Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Feb 23 2007
FM Gül: EU unaware of its `soft' power
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül reaffirmed his government's
determination to proceed at full speed with European Union membership
reforms, although he complained the bloc did not treat the issue of
Turkish membership with a foresighted approach.
In a meeting with a small group of journalist from France, Germany,
Romania and Turkey, Gül complained that "EU is not aware of its
power" to set into motion positive changes in Turkey. He said he
expected a more constructive rhetoric from EU, rather than a negative
one shaped by "petty, local politics," in Turkish-EU relations.
Implying that the counterproductive rhetoric was seen as "insulting"
the Turks here, he repeatedly said "Unfortunately, there, EU
underestimates its power."
Gül also reaffirmed the government's intent on amending Article
301 of the penal code, which, by bringing a load of cases against
journalists and intellectuals, triggered high tension both
domestically and internationally. "We will change it" he said. "I
advocate a change, Prime Minister believes it must change. In a few
weeks we will change it."
The European Union, as well as critics at home, say Article 301
restricts freedom of expression and pressure the government to change
or abolish it. The government, which has said it was open to
amendments, has been dragging feet, however. It also appears to be
divided on the issue, with some ministers, most notably Justice
Minister Cemil Çiçek, dismissing calls for a prompt amendment to the
law.
Gül has said repeatedly that he favored changes to the Article
301, because it overshadows Turkey's reform efforts and creates a
wrong impression about Turkey, with many people outside Turkey
believing that people end up in jail simply for expressing views. "I
strongly advocate change on this article. The prime minister also
believes in a change," Gül said. "When we changed the Turkish Penal
Code, our intention was to have no problems anymore with freedom of
expression. Expression is free in this country, but there are
problems unfortunately: some prosecutors take action and that irks
the writers and opinion-builders."
Gül, however, did not elaborate on how the internal disagreements
within the government on the issue would be resolved. He also
remained cautious on results of an amendment. "Even after a change we
might expect problems, this is a matter of education" he added,
pointing out to the fact that prosecutors still can file charges on
certain cases on the basis of other articles in the penal code.
Calling the events in 1915 as "tragedy," Gül warned again that a
possible approval in the US Congress of a resolution supporting
Armenian claims of genocide would have serious consequences. "We have
a wide range of cooperation with the Americans" he said. "How can we
explain this sudden decision to the Turks?" On the issue of opening
the border to Armenia, Gül told that Turkey was expecting responses
of good will from Yerevan. He informed also that there were
continuing "talks" with Armenians on diplomatic level but did not
elaborate.
"We are not happy with the status of our relations with Armenia.
But unfortunately we are not given the opportunity to move forward,"
Gül said, complaining of a lack of Armenian steps to reciprocate a
series of Turkish good will gestures.
Where is Turkey regarding the EU membership process?
The last decision (in December, when the EU decided to suspend
negotiations on eight chapters with Turkey) was not good, of course.
We believe that some EU members were worried about the high speed
with which we proceeded and they wanted to slow it down. And for this
they used some pretexts. It is sad and it is my firm conviction that
the EU is not well aware of its soft power. The problem is coming
from within the EU: there is no self-confidence there. Before the
negotiations, almost all the strategic studies showed that Turkey
would not be a burden on the EU; on the contrary, it would be an
asset. But because of a lack of self-confidence on the part of the
EU, we are now where we are. But I also firmly believe that this is
going to change. Now you must know that definitely everything depends
on our performance. We never ask for favors for us (from the EU). The
conditions and rules are clear and we are well aware of what we are
supposed to do. In the negotiations, one chapter has been opened and
closed. We are preparing position papers on four other chapters, one
which was already sent to Brussels. So, we have not slowed down our
speed at all.
Our conclusion is that the EU has some problems and these problems
are not permanent. But we should speed up the process so that when
"the climate" in Europe becomes better Turkey will be in a better
position in terms of preparedness. Our commitment to the reforms is
not just rhetoric. We are well aware of our shortcomings. We will
upgrade our standards on all levels. And we have a clear road map
with a timetable that we -- State Minister Ali Babacan, the chief
negotiator, and I -- have prepared.
Let us delve into the climate in Turkey. The parties seem sharply
divided, with one group demanding further reform and another
demanding no reform at all. Would it be fair to say that the upcoming
general elections will be seen as a referendum on the EU?
