6/10/2006
Mr Olli Rehn, Member of the European Commission, responsible for Enlargement. Europe's Next Frontiers. Lecture at Bilkent University, Ankara, 4 October 2006

I am glad and honoured to give a lecture at the highly respected Bilkent University to this distinguished audience. I would like to thank for the opportunity to discuss Europe's Next Frontiers with you. I am publishing a book on the subject this week. It is less of an academic exercise and essentially an effort to communicate on Europe and enlargement, including Turkey, to all interested citizens in the EU and Turkey.

Before discussing Europe’s next frontiers and EU-Turkey relations, let me begin by analysing today's political climate in Europe.

The current discussion is overly dominated by the limits and borders of Europe. Many believe that Europe’s problems could be solved simply by pulling up the drawbridge on Fortress Europe, shouting “Stop the world, I want to get off!”.

Seldom has this kind of ostrich attitude “put the head into sand” carried the day. Instead of limits and borders, the debate on the future of Europe should focus on the next frontiers of the European Union. Borders are restrictive. Borders limit our minds, chain actions, and reduce our influence. Frontiers are innovative. Frontiers free our minds, stimulate action, and increase our influence. Frontiers are much more substantive and functional – even mental – than geographic.

Our challenge is not to close gates but to meet new frontiers. We need a positive but practical vision for a better Europe. What are, then, the new frontiers of Europe? Let me focus on three of them.

The first and foremost frontier, and the most urgent challenge for Europe, is to rebuild confidence in the European economy. We have to improve our competitiveness and innovative capacity to enhance job creation and to raise employment rates.

The internal market has liberalised European economies and created the biggest economic area in the world, reaching 500 million once Bulgaria and Romania have joined our European family in January 2007. Last enlargement round has been an economic success. It has boosted growth and created new jobs in the European economy.

Turkey has great economic dynamism and potential. Turkey’s recent economic miracle has been based largely on rapid growth in external trade with the EU member states. The economic reforms, the customs union and the accession negotiations have all contributed to this dynamism. This has brought benefits for both Turkey and the EU.

The second frontier is the political revival of Europe. Debate about how to make this revival happen should avoid false dichotomies, such as economic versus political Europe, or deepening versus widening.

It is often customary to maintain that the EU should develop only as a large free trade area, without strong political integration. That is a fallacy which is not backed by empirical evidence. There would not have been any Single Market of 1992 without the Single European Act of 1986, which extended qualified majority voting.

We need both an economic Europe and a political Europe. We need economic reforms to enhance competitiveness, and political reforms to make the Union more effective and democratic. These go hand-in-hand.

Widening versus deepening is another false dichotomy. History has proven that further political integration and rounds of enlargement have mostly gone in parallel. Since the 1908s, the number of EU members has more than doubled from 12 to 25, while the Union has simultaneously taken major steps towards deeper political and economic integration by establishing the single market, the single currency and reinforcing the common foreign and security policy.

Deepening and widening can continue in parallel. If it concentrated solely on deeper integration, the Union would fold in on itself. If it focused only on enlargement, the Union would simply become too weak.

The third frontier is to extend the European zone of peace, liberty and prosperity by better projecting the EU’s soft power, especially through a gradual, rigorous and carefully managed accession process.

Therefore, we need to build a new consensus on enlargement, which recognises the strategic added value of enlargement while ensuring the Union’s capacity to function. The challenge for the EU is to improve the functioning capacity of the current EU now, not only the more abstract absorption capacity in distant future. That’s why the EU needs to work for the economic and political revival, and not make enlargement the scapegoat for domestic failures.

In the EU voices have been raised requesting a pause to enlargement. There are those who have concerns about issues such as the effect on the labour market or the costs for the present Member Sates. There are some who wonder how the EU will function with Turkey as a member. But this debate is not Turkey-specific, it has to do with the Union itself.

It is in this context that the Commission President José Manuel Barroso clarified recently that a new institutional settlement should have been born by the time the next member is going to join the Union.

This means no sabbatical from our commitments to the countries of South-eastern Europe, which constitute our consolidated enlargement agenda. While we prepare internally for a new institutional settlement, the gradual and carefully managed accession process moves on with Turkey and Croatia, and other Western Balkan countries. While we are cautious about any new commitments, we stick to our existing commitments to these countries. Pacta sunt servanda – keeping one’s word – is a fundamental European principle.

