US embassy cable - 05ANKARA4767

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 Accession 
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