IPC-MERCATOR POLICY BRIEF

Transcription

1 IPC-MERCATOR POLICY BRIEF Turkey s Negotiations on Migration: One-on-One or One-on-Twenty Seven? Seçil Paçacı Elitok Executive Summary Turkey s prospective full membership in the European Union (EU) adds fuel to the lingering migration debate within the EU. Combined with EU s growing fears over immigration influx of Turks and transit migrants from emerging countries, Turkey s accession negotiations face uncertainty. This uncertainty is also bolstered by the lack of a coherent and comprehensive migration policy. Turkey s unique, multifaceted status as an emigration, immigration and transit country further complicates its case. Yet, while the EU is battered by the difficulties of enacting a common migration policy, Turkey is facing an opportune moment to resume the negotiations. It has significant resources of talent, capacity and political will to carry out impressive reforms in this field. Ankara must therefore adopt a consistent and overarching migration policy not only to fulfill EU s expectations but also to lead it via its best practices in migration policy. Even though Turkey needs to align its migration policy with EU s migration and asylum regulations, such alignment does not limit Ankara s exposure to critical disagreements with other EU member countries on a bilateral level. Among member states, Germany plays a unique role (due to a significant Turkish diaspora) in Turkey s relations with the EU when it comes to migration. The issues that are not subject to negotiations with other countries and that are independent from the EU framework could be better managed on a bilateral level between Germany and Turkey. It will be beneficial not only for Turkey but also for Germany to approach to migration-related issues in a collaborative manner. March 28, 2013 Seçil Paçacı Elitok is Mercator-IPC Fellow at Istanbul Policy Center, Sabancı University. The interpretations and conclusions made in this article belong solely to the author and do not reflect the official position of IPC Contact Information: Istanbul Policy Center Minerva Han, Bankalar Caddesi No: 2, Kat: Karaköy - İstanbul (212) ext secilelitok@sabanciuniv.edu IPC is an independent policy research institute with global outreach. It strives to foster academic research in social sciences. Through its objective and applied research, IPC steers public policy and provides policy alternatives for decision makers.

2 Introduction Since the Treaty of Rome (1957), out of the free movement of goods, services, capital and labor, the last one has been the most difficult to regulate under a unified policy. The removal of internal borders with the Single European Act of 1985 and the end of the Cold War (against the background of discussions around Fortress Europe) reinforced the need for greater regulation in the domains of justice and home affairs. Initially, economic integration was the priority, whilst migration issues were not a concern and consequently neither was seeking a common policy on these issues. The attempts to draft a common European migration policy have failed to some extent due to the complex and sensitive nature of migration (the human aspect), the lack of solidarity, financial reasons, and the range of varying bilateral issues among different countries that is, issues are of relevance to some international relationships and not to others). Since the Schengen Agreement, the priority for a common migration policy has mainly been combating illegal migration (seen as a threat to internal security and border management) and the policy itself has generally been discussed in the context of securitization, especially since 9/11. However, even against this backdrop, efforts to harmonize migration policy have fallen short. That is, most EU countries are reluctant to sign even the relevant international agreements such as the Migration for Employment Convention, the Migrant Workers Convention, the UN International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Member of Their Families. Moreover, most of the member states have had difficulty implementing common legislation pertaining to justice and home affairs. Striving for a common framework: Existing accomplishments In 1992, the Treaty of Maastricht introduced a new institutional framework (which remained valid until the Treaty of Lisbon, 2007) which was comprised of three pillars: the European Communities (EC), Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Justice and Home Affairs. The treaty of Amsterdam (1999) transferred regulation of the free movement of labor from the third to the first pillar. Thus, currently; the first pillar (EC) covers migration, asylum, the Schengen Treaty and EU citizenship. The second pillar (CFSP) covers security policy and the third pillar deals with Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters (PJCC), which covers terrorism, human trafficking, organized crime and other areas. The common European migration policy is based on three main strands: prosperity (the contribution of legal immigration to the socio-economic development of the EU), solidarity (coordination between EU countries and cooperation with non-eu countries) and security (how to effectively combat illegal migration). European migration policy is composed of both internal (issues related to borders inside the territory of the EU Area) and external elements. While issues that fall within the EU territory constitute internal components of the European migration policy, those that concern borders, visa agreements, immigration and asylum are considered as external components. With respect to the internal tenets; two turning points with regard to the evolution of a Europe-wide migration policy, particularly concerning the free movement of persons, can be identified. These are the Schengen Agreement (1985) 1 and the Single European Act. Both of them were aimed at removing internal borders that created disagreement among member states as well as institutional controversies. The shortcomings of the institutional framework were compensated with the Maastricht Treaty (1992) thanks to the establishment of Justice and Home Affairs as the third 2