Rigorous conditionality combined with the incentive of a credible EU perspective provides the EU with a strong leverage for reforms. Conditionality works. Bulgaria and Romania have responded strongly to our policy of conditionality. This has resulted in a remarkable transformation, with reforms peaking in Romania over the past 18 months and Bulgaria over the past six months. Without the incentive of EU membership, Croatian General Ante Gotovina would not be behind bars in The Hague, nor would Orhan Pamuk necessarily be a free man.

Turkey is part of the EU’s enlargement agenda. In recent years, Turkey has undergone a remarkable reform process.

I know how challenging it is to continue the reform process under current politically sensitive times. I am deeply aware that your country has suffered from waves of terrorism recently. We condemn terrorism firmly and feel the sorrow of its victims and their families.

Your country plays a central role as a bridge between Europe and Islamic world. Turkey is important in turning confrontation into cooperation and integration.

This is why the EU opened accession negotiations with Turkey. Accession negotiations are the essential and crucial method for pursuing the goal of a more European Turkey. The negotiation process backs those inside the country who want to make the rule of law and human rights an everyday reality in all walks of life and all corners of the country.

Prime Minister Erdogan rightly points out that the EU’s Copenhagen criteria could actually as well be called the Ankara criteria, since the reforms that Turkey must implement to meet these criteria will result in better human rights and democratic freedoms for Turkey’s citizens. They are not, intended to please, say, some EU officials.

This is why the process is as important as the outcome. It will be a long and sometimes difficult journey, where the journey – or the reforms in the country – will be as important as the final destination.

While it will be a long and difficult journey, nothing is pre-determined. Leaders and citizens in both the EU and Turkey can influence the length and difficulty of the process.

How long it will be, depends mostly on Turkey and its reforms. The momentum of reform has slowed down in the past year. I have underlined during this visit that Turkey should address the reforms as a matter of priority.

How difficult the journey will be depends on mutual understanding – in the EU on what the modern Turkey really is; in Turkey on what EU membership really entails. Thus, communication inside the EU and in Turkey, and between them, especially throughout civil society, is crucial.

To this end, we must get to know each other better. This is the aim of the Commission’s programme to enable a civil society dialogue between Turkey and the EU. It aims at promoting interaction between non-governmental organisations, e.g. student exchange, study visits of journalists, as well as exchange between women’s organisations, trade unions and business communities.

The symposium yesterday organised by Türk-Is and the Central Organisation of the Finnish Trade Unions was an excellent initiative to enhance mutual understanding between trade unions.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Many European politicians have advocated the idea of a privileged partnership for Turkey rather than full membership. This takes place despite the fact that the EU and its leaders in the European Council unanimously decided to open accession negotiations, while underlining that the negotiations are by their very nature an open-ended process with no predetermined outcome.

I do not want to restrict anybody's freedom of speech, but I can still call all responsible politicians in the EU and Turkey to pursue a responsible debate on EU-Turkey relations. The regular talk on privileged partnership only erodes the EU’s credibility and weakens the conditionality in Turkey. Thus it reduces the political incentive for reforms and causes political backlash among ordinary Turks.

In reality, no form of privileged partnership could exceed what EU-Turkey relations have already accomplished. Turkey already has a customs union with the EU, participates in many EU programmes and is a member of NATO, which makes it far more than a privileged partner in terms of security policy. Moreover, the EU contributes to social and regional cohesion that amounts to half a billion euros per year. What more could the EU offer, apart from membership in institutions?

Hence, in the EU we should stop deceiving ourselves on the relevance of privileged partnership.

What is the best strategy for the EU to deal with Turkey?

Simply, we should be both fair and firm.

We should be fair and uphold our commitment to give Turkey the chance to show whether it can meet the accession criteria.

We should be firm by maintaining rigorous conditionality, which is the driver of reforms and modernisation in Turkey.

Hence, the burden of proof is on the Turkish side. Turkey knows there is no shortcut to Europe, only the regular road, which passes through meeting the rigorous conditions of accession to the letter.

Those who talk continuously about privileged partnership are creating a vicious circle of reversed commitment, weakened conditionality and stalled reforms.

By keeping our word and sticking firmly to the accession perspective, we can create a virtuous circle of credible commitment, rigorous conditionality and reinforced reforms.

If we want to have a European Turkey, and have it on our side, it should be clear which option we must choose.

Thank you.