In a significant diplomatic response, the Turkish Foreign Ministry publicly rejected the European Commission's 2024 Enlargement Strategy and Country Report regarding Türkiye, asserting that the assessments made in the report are unfair and fail to reflect the realities on the ground.
The report, released on Wednesday, has sparked a fresh wave of controversy, particularly around its evaluation of Türkiye’s political criteria and internal dynamics.
In the official statement, the Foreign Ministry expressed disappointment over what it termed the "unrealistic and unlawful" views articulated in the EU report, particularly regarding the complex issues surrounding the Cyprus question.
The ministry criticized the report for leaning heavily toward the positions of Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration, which Türkiye argues overlook its legitimate concerns and rights, as well as those of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC).
Turkish officials highlighted the report's recognition of Türkiye’s constructive role in the Eastern Mediterranean and its positive relations with Greece. Yet, they contend that these achievements are undermined by the report's failure to account for Türkiye’s legitimate security concerns, particularly in the context of the Cyprus dispute, which they argue should be resolved solely through negotiations involving the parties directly involved on the island.
The Foreign Ministry emphasized that the EU’s statements regarding Cyprus are not conducive to settlement efforts. They underscored that the issue must be addressed within the framework of a negotiation process involving the two communities on the island, the three guarantor powers and the United Nations.
The island of Cyprus has been a point of contention for decades, with the ongoing dispute between the Greek Cypriot community and the Turkish Cypriot community impacting not only the island itself but also relations between Türkiye and the EU.
The conflict's roots lie in the 1960s, following the island's independence from British rule. Tensions between the two communities escalated, culminating in a 1974 coup d'etat by Greek Cypriot nationalists and a subsequent Turkish military intervention. This resulted in the de facto partition of the island, with the Republic of Cyprus (internationally recognized but controlling only the south) and the TRNC (recognized only by Türkiye).
The EU's involvement further complicated the situation. When the Republic of Cyprus applied for EU membership in 1990, Türkiye objected, citing the unresolved dispute. Despite this, the EU accepted Cyprus in 2004, but with a caveat: The north would be excluded from the benefits of membership until a reunification agreement was reached.
Numerous attempts have been made to find a solution to the Cyprus dispute, including U.N.-backed negotiations and bi-communal talks. However, no lasting solution has been achieved.
On the other hand, highlighting Türkiye's geopolitical significance amid ongoing global challenges, the Foreign Ministry argued for a reevaluation of Türkiye-EU relations. They expressed hope that the EU would take a more constructive approach, recognizing Türkiye’s potential as a partner rather than viewing it through the prism of historical grievances.
The ministry stressed that Türkiye’s political will to enhance bilateral relations is unwavering and has called for tangible measures from the EU that reflect this commitment.
In his remarks at the unveiling of the report, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell categorized Türkiye as an "essential" player in regional dynamics, suggesting a growing recognition within the EU of Türkiye’s strategic importance.
The report praised Türkiye for its management of migration challenges, particularly in hosting around 3.6 million refugees from Syria, and its robust efforts in counterterrorism.
The Turkish Foreign Ministry’s evaluation of the report also highlighted the critical need for a fresh perspective on Türkiye-EU relations, one that moves beyond the constraints of the past.
It argued that genuine progress in relations hinges on the EU’s readiness to adopt a more strategic approach, particularly regarding the implementation of previously agreed recommendations without added preconditions.
Türkiye's relationship with the European project began in 1959 with the signing of the Ankara Agreement. This agreement aimed at gradual economic integration between Türkiye and the European Economic Community (EEC), the precursor to the EU. This marked the start of a long-term vision of convergence and potential future membership for the country.
In 1999, Türkiye's aspirations took a concrete step forward when it was granted official candidate status for full EU membership. This decision was met with both enthusiasm and caution within the EU, reflecting the mixed nature involved in integrating a large and culturally diverse nation like Türkiye.
Formal accession negotiations commenced in 2005 during the term of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who still governs the country. These negotiations involved a comprehensive assessment of Türkiye's alignment with the EU's acquis communautaire, a vast body of laws, regulations and policies that form the foundation of the bloc. The process involved opening and then provisionally closing individual chapters, each representing a specific policy area, upon fulfilling the established criteria.
However, the road to membership proved challenging. Progress on the negotiations was slow. By 2016, only 16 of the 35 chapters had been opened, and just one had been provisionally closed.
By 2018, the accession talks reached a standstill. The EU expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of progress on key issues, while Türkiye criticized what it perceived as double standards and a lack of commitment from the EU. This resulted in a de facto suspension of the accession process, leaving the future of Türkiye's EU membership in a state of uncertainty.
Despite the stalled negotiations, the relationship between the bloc and Türkiye remains multifaceted. Both sides continue to cooperate on various issues of mutual interest. This ongoing engagement, though not directly linked to the accession process, demonstrates the intertwined nature of their relationship.
