Over 90% of Turkey is not located in Europe, and yet for years the sovereign state has sought accession in the E.U. in spite of Turkey’s non-European culture. That the E.U. did not act in a timely way on Turkey’s application can be taken as a de facto “no.” Reports of abuse of political-asylum seekers in E.U.-funded centers in Turkey may suggest that the country’s government has interpreted the delay as a “no,” or that the country is unintentionally thwarting its own chances on becoming a state in the union. The E.U. was hardly blameless, as the Commission casted off any responsibility for enabling the abuse by funding the centers where it was occurring.
In 2024, “Lighthouse Reports found systematic mistreatment across the removal centres managed by the Turkish government and backed by €213 million in E.U. funds.”[1] The investigation reported, The E.U. “is aware that it is funding this abusive system, with its own staff raising alarm about it internally—yet senior officials choose to turn a blind eye.”[2] Even though the E.U. had provided almost €10 billion to support the operation of the centres, the European Commission replied, “It is the responsibility of the Turkish authorities to thoroughly investigate allegations of wrongdoing and we urge them to do so.”[3] Absent was any recognition that funding the centres renders the E.U. responsible for the ongoing abuse too. Pointing to someone else to take responsibility for “unsanitary and overcrowded conditions in the facilities, instances of abuse and torture against migrants, and a patter of coercion to force detainees to sign documents of ‘voluntary’ returns to their war-torn nations” is too convenient to be ethically sound.[4]
The Commission’s claim that “all E.U. money provided for managing removal centres and voluntary returns in Turkey was ‘in full respect of E.U. and international standards” implies that the E.U. had a responsibility to see that the standards were being met.[5] “The E.U. executive [branch], however, insisted the ultimate responsibility to probe and crack down on violations of fundamental rights was up to the Turkish authorities.”[6] In short, the E.U. was trying to have it both ways. That Turkey had “its own set of legislation when it comes to recognition of refugees and migration management” does not mean that “the enforcement and protection of these formal rights remain the responsibility” of Turkey, even though a Commission spokesperson said that the responsibility follows from the legislation.[7]
That the E.U. was funding refugee centres outside of the E.U. suggests that the E.U. had done an insufficient job in handling asylum-seekers within the borders of the E.U.; essentially, the union was outsourcing its responsibility to protect its borders. That some E.U. states had recently violated the Shengen Agreement by setting up land-border check-points, to which residents in other states would be subject, also implies that federal action was insufficient. The insufficiency thus caused a weakening of the union’s rule of law, as state governments felt free to violate the Agreement.
Turkey was also working at cross-purposes with itself. If the Turkish government had any desire remaining for statehood in the E.U., using E.U. funds to violate international human rights, which the E.U. ostensibly values and works in support of, adds support to the argument that Turkey’s culture is too different to fit within a European union. Given internal threats by state governments to the E.U.’s decision-making process and rule of law, the union could ill-afford a leap in the magnitude of interstate differences in (political) culture. The continuance of the principle of unanimity applying to a significant number of federal competencies (i.e., enumerated domains of authority for E.U. law and regulations) was already running up against the recalcitrant will of Viktor Orbán of the E.U. state of Hungary. At the very least, that principle would need to be retired were Turkey to accede, which ironically would take unanimity to be changed to qualified majority voting on all matters at the federal level. In short, Turkey needed to get all of its ducks in a row, rather than to work against itself.
1. Jorge Liboreiro, “Brussels
Urges Turkey to ‘Thoroughly’ Probe Alleged Abuse in EU-Funded Migration Centres,”
Euronews.com, October 11, 2024.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