3 Although the Commission s report rates Turkey s migration policy poor and limited 1, Turkish policy makers in reality have introduced numerous new laws and policies in migration-related areas identified by the EU for the last decade. pillar of the EU. The Amsterdam Treaty (1997), which set the minimum standards for a single policy on migration, created the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice and transferred migration and asylum from the third to the first pillar. The Lisbon Treaty (2007) implemented the community method (requiring qualified majority instead of unanimity) to a great extent keeping some exceptions valid-for certain migration and asylum issues and structured the institutional and legal framework of migration policy. The external dimension, on the other hand, primarily consists of integrated management system for external borders. This is part of its turf within the concept of combating illegal migration. In line with this, Frontex was created in 2004 as a European agency to ensure the security of the EU s borders and in 2006 the Schengen Borders Code was adopted. The EU also put in place a Visa Code system as another means to manage borders. The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) was established in order to implement the single legislation, including actions and regulations on asylum procedure, eligibility for protection, reception conditions for asylum seekers and the responsibilities of member states. By the same token, the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) was created in As for legal migration, policies are differentiated according to the purpose of the migrants stay. With the exception of the Blue- Card 2 for highly qualified migrants, regulations for international students, directives on longterm residency, family reunification, free movement of third country nationals, integration and similar cases have resulted in significant disparities in practice and law among different member states. The questions which institution is to be tasked with supervising the lags and differences in the implementation of policies at a local level and what sanctions will be available to enforce this implementation remain unanswered to date. Thus, even though quite a lot of measures have been implemented, there is still a lack of unified migration policy in Europe. Where does Turkey stand? Although migration has been on the agenda of Turkey s relations to the EU, its candidacy status gave impetus for concrete acts so as to align the migration policies with EU acquis. As part of the process of attaining EU membership, Turkey is required to fulfill certain pre-accession requirements and undertake various reforms to align its migration policy with that of the EU. Although the Commission s report rates Turkey s migration policy poor and limited 3 Turkish policy makers in reality have introduced numerous new laws and policies in migration-related areas identified by the EU for the last decade. Some of Turkey s trials in harmonizing its legislations on justice and home affairs area with EU acquis, and in improving related migration policies for its own sake, can be summarized as follow: In 2001, Homeland-Advice Bureau (Yurt-Danış Bürosu) under Foreign Relations and Workers Abroad Services General Directorate 4 was established to provide legal support Turkish expatriates with their fundamental rights, freedoms and obligations. In 2002, new legislative revisions concerning the Citizenship Law had positive implications for combating irregular migration and protecting 3

4 immigrants rights. In 2003, the New Law on Work Permits for Foreign Nationals eliminated all restrictions vis-à-vis foreign nationals freedom to hold any occupations. According to the new law, allocation of visas would be based on the labor shortages in the Turkish labor market rather than nationalities witnessed the establishment of the Asylum and Migration Bureau and the Border Management Bureau under the Ministry of Interior. This development was ensued by the formation of the Committee against Irregular Migration, which was tasked with the coordination of the precautionary measures and protectionist activities. In 2010, changes in the Turkish Criminal Code Article 79 increased the deterrent effect of the penalty for the human traffickers. This arrangement had positive implications for the fight against irregular migration as well. In 2010, Turks Abroad and Relative Communities Department (Yurtdışı Türkler ve Akraba Topluluklar Başkanlığı) has been established with aim of assisting Turkish citizens living abroad 5 Pending Issues In spite of the reforms undertaken, a few critical issues have yet to be resolved. They can be categorized under the three main building blocks of the external dimension of the EU s common migration policy: migration and development, legal migration and combating illegal migration. With regards to migration, a Readmission Agreement and a Visa Facilitation scheme are under discussion. In June 2012, Turkey and the EU finalized the Readmission Agreement; however, it has yet to be signed into force due to Turkey s rightful concerns of unfair burden sharing. The agreement s ratification implies Turkey s and the EU s agreement to extradite illegal aliens within their borders. Brussels, in turn, promises to lighten visa requirements for Turkish nationals. 6 In regards to asylum 7, by the standards of the UN 1951 Geneva Convention, Turkey can be said to apply a geographical limitation to refugees and does not recognize the status of refugees from non-european countries. To solve this dilemma, the UNHCR intervenes to identify third country resettlement opportunities for non-european asylum seekers whose The need for reforms in the following EU migration policy areas is imminent: - migration and development - legal migration - combatting illegal migration applications are approved. Without the guarantee of full-membership, Turkey is reluctant to lift the geographical limitation because of the fear of becoming a buffer zone. Adoption of a Law on Foreigners and International Protection (Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu) is still pending. Finally, Turkey s free visa policy with some of its neighbors (Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Egypt etc.) have caused serious concerns in the EU with respect to border management, especially since the crisis in Syria. After a long-term lack of policy on 4

