Juliette Garcia
Guillaume Rey
Master 2 Politiques européennes appliquées
This research dossier was prepared by Lorraine Bertrand and Céline Prono. It is entitled «The qualification of Turkey for the EU candidacy criteria». It aims at describing the process of the integration of Turkey into the EU, with respect to the imposed accession criteria, and also at giving an overview of the evolution of this process.
This work was done in November 2004, that is to say after the enlargement to ten new countries and before the decision of opening accession negotiations with Turkey.
The entry of Turkey into the EU has raised a tough debate for a long time in Europe, amplified by the impact of the voting on the constitutional treaty.
Turkey is an interesting debate for Europe and its future. The attitude Europe is going to adopt concerning this issue will determine its future place and the role that Europe wants to play in the world arena. Copenhagen criteria and the European appreciation of Turkey’s qualification are revealing of the EU attitude concerning Turkey’s entry.
- Design
This dossier is divided into two parts. The first one addresses the qualification of Turkey with regard to the accession criteria. The second deals with the debate raised by Turkish accession and the latest developments.
This work is composed of a series of twelve texts from different websites. The authors have dealt with the texts in two different ways. For seven of them, they chose to make two summaries, one in English and one in French, and then to comment them. For five of them, they decided to bracket together the commentary and the analysis in English, and then add a summary in French.
They also provide a lexicon with the most important words relating to the subjects and the translation of five texts.
The dossier’s design is correct, without any specific originality.
- Functionality
There is no clear structure in this work, and therefore a lack of visibility in the logical framework of this dossier. Moreover, there is no clear transition between the different parts and no chapter introductions.
- Quantity
The authors have worked on twelve texts from different sources. It is noteworthy that the authors have not diversified their sources much: four texts are from the European Commission, three from the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, three from the French paper Le Monde, one from Alternatives (a Turkish journal of international relations), and the last one from the BBC.
- Diversity
There are too many official documents, especially European communications. These are too descriptive, and sometimes quite useless. Therefore, it would be interesting to obtain more varied political opinions, especially from Turkey itself, as from European Union countries. Nevertheless, there is at least one Turkish article.
A) Form
- Positive points
An effort has been made on the presentation.
The choice to place the translations at the end of the dossier makes it easier to read, as they do not interfere with the contents of the work.
- Negative points
The presentation might have been less sober. Furthermore, an apparent layout would have enabled easier reading, particularly since there is no transition between the parts.
Indeed, it is sometimes hard to find the link between the texts and we must go back to the top of the page to know whether we are in the first or in the second part of the dossier.
Some links towards the original texts do not work. Thus we are not able to read them to assess the commentary or the translation.
B) Contents
- Positive points
The introduction plays its role as a presentation of the subject. The authors give a good historical review of the relationship between Turkey and the EU which enables us to better understand the issues at stake.
The choice of dealing with texts from the European Commission and the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs enables an institutional point of view, which may be less subjective and biased by clichés.
- Negative points
There are few articles about Turkish and European opinions. The dossier is very descriptive; there is little personal opinion and analysis. There is a real lack of political analysis. Finally, the same document is used twice in the work (2002 Regular Report on Turkey’s progress towards accession, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 9 October 2002).
The conclusion is really too short and quite useless, with few personal opinions about the subject. The personal opinions are not critical (Is there a real structural incapacity for Turkey to enter the EU? No more than in the case of Romania!), and have no specific utility. Thus the personal contributions do not contribute any real elements to the debate.
C) Form / Contents
Form and contents correspond; there is a unity in the dossier.
Should it be repaired?
This work needs more apparent structure. There also might be more diversity in the choice.of documents
Should it be improved?
Yes, this work must be improved with more political and public opinions about the «case of Turkey». Indeed, these criteria are a kind of hypocrisy, because they are determined by political appreciation concerning a potential entry of Turkey into the EU.
Should it be dumped?
No, because there is a real research work built around a historical
overview of Turkey’s candidacy, and the different European attitudes concerning
Turkey’s candidacy from one period to another.
Should it be retained?
No, because there is no specific originality in this work, and a lack of critical sense and analysis.
Turkey’s case is very interesting. Indeed, it leads to multiple debates and interrogations, concerning the present state and the will of Europe. Turkey is the mirror in which the EU can see itself, and so understand itself.
Where are the geographical limits of Europe? What about Cyprus, an Asian island in the EU?
What is Europe? On what criteria can you base yourself to say that a culture is European or not?
Is religion, Islam or Christianity, a European criterion? What about the case of Bosnia or Albania? The latter are Islamic, but aren’t they Europeans?
What about the international role of the EU?
What about the public opinions inside Europe? Can they follow the will of Europe to build it ? Do they want this ? What is wrong with Turkey?
Actually, the Turkey debate leads to very interesting questions concerning Europe, about its identity, about its reality too. And the criteria reveal European attitudes about Turkey at one time. So it is a pity that this dimension of this debate was so far forgotten in this work.