The sine qua non of EU norms is having a strong human rights record - which Turkey does not have. In 2006, 10% of the pending cases to be addressed by the European Court of Human Rights were against Turkey^[1].

As the European Court of Human Rights was set up to uphold principles set forth in the European Convention on Human Rights, which all member states are required to sign, this clearly poses somewhat of a problem. And in cases where judgments have been put forward by the European Court of Human Rights, Turkey is often loath to implement the advice of the court, as in the Loizidou Case,^[2].

In particular, Turkey represses its main minority, the Kurds and has been criticized for the routine use of torture by the Turkish armed forces in interrogations of PKK members and sympathizers. Amnesty International reports that over 400 detainees have been tortured to death since 1980. Human rights workers, journalists who report on the civil war, and doctors who attempt to provide medical care to wounded Kurds also are frequently arrested and tortured. During this decade, disappearances have also become common^[3]. The UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances reported that in 1994, there were over 50 disappearances in Turkey, more than in any other country^[4]. Turkey refuses even to acknowledge that Kurds have a seperate culture and ethnicity, referring to them as 'Mountain Turks'. From Turkey's beginnings, Ataturk banned the use of the Kurdish languages and did not allow Kurds to be recognized as distinct from the Turkish people. Contemporary Turkish leaders clearly don't see the need to stop repressing the Kurdish people simply for wanting independence (and, let's face it, who could blame them?). This is a clear violation of human rights and contradicts the ethics on which the EU is based.

For more on this, see http://www.zimbio.com/Ankara+Turkey/articles/5/EU+Turkey+armed+conflict+Kurds

1. ^ http://www.taa.gov.tr/proje/dersnotu/Zwaak-EfficiencyofECHR.pdf
2. ^ http://www.taa.gov.tr/proje/dersnotu/Zwaak-EfficiencyofECHR.pdf
3. ^ http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2008&country=7508
4. ^ http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/efb18eb4337a6c768025672b003c3b30?Opendocument

Surely countries with a history of bad human rights activities should be embraced by the EU, in the hope that the EU will have a positive influence on them. It is true that banning them from membership is an effective punishment but that will not enforce any change. If we wish to see compliance with Human Rights conventions we have to ensure that countries that may contravene them are under the jurisdiction in the first place! Once they are members we can then encourage better behaviour through punishing any further contraventions.

Existing animosity between a member state and a non-member state is a good reason not to allow Turkey in to the union. The EU has been a successful security regime over the past half century - introducing two member states who have a conflict over another member state, Cyprus, would only lead to tensions and conflict and might hinder further EU cooperation and strength through taking time out to mediate Greek-Turkish relations.

The EU was originally created for just this situation! Politically the EU is a body designed to ensure that there is co-operation between members and ensure that the outbreak of war is made as unlikely as possible. Turkey should be encouraged to join so that war with Greeece becomes less probable.

The unspoken elephant in the room when it comes to EU discussions on whether Turkey should be allowed to accede is the fact that Turkey is a nation of over 70 million with significantly different living conditions and lower wages than most EU member states. Most EU states are already going through a recession and credit crunch and are suffering enough without a potentially huge number of Turkish migrants legally given the right to live and work in 27 member states, but who would be expected to choose to reside mainly in the more prosperous member states such as the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. This brings the fear of immigrants coming in significantly - especially for Germany, who by 2004 already had 1.739 million Turkish people living in Germany (one third of which are Kurds),^[1] who make up approx. one fourth of the immigrant population in Germany - to allow migrants to come in legally could potentially hinder Germany's economy significantly by increasing unemployment levels even further.

1. ^ http://www.faz.net/s/Rub594835B672714A1DB1A121534F010EE1/Doc~E0F99A1C8B80A445E84A70B8453383895~ATpl~Ecommon~SMed.html#F603AFF15A3548B08367A3ED2DB2733A

The fact that Turkey is politically and religiously divided is another unspoken pink elephant in the room. Yes, Turkey is overwhelmingly Islamic, but it is not Saudi Arabia - they are also the most moderate and 'western' Islamic country there is.

However, proponents arguing for Turkey's bid for EU membership should consider that Turkey is a diverse country, arguably divided religiously and politically between the more liberal and moderate Western influence, and the more politically and religiously conservative influence (which continues to be an influence, although this influence tends to be focused more in East Turkey). Should Turkey accede to the EU which is overwhelmingly liberal and whose laws supercede those of national laws, this would almost certainly lead to a backlash and political actions (which might not necessarily be democratic or non-violent) from the conservative influence over this perceived 'triumph' of liberalism within Turkey.

There are also persisting fears that if Turkey were to join, they would press 'Islamic' issues and concerns to the fore, and might clash with the EU in this respect, e.g. over Palestine, which, if the EU were to be perceived as not being in agreement with Turkey, might lead to opposition and hostility to the EU, which would not easily be resolved.

Regardless of one's beliefs surrounding Turkey's possible ascension to the European Union, the fact that the nation's predominant religion is Islam is surely not one of the issues to be considered. If the EU is to be regarded as an institution that promotes freedom for the citizens of its member states then surely this also means that it promotes freedom of religion. If EU member states are fearful of building closer relations with Islam, which they will inevitably have to, proceeding with the world's most moderate and 'western' Islamic country is the most logical first step.

Just over a decade ago, Turkey's armed forces forced the ruling coalition to resign and the Islamist party Welfare, who had won parliamentary elections in 1995 and joined the ruling coalition the following year withdrew from power^[1].

The nature of the struggle between Turkey's generals - who try and keep the country as secular as possible (arguably at the expense of taking away the right of the people to decide for themselves which party/representative best represents their views) and the increase in votes for conservative Islamic political views and, resultantly, influence of conservative Islamic political forces the generals want to avoid coming to the fore paves for an unstable political environment which is vulnerable^[2].

