Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05ANKARA4767
2005-08-12 14:05:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Ankara
Cable title:  

DRAFT GENERAL EU POSITION FOR THE ACCESSION

Tags:  EU PGOV PREL TU 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 004767 

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/12/2015
TAGS: EU PGOV PREL TU EU
SUBJECT: DRAFT GENERAL EU POSITION FOR THE ACCESSION
NEGOTIATIONS WITH TURKEY.

(U) Classified by Deputy Political Counselor Charles O.
Blaha, E.O. 12958, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 004767

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/12/2015
TAGS: EU PGOV PREL TU EU
SUBJECT: DRAFT GENERAL EU POSITION FOR THE ACCESSION
NEGOTIATIONS WITH TURKEY.

(U) Classified by Deputy Political Counselor Charles O.
Blaha, E.O. 12958, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).


1. (C) ON August 10, the Danish DCM (strictly protect)
passed us the below document, dated July 19, from the
European Council General Secretariat to the EU Permanent
Representatives' Committee.


2. (C) Begin text:


1. The Enlargement Group, at its meetings on 5 and 12
July 2005, examined the draft General EU Position
(negotiating framework) for the accession negotiations with
Turkey, as submitted by the Commission (doc. 10690/05 ELARG
35).


2. Delegations welcomed the document proposed by the
Commission and considered that it was in line with the
conclusions of the European Council in December 2004 and June

2005. Furthermore, the document remained very close to the
negotiating framework already agreed for Croatia. The
majority of delegations considered the document to be
rigorous and balanced, which should be adopted without any
significant changes.


3. Some delegations, however, highlighted the need to
take greater account of the specific situation and
characteristics of Turkey as indicated in the European
Council conclusions of December 2004, as well as the Union's
capacity to absorb Turkey, in accordance with the 1993
Copenhagen European Council conclusions. In this light, three
delegations (AT/FR/CY) expressed a general scrutiny
reservation on the text; the Cypriot delegation also entered
a general reservation pending the signature by Turkey of the
Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement.


4. Further to the discussions at both meetings of the
Group, and without prejudice to future comments by
delegations, two categories of issues were identified as
follows:


5. Issues of a more political nature

- Paragraph 3 (see doc. 10690/05): One delegation (CY),
supported by a couple of other delegations (GR/IRL),
requested replacing the words "in Turkey" with "by Turkey" at
the beginning of the paragraph where reference is made to "a
serious and persistent breach in Turkey of the principles of
liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental

freedoms ..." (suspension clause). It was noted that similar
language ("by a Member State") is used in the Treaties
(Article 7 of the Treaty establishing the EU) and in the
draft Constitution. However, several delegations opposed this
change, recalling that the language "in Turkey" was used in
the European Council conclusions of December 2004, as well as
in the negotiating framework for Croatia, and insisted that
the current text should therefore be maintained.
A similar point was also made on the last sentence of
paragraph 2 as regards the monitoring by the Commission of
the implementation of the reform process, notably with regard
to fundamental freedoms and to full respect of human rights,
where one delegation (CY) suggested adding "wherever Turkey
exercises effective control..."

- Paragraph 4, second bullet point: As regards good
neighbourly relations and the resolution of outstanding
border disputes, one delegation (GR) reserved the right to
suggest changes to this bullet point.

- Paragraph 4, third (and fourth) bullet points: One
delegation (CY) reserved the right to suggest changes to the
paragraph on Cyprus. With regard to the implementation of the
Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement, the Commission
stated that this would form part of the benchmarking process,
as indicated in paragraph 18 of the negotiating framework,
although it was too early to say what the concrete benchmarks
would be or in which chapters they might be used. Other
issues On a point raised by one delegation (MT) to refer to
the implementation by Turkey of the six pieces of
legislation, identified by the Commission, in a manner
consistent with democratic principles, it was noted that a
general reference could be made in the opening
statement attached to the negotiating framework.


6. Other issues

- One delegation (CY) suggested adding a reference in the
body of the text to the Intergovernmental Conference, using
the exact language of paragraph 23 of the December 2004
European Council conclusions to the effect that the
negotiations will be conducted "... in an Intergovernmental
Conference with the participation of all Member States...".

- Paragraph 2: One delegation (CY) asked for the
insertion of a reference to the "full and speedy
implementation of the judgments of the European Court of
Human Rights". The Commission questioned the need to
highlight this specific aspect given that the formulation
used in the text "including relevant European case law" was
broad enough and also covered ECHR judgments.

- Paragraph 2: As regards the reporting obligation of the
Commission on the implementation of the reform process, one
delegation (GR) asked for the insertion of a phrase at the
end of the last sentence which would read as follows:
"addressing all points of concern identified in the
Commission's Recommendation for Turkey and in its annual
Regular Reports". The Commission felt that more general
language would be preferable and proposed that the end of the
last sentence could read: "progress will continue to be
closely monitored by the Commission, which is invited to
continue to report regularly to the Council on Turkey's
compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria".

- Paragraph 4: One delegation (GR) requested the addition of
the word "political" in the first sentence of the paragraph
where there is a reference to "a framework of economic and
social convergence". The Commission was reluctant, however,
to change the text as this would mean a deviation from the
negotiating framework with Croatia.

- Paragraph 5: One delegation (CY) asked for a reference
indicating the need for Turkey to change its policy
towards Cyprus' membership of international organisations and
mechanisms.

- Annex with Preliminary indicative list of Chapter
headings: Two delegations (FIN/DK) asked for the deletion of
the footnote. However, one delegation (AT) felt it should
remain.


7. Finally, delegations raised a number of questions
regarding the negotiating procedures, and in particular
benchmarking See relevant non-paper of the Commission on this
issue of 14.02.2005, issued as meeting document 6/05 of the
Enlargement Group. (paragraph 18). The Commission provided
clarifications on many of the issues raised, such as impact
assessments of Turkey's membership on the Union and its
policies, as well as the issue of a functioning market
economy as a benchmark for relevant chapters. Furthermore it
was noted that benchmarks would be precise and differ
depending on the chapter, and would be updated as necessary.


8. In this light, the file is submitted to the
consideration of the Permanent Representatives' Committee,
which is invited, in particular, to:

- establish whether, subject to the reserves and
outstanding issues identified above, there is agreement on
the text;

- note that the Presidency will give Ministers an
opportunity to raise their concerns about the general
negotiating framework at the Gymnich meeting on 1-2 September
2005;

- consider the timetable leading to the adoption of the
general negotiating framework in view of the opening of
accession negotiations with Turkey on 3 October 2005. End
text.
MCELDOWNEY