Can Baydarol
Last weekend, starting on Friday and lasting three days, we witnessed the 39th Congress of the CHP. While we thought we would be watching a clash between the old guard and the new guard, the unfortunate ‘purification’ statement given by Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, the disgruntled leader of the old guard, to the Sabah newspaper, strengthened the position of Özgür Özel, the leader of the new generation, within the CHP. This ultimately consolidated the votes of all delegates, leading to his re-election as general chairman by unanimous vote. In other words, the CHP has completed its transformation.
As I began writing this article, I recalled the title of an article I wrote exactly two years ago, after the 38th Ordinary Congress: “Will the CHP change? If the CHP changes, will Turkey change? If Turkey changes, will the world change?’ Yes, the CHP has changed, but the extent to which Turkey has changed still remains a question mark. Although Özel’s incredible energy and the rallies he holds twice a week, or actions as he calls them, bring large crowds together, it is still too early to say that Turkey has changed. We need to see the results of the general elections to be able to say that. According to some opinion makers, it is meaningless to claim that Turkey has changed when it is still debatable whether there will even be a general election. Özel’s statement that ‘this is our last Congress in the opposition!’ should be taken with a grain of salt, along with the scepticism that ‘we will see many more extraordinary Congresses in between!”
Let us turn to Özel’s words during the Congress that interested me more. The issues of ‘full EU membership and visa-free Europe’ are topics I have been working on for years.
There is no doubt that full EU membership would serve to resolve many of the problems we face both internationally and domestically. The goal of full membership, as set out in the Ankara Agreement signed on 12 September 1963, remains a goal that must be kept alive today.
But is it realistic under today’s conditions? Since the day President Erdoğan replaced the 1993 Copenhagen criteria with the Ankara criteria, the EU no longer sees us as a candidate for full membership. As I mentioned in a previous article, the unit responsible for us in the European Commission is no longer the candidate countries desk, but the good neighbourly relations desk. In other words, Mr Özer needs to emphasise a return to the Copenhagen political criteria. Let us remember: ‘The establishment of a functioning democracy, the rule of law and a state structure that respects human rights’ is the indispensable first condition for full EU membership. You may say that Mr Özer already advocates this, but if general elections are held and the CHP comes to power, will they be willing to give up the comforts of the current system? In other words, will it be possible to move from the presidential system to a structure where all institutions, primarily a functioning parliamentary system, can check each other? If I may, I will maintain my scepticism.
So let’s say we return to the Copenhagen criteria, establish a functioning democracy and a state structure that respects the rule of law. Is full EU membership guaranteed? Is today’s EU the same as the EU that promised to begin full membership negotiations with Turkey in the early 2000s (negotiations began on the night of 3 October 2004)? To what extent have perspectives on Turkey changed? As I have stated in many of my writings, Turkey is perhaps experiencing the luckiest period in its history, given its increasing strategic importance. While the Russia-Ukraine war has made the Russian threat deeply felt in all EU countries, particularly Germany, does this not make Turkey indispensable for Europe’s security? Doesn’t the same phenomenon also bring Turkey to the forefront in terms of the security of energy routes? And for the security of the supply chain, which is indispensable for a functioning EU economy, don’t all roads pass through the middle belt, where Turkey is located?
If we add the Copenhagen criteria to this growing strategic importance, Mr Özel’s promise of full membership could be revived. But despite all the possible optimistic perspectives, is there any clue as to how we can overcome the obstacles posed by Greece, the Greek Cypriot Administration and even France, which vetoed Turkey’s participation in the SAFE programme?
As for the visa issue, it is not easy. I will address this topic in my next article within the general framework and technical obstacles in the customs union. Let me conclude this article by saying this much. Yes, as a politician, this promise, which is particularly appealing to young people, is unfortunately not an easy promise to fulfil in practice.