The EU surely cannot accept a government in which the military plays such a large role, and yet neither can it accept a member state with conservative Islamic leader, leaving the EU essentially with no option except to deny Turkey membership until it resolves this issue.

1. ^ http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2008&country=7508
2. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/opinion/01tue2.html

Side Propositions argument precisely links us back to the nature and obligation of the European Union. Isolating Turkey so it can fix it's own problems by itself and then coming back and register is not what a leading European Body should do. Embracing Turkey as a needy state and providing advisory and physical support(such as military aid etc.) is what can both help Turkey and strengthen EU.

Military role is not a pretext for halting progress, but rather, a reason for speeding it up. we cannot open up the EU for perfect nations to come in, our goal is to help those who require aid to become a stable nation.

There might be other reasons that would mean Turkey could not join the EU but the most important one is that it is not in Europe. We have to draw the line somewhere - the EU is not a worldwide confederation.

True - a part of Turkey is in Europe but only a little part.

For the same reason we should be clear to Israel, Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia that they may not join. Russia could join if it split from Siberia.

If Turkey could join why not Iraq or Iran?

Given that the European continent does not really have a clearly defined frontier it is difficult to see that the EU should be entirely based upon Geography. It should also be noted that while Turkey's land area is almost entirely in Asia the European part does have immense historical significance and has population in Europe of about 14million out of a total population of 72million, larger than many of the smaller EU members.

Then again Turkey is part of NATO and it is difficult to argue it is on the North Atlantic.

The answer to why not Iraq or Iran is indeed why not? But both would have an immense way to go. Turkey has been trying to be European for almost a century while Iran in particular rejects much of what it means to be European, so if they ever became secular democracies that are westward looking and are reasonably prosperous then indeed why not. But I would not expect the issue to arise for well over 50 years if ever (as by then everyone will be looking east not west!)

Turkeys AKP Party is currently in power. The AKP has brought on many changes that are interpreted as being non-secular or rooted in Islam.

A number of people in Turkey voted for the AKP in 2007 because they felt that they would provide a continuation of democratic reforms in Turkey, and help to move the country closer to the EU. Further to this, the success of the AKP in the 2007 election was regarded by many analysts as a backlash against the powerful Turkish military's intervention in political matters, particularly its previous blocking of the AKP's presidential candidate Abdullah Gul[1]. Surely such blocking undermines the democratic process, and the Turkish people should be commended by the EU for seeking to protect their political system.

1. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6912052.stm

Romania and Bulgaria, who have by far the worst human rights’ records in the EU were prioritized over Turkey when they were granted the right of accession, joining the EU in 2007. The EU has in the past rewarded states that have made a big effort to democratize and change policy in order to be allowed in to the EU, and yet member states have only taken these steps after being issued hope from EU elites themselves that there was a strong chance of success in their application. By essentially procrastinating on Turkey's case, the EU are discouraging Turkey from making the required changes to their legislature and norms and thus hindering their chances of accession; and yet there is not much point in doing so at present as EU elites seem hostile to Turkey ever being a future member state. Countries such as Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic were pressurized to reform at a rapid pace after being promised by the EU they would likely be in the EU in a relatively short period of time; Turkey has been given no such promises and so spending vast quantities of time and resources in preparing to make similar changes would be likely to be a poor investment. Turkey should have even more 'right' to be in the EU as these states, as it formally applied for membership long before these states and should thus be given priority over them, not discouragement about future prospects of joining even as these states have since acceeded to the union. It is the EU's attitudes and hostility to future membership that has hindered Turkey's bid for membership and has made efforts to appease Brussels essentially pointless.

"The Muslims see Turkey’s membership as a breaking point in the vicious circle in the relations with the West. Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq, Bosnia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Afghanistan, Lebanon and other problems have led to great despair among the Muslims towards the West. The Muslims mostly don’t believe the West is sincere and fair. The people on the streets of Muslim countries think that they are always deceived, their cities are bombarded, their natural resources are usurped, and their governments are serving to the West. Within this dark picture, Turkey’s full membership on equal terms to one of the most important institutions of the Western world, the EU, is seen as a miracle by the Muslim world. Turkey’s full membership will end the despair and prove that fair and equal relations with the West are possible."^[1].

"In addition to these, Turkey is the best proof that secular governance, democracy and liberal economy do not contradict with Islam. While the Turks can be more devout than the Iranians in their daily lives, they are also democrat, secular and liberal. They have the world’s 17th biggest economy even though they are Muslims. Although they don’t have considerable natural gas and oil resources, they are competing with the West by training their manpower. Their mentality of Islam is not based on revenge or hatred but cooperation and tolerance. Turkey is one of the exceptional Muslim countries where al-Qaeda has no serious roots. For Turks, Osama bin Laden is a terrorist and al-Qaeda commits terrorism. They hold the idea that they can go to the heaven not by killing others but by helping people live. In short, Turkey represents just the opposite of what al-Qaeda represents. Of course, Turkey’s model is not perfect. However, it is the only model at hand. It is the only model to be used against al-Qaeda apart from using violence and force. Many presidents in the Muslim world, including the presidents of Algeria, Palestine, Indonesia and Pakistan, have openly stated that they see Turkey as a model. Because they want to be like Turkey and consolidation of Turkish model will also consolidate the hopes of the Muslim countries."^[2].

1. ^ http://www.turkishweekly.net/article/149/turkey-s-eu-membership-and-the-muslim-world.html
2. ^ http://www.turkishweekly.net/article/149/turkey-s-eu-membership-and-the-muslim-world.html