, watch the “Ergenekon” trial closely and wait for its results.

But the “Ergenekon” issue is not a simply or purely a court process. In this sense, it is no coincidence that Turkey has become polarized over this issue and that those who view these investigations as a “normalization” process and those who regard them as a power maneuver by the “Islamists” confront each other. As seen from Brussels, debates are heated not only over the content of the indictment but also over the court process. Accordingly, it is expected and normal that the identities of the prosecutors and judges as well as the decisions they give are scrutinized, sometimes with suspicion. Moreover, the people who were brought to the court are not “normal” citizens, but the high-ranking military and civilian bureaucrats and even prosecutors who assumed duties in the depths of the state. In a sense, we can call the developments the state’s self-questioning process. Because of this, the toughest trial is that of the judiciary’s. The more independent this institution becomes and the more diligent and impartial it grows, the more convincing and satisfactory will its decisions become and the more effective will be the normalization of Turkey toward prosperity, peacefulness and the rule of law. We perceive this process as a positive development toward EU membership for a democratic Turkey.

Constitutional and judicial reforms

In addition to this polarization over “Ergenekon,” there is also another polarization over the issues of constitutional and judicial reforms, which is also being closely monitored by us. Turkey needs reforms in both of these areas, and this is what we have been reiterating for years. It is not easy for Turkey to become an EU member without doing away with the spirit of the Constitution of 1982, which is the product of a military coup. The attitudes of the Socialists, Liberals and Greens, who lend the most support to Turkey’s membership, are well-known, and these groups have given open support to the government’s “civilian Constitution” project. We can say that Brussels also speaks with one voice on the matter of judicial reform. In order to become a democratic country governed by the rule of law, Turkey needs judicial reforms in addition to a new Constitution. It is a sine qua non of the rule of law that, in addition to the existence of laws, these laws should be reviewable by impartial and independent courts. But it is precisely on this topic that the polarization of Turkey resurfaces. The judicial reforms proposed by the government with a view to making the courts “impartial and independent” are perceived by the opposition as an operation to undermine the independence of the courts. I think readers will ask themselves, as I did, whether the EU can act as a point of reference or a guide and even a sort of impartial arbitrator in this atmosphere of contradictions. Moreover, there is already a chapter dedicated to this area. But unfortunately, I want to finish this article by pointing to a fact that will disappoint my readers.

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?” It is not understandable why the EU would waste the chance to be a model, a reference and most importantly, an institutional player in Turkey’s becoming a democratic country governed by the rule of law. For this reason, it is not surprising that some EU politicians are dwarfed when they dare to measure themselves against Barack Obama. The EU shows signs of weakness in effectively using the tools it has, let alone being a leading player in international relations. I cannot keep myself from asking what the reasons might be for our failure to convey the screening results and our expectations regarding judicial reforms to Turkey, as well as about the “disagreement” between the European Commission and the European Council on the screening results. But, do we, as the European Parliament, perform our duty of review and tackle such institutional problems? I can understand being generous in our criticisms against Turkey, but I have difficulty accepting the fact that Brussels does not engage in self-critique in the slightest way.