Back in December 1997, at the time of the Luxembourg European Council, Turkey was the only country out of the eligible candidates not admitted to accession talks. Two years later, at the Helsinki European Council, Turkey was declared “eligible” for accession to the EU, provided that it meet the Copenhagen criteria – a condition absolutely vial for any accession. Turkey then set about the reforms needed to meet the demands of the EU – let us not forget that no other candidate country has fulfilled all the conditions it promised to meet at the time of its accession and yet they were still allowed to become an EU member state.

Turkey has been knocking at the door of the European Union since 12 September 1963, the date on which the Association Agreement was signed, also known as the Ankara Accord. This agreement was seen as the first stage to Turkey becoming part of the EU. After all, if Turkey is still standing at the door of the European Union, it is because it has been led to believe that one day Turkey will be part of it. Is not the customs union, agreed in 1995 and an exceptional event considering that it occurred before full integration, proof of this?

For these reasons, Turkey’s application to join the EU remains the subject of debate, even more so since the end of 2002. Today, it is a question of knowing if Turkey will one day be part of the EU. During the Copenhagen European Council held on 12 and 13 December 2002, when the Council was looking to establish the areas in which Turkey still had to make progress – such as “legislation and the implementation of stable institutions to ensure democracy, rule of law, human right, respect for minorities and the protection thereof” - other member states were looking at the issue in a different light, questioning if Turkey actually belonged to Europe.

Does Turkey belong to Europe?

For the first time since Turkey’s eligibility for the European Union was recognised, the question being asked was not whether this country met the Copenhagen criteria, nor was the question of Cyprus or the Kurdish issue raised; instead it was asked whether Turkey could claim member status, or even candidate status as the country was labelled ‘non-European’ by those opposed to its candidature. Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, chairman of the convention on the future of Europe, stated that Turkey was a country “close” to Europe, “geographically speaking”, but that it was not European.

The geographical context of Europe, as well as that of Europe was therefore called into question. Turkey’s accession to Europe was demanded. And suddenly, the latter saw its ‘Europeanness’ come under fire. History, culture, religion, all came under scrutiny and were re-evaluated. New issues were raised. Even Turkey’s relationship with the United States seemed to worry Europeans.

However, this idea of ‘cultural’ differences has never been openly admitted. From the European side, therefore, we hear “The Europe which admitted Spain and Portugal, on 1 January 1986, was a Europe based solely on the Treaty of Rome. These countries which are viewed to have set the precedent benefited from transitional measures and substantial temporary special conditions. These arrangements, which were compatible with the Treaty of Rome, have become incompatible under the Single Act because from then on the single market was part of the acquis communautaire.” (2)

Accession criteria have indeed become stricter, but there is also the view that Turkey has been there for a long time. After all, when it submitted its accession application, on 14 April 1987, the Single Act had not yet come into force. Is there, therefore, another, more important criteria when it comes to a country joining the EU? Is culture the sole obstacle to Turkey’s accession?

Allowing Turkey into the European Union, in its role as an economic union, but also as a union of ‘values’, requires several conditions. Notwithstanding the cultural ‘differences’ between Turkey and the European Union’, these differences are still not decisive in this relationship. Of course, they play a major role but they will not truly determine whether Turkey shall be accepted or rejected. One thing is certain, however, and that is that we cannot just jump to conclusions. It is not a question of whether Turkey will succeed in solving all its problems and conform perfectly to the Copenhagen criteria. Turkey’s candidature to the EU remains enshrouded in a cloud of ambiguity.

(1) M. Wieviorka, La différence, [‘The Difference’] Paris, Balland, 2001.
(2) View of Luc Bernard in the work of Jacques Vandamme & Jean-Denis Mouton (editors), L’avenir de l’union européenne: Elargir et approfondir [‘The future of the European Union: Enlargement and deepening’], Brussels, Presses Interuniversitaires Européennes, 1995, p. 166