No document available.
Abstract :
[en] Readmission Agreement has been criticized by many parties not only because of the fact that EU did not want to take the refugees but also because most of the actors thought that Turkey is not capable of handling the numbers while some others suggested that Turkey does not meet the bare minimum of democratic credentials to be able to look after the refugees, after all it is seen that Turkey is not treating its own citizens in with a just approach. In this paper, I would like to start with a brief background to what Turkey had done in order to comply with the EU Acquis till now and what the government’s weaknesses have been regarding this process. Why was the success of enactment of Act on Foreigners and International Protection shadowed by the open door policy towards the Syrian refugees and why did the state let many of the refugees pass to Greece although the officials were well aware that there might have been many deaths? The readmission agreement, on the other hand, was signed on 26th of March 2016 and it had many implications. It also had conditions as it was a typical carrot and stick policy of the EU, but it also led the relationship to become more interest based while the norms and ideas on solidarity and creativity have lost their significance. There is a great loss in terms of the normative power of the EU and there are great losses in terms of how democracy was used functionally by the Turkish government and this has manifested itself in the Readmission Agreement in the clearest way. After the background and perspectives from both sides, I suggest that it is a loss-loss game rather than a win-win situation, moreover, it is not the story of an empire that tells Turkey what to do or it is not the Turkish republic that follows the democratic path but it has become the clash of collapsing empires, an anachronistic way of dealing with a crisis. Finally, I will finish with policy suggestions to both sides of this dilemma as far as my theoretical background allows me.