Turkish daily Milliyet's columnist Sami Kohen comments on differences between the EU and the US in their stances on the closure case against the Justice and Development Party.

Is US changing its policy? - 21 / 05 / 2008 14:54

When it was announced that the closure case would be opened against the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in March, firstly the European Union criticized it harshly.

Officials from the EU Commission said that if the AKP is closed, the process of membership talks with Turkey might be suspended.

On the contrary, the US criticized it more cautiously and later than the EU. American officials said that such issues are resolved not in courts, but at the Parliament in democracies.

While discussions on the closure case escalated, clear differences between the stance of the EU and the US emerged. These differences stemmed from the EU's commitment to democratic criteria and principles and the US' pragmatic approach in its foreign relations. Then certain changes emerged in their criticisms.

Besides democracy, the EU started to note the importance of secularism in Turkey and the US administration also emphasized the principle of secularism as well.

Recent approaches of both the EU and the US show that differences between the styles of both parties got gradually smaller.

Let's start with the US.

 Final statements made by officials from the US administration, mostly Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, show that Washington has made a fine tuning on political developments in Turkey.

 For example, Rice said that she hoped the closure case would be resolved as part of principles of democracy and secularism. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Asian Affairs Matt Bryza expressed a similar hope by emphasizing Turkey's values of secularism and democracy.

Actually, even if American officials don't say this openly in their official statements, they don't approve such an initiative to close a party and consider such a thing as dangerous and inconvenient.

Some people also express this opinion and concern clearly, for example an article published on the Washington Post recently and another article written by former US Ambassador to Ankara Mark Parris on Wall Street Journal last week.

Parris, who follows Turkey closely, indicated possible negative aspects to derive from closing the AKP and blamed the Bush administration for being indifferent to the issue. But Parris also reiterated the AKP administration's mistakes in bringing the crisis to this point.

As for the EU, high-ranking officials from the Commission and member countries state their concerns over initiatives to close a party and also express Turkey's sensitivities as well.

In this respect, Turkey-EU Joint Parliamentary Committee Co-Chairman Joose Lagendjik said to the Milliyet daily that they should be more sensitive to Turkey's concerns over secularism, which is very meaningful.

Actually, Lagendjik’s words don't reflect the EU's official policy, but even this might be considered the sign of a more realistic approach within the EU.

On the other hand, the EU's basic approach is against closing a party. Both the EU and the US favor the protection of secularism within the democratic order and they're both afraid that closing a party would cause serious political complications in Turkey.

Now they both seem to be on the same side on the issue.