5 migration, Turkey is at a crossroads where it must make its own migration policy for its own sake, with or without the EU. This national migration policy will have to encompass numerous issues: visa policy, asylum, human trafficking, border management, illegal migration, minorities, forced migration, transit migrants, temporary migrants, returnees, remittances, and other similar cases. The longer Turkey is kept outside of this constantly evolving policy system, the harder it will eventually be for Turkey to integrate itself, should it ever in fact join. Furthermore given the growing sense that Turkey may never be allowed to join and the complexity of these issues, the impetus to implement practical solutions to migration issues is lacking. Germany and Turkey Concerns falling under the rubric of Turkey and migration stem from different issues among the different EU members as do the policy solutions. For instance, relations between Greece and Turkey are mostly centered on illegal/transit migration and border management, whereas the relations between Cyprus and Turkey are mostly shaped within disputes on citizenship and minority. Yet, Turkey has a guest worker tradition form a group of EU members that include Germany, Holland, Belgium, Austria, France and Sweden. In these cases, due to the voluminous Turkish communities, Turkey is confronted with dragging issues such as dualcitizenship, integration, social rights, and labor market access, none of which is an issue for the rest of the EU27. Among these countries, Germany, as one of the most powerful actors in the union, plays a unique role in Turkey s relations with the EU for numerous reasons. Above all, the main factor shaping the impact of migration on Turkish- German relations is the Turkish Diaspora. In 2011, 50 years after the first bilateral recruitment agreement on guest workers, which was signed between Turkey and Germany (1961), approximately 3 million Turks 8 reside in Germany. Turkish migration initiated a debate on integration that continues to this day. Multiculturalism forms a backdrop to the current integration debate, which is wedged into a vicious cyclical argument around culture serving to overshadow the social and economic injustices between migrants and natives. Pending frictions that could be the subject of bilateral negotiations between Germany and Turkey can be categorized into three types: issues related to the management of legal and illegal migration; complications pertaining to the labor force participation and equal access to the social security system; and conflicts tied to integration, social rights and dual citizenship. Migration comes on top of these issues, and due to the special link between Germany and Turkey, it requires a different approach. The EU, and in particular Germany, anticipates a trend of mass migration should Turkey join the EU. Although Turkey and Germany will remain as one of the most important corridors both for legal and illegal migration, estimated 5

6 numbers of further migrants are far from realistic. 9 Taking into account Turkey s young and growing population and Germany s demographic bottleneck, potential migration from Turkey to Germany could be considered as an opportunity rather than a threat if it is managed through cooperation. However, migration is only one part of the broader issue; the remaining aspects of this impasse are beyond the scope of this policy paper, but are certainly worth exploring at another point. While there are certain areas of migration policy where Turkey should integrate itself in line with European common policy, bilateral negotiations present a means to circumnavigate the complexities inherent in one country finding a one-size-fits-all arrangement with 27 other countries. Policy Recommendations Some of the problems that could be addressed on a bilateral level between Turkey and Germany are as follow. 1) Promoting and supporting ethnic entrepreneurs Germany and Turkey can work together to promote entrepreneurs of non-german origin within Germany, ethnic entrepreneurs. Positive examples of successful ethnic entrepreneurs can help improve perceptions of migrant communities and provide impetus for social advancement. The potential economic benefits from this, as yet relatively untouched, resource are worth pursuing in of themselves. Furthermore, these economic benefits may serve to strengthen the ties between the two countries on a political and societal level. 2) Support for Turkey s accession process By openly blocking chapters in Turkey s accession process, Germany may create undesirable tensions with its partner. By making a commitment to supporting or at least not hampering Turkey in its EU accession, Germany can improve its global standing and strengthen economic ties with Turkey by improving its image within Turkey. 3) Dual Citizenship Germany should allow its citizens to maintain dual or multiple citizenships. Firstly, this will facilitate the integration of minority groups into German society as this will create a more open and consequently less toxic environment for the evolution of transnational identities. Furthermore, this will help to reduce prejudice by accepting, officially, the hybrid complexity of these identities. 4) Normalization of language proficiency tests policy One of the burning issues in the field of legal migration is the language proficiency test which is required of Turks who wish to enter the country through the family-unification policy. Turkey is the only candidate country whose citizens are required to learn basic German language as a prerequisite for their visa application. Whilst the importance of language proficiency is undeniable and this policy has some logical basis, its application is patently unfair and concerning. It is simply a violation of basic human rights and must be abandoned. The existence of this policy serves to create a negative atmosphere on a number of levels of interaction between the two countries and communities and may hamper integration and inter-community perceptions. 5) Positive discrimination for school and higher education admissions Education is key to social advancement and to ending cycles of depravation. Putting the existing inequalities in the German education system aside, particular focus needs to be given to children and young people of migrant backgrounds whose admission levels to German higher tier schools (Gymnasium) are 6

7 disproportionately low. This paper proposes positive discrimination for these persons for a limited time in order to even out admission levels and create virtuous cycles of social advancement. The achievement of this will improve their access to the job market, further improving integration. 6) Image of Turkey As a long-term goal, the image of Turks in needs to broadly improve in Germany, in order for lasting social harmony to be assured. This is obviously in some ways an ephemeral task but steps can be taken, including school exchanges and cultural education, not only for migrants but also for native Germans regarding Turkish culture. Conclusion In Turkey s accession process to the EU, which is currently at a standstill, migration is one of the most crucial areas that ought to be addressed in urgency. The role of migration will only gain in importance for Turkey in its relations with the EU, and it will have complex implications for demographic structures as well as for economic and social structures in the long-term. Turkey aims to align its policies with an evolving system of EU acquis, including fulfilling the criteria that was laid out with regards to asylum and migration. By adopting the related migration legislations and reforms, Turkey was successful to a certain extent yet lost its enthusiasm due to the dramatic slowdown in EU-Turkey relations. It is fair to say that Turkey to a certain extent has done what was required of it so far (despite the lack of guaranteed membership) and even though it has had no voice in the formulation of EU common policy. On the other hand, despite all the endeavors towards a unified system of migration in Europe, the process still lacks solidarity. Despite the opposition, public concerns and fears of further potential migration, it is fair to argue that, Germany and Turkey can negotiate on several issues on a bilateral level, which will be beneficial for both parties. Furthermore, a Germany- Turkish alliance on migration issues that are unique to these two countries may relieve the opposition against Turkey s full-membership not only at the government/state level but also in public opinion. Consequently, if Turkey is willing to undertake concrete steps instead of dealing with high politics on the EU level, she should focus on bilateral solutions. 7

8 Reference 1 Öner, N. A. Şirin Çabalar Sonuç Verecek mi? Avrupa Birliği nin Ortak Bir Göç ve Sığınma Politikası Oluşturma Girişimleri. in Küreselleşme Çağında Göç: Kavramlar, Tartışmalar, edited by S. Gülfer Ihlamur-Öner and N. Aslı Şirin Öner, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları. 2 EU Blue Card was adopted in 2009 in order to ease the entry and work permit procedures of highly skilled workers of third country nationals. 3 As of March 29, 2013 Progress Reports on Turkey are on website and 2012 Progress report is on website 4 Dış İlişkiler ve Yurtdışı Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü (founded in 1967). 5 Bilgili, Özge Turkey s Multifarious Attitude towards Migration and its Migrants. Migration Policy Centre Research Report 2012/02. 6 Özler, Zeynep Breaking the Vicious Circle in EU-Turkey Relations: Visa Negotiations, Turkish Policy Quarterly, Spring. 7 Kirişçi, Kemal Turkey s New Draft Law on Asylum: What to Make of It? in Turkey, Migration and the EU: Potentials, Challenges and Opportunies, edited by Seçil Pacaci Elitok and Thomas Straubhaar, Hamburg: Hamburg University Press of them hold the Turkish citizenship. 9 Pacaci Elitok, Seçil Estimating the Potential Migration from Turkey to the European Union: A Literature Survey HWWI Policy Paper 3-11, Hamburg. 8