I don't want to say "yes" or "no." Although the opposition leaders,
such as Deniz Baykal and Onur Öymen, appear to be against reforms in
their public statements, those who support their parties actually
back the EU process. A similar conclusion holds for the opposition
Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) as well. The dangerous thing is,
mind you, that the EU sometimes is seen as "insulting." The EU
expects positive rhetoric from us, but its rhetoric sometimes becomes
very counterproductive. It is "petty politics" we witness in the EU's
policies, and inter-party politics overshadow this process. The EU is
unaware of its soft power, it underestimates its power. For example,
what goes on in France is petty politics. I am sorry to say this but
I must be frank. France has now decided to hold a referendum on
Turkish membership when the time comes. France has the key. Even if
we complete negotiations with 100-percent success, even if the EU
Commission says that Turkey is ready to join the EU, the French
referendum will still hold key importance. It is possible that
because of just a hundred votes against, our membership may be
rejected. While France has this key in hand, why are French
politicians speaking out against Turkey's membership today? Why do
they try to block negotiations now? You can say "no" in the end and
we would respect it. But we have all the time for that, maybe ten
years later... But why should this be an issue today? This is why I
call it narrow-minded politics, that is unbecoming of the great
French nation. France is a country with which we have great
relations; it is like a window for us toward the West... Yes, our
relations with EU are not easy. But Turkey is a fully legitimate
negotiating country because all the EU leaders decided on that. They
agreed and signed for it. The question is this: Is the EU paying
enough attention to its future? If the EU is to play an important
role in world affairs, I wonder whether the EU is tied up or not?
Free speech is high on the agenda. Will there be any change on
Article 301 soon or is it only rhetoric?
You know that I strongly advocate change on this article. The prime
minister also believes in a change. There are, in my opinion, two
reasons why Article 301 should change. Firstly, when we changed the
Turkish Penal Code, our intention was to have no problems anymore
with freedom of expression. We made it very clear then. It was clear
that we may not like dissenting views but we should allow them. You
see expression is free in this country, but there are problems
unfortunately: some prosecutors take action and that irks writers and
opinion-makers. We are aware of these problems. Secondly, Article
301, as it is, actually overshadows Turkey's reform process. People
outside think that because of 301 you are unable to express yourself
on any issue, they think that a lot of people are in prison! They are
not. But people believe that! So we will change this article, we took
that decision. It will happen soon.
How soon?
In a few weeks' time, it will be changed. But mind you, that it is an
ongoing process. Even if we change it tomorrow, we might still face
problems again. Maybe not with 301, but maybe with other ones. Now
the important thing is the intention of the government and also
public opinion on this matter. But as politicians, we also have to
educate people.
During your recent visit to the US, what did you tell American
officials about the consequences if the Armenian genocide resolution
passes in the Congress?
Look, our relations with the US are very special. Our agendas are
similar. I do not think there are other countries that have the same
agenda as us. We are in cooperation on very many issues: for example
in Afghanistan with our schools, we teach 35,000 students there, our
hospitals have treated 650,000 Afghanis. In Iraq, we give logistics
to coalition forces, we distribute electricity to northern Iraq, 90
percent of gasoline sent to Iraq goes through Turkey. We work on
energy oil pipelines, we are in Lebanon in UNIFIL. And, now, suddenly
you have a resolution against Turkey... Although I do not believe
that it will pass, but suppose that this passes: what will we tell
the Turkish people? Of course, what happened those years, it was sad,
it was a tragedy, in fact. But when you call it "genocide," you have
to find another terminology for the Jews that were killed in Germany
before and during World War II. For the Ottomans it was different. In
World War I, the army was at war, and in fact some Armenians were
given arms by Russians to revolt against the Ottoman Empire and they
started to kill civilians in Anatolia. When all this was happening,
the foreign minister of the Ottoman Empire was an Armenian! And,
Armenians held senior state posts then, churches were functioning in
many parts of the country. If they (Ottoman rulers) had hostile
feelings against their Armenian subjects, why should they wait until
they were at their weakest throughout their history? Hitler acted
only when he was strong. So, these genocide claims offend us. This
was a tragedy, many people lost their lives; Turks, Armenians,
Muslims, non-Muslims... Our offer is, if you are so interested in the
truth, let us open all archives and initiate a committee of
historians. Let's study these events. But unfortunately the Armenian
side is not forthcoming. We ask also the French and the US to join
these efforts.
A recent survey shows that up to 47 percent of Turks are willing to
see open borders and economic, political relations with Armenia.
Would the government act on opening the border?
I understand that. And we are not happy with the status of relations
we have with Armenia. But sadly we are not given opportunity by them
to go forward. We wish this would happen. Now, although we have
closed borders we have direct flights to Yerevan. We also have
Armenian immigrants that work here who send their savings to their
relatives there. These things should be looked at too. We must also
get a positive response for our gestures. But let us not forget
Karabakh: there are two million people - Azeris -- living in
miserable conditions in refugee camps. How can we close our eyes to
this tragedy? We are active in diplomacy, we have met Azerbaijanis
and Armenians before. The world should also pay attention to this
fact.
Are you talking to Armenians now?
Yes. We are. We in fact expect some responses to our proposals.
What is Turkey's position on Iraq. Are there any changes?
Iraq's unity and territorial integrity is of primary importance to
us.
Is it not too late?
No, it is not too late. Partition is not an alternative, neither for
us nor for the Americans. The disintegration of Iraq would be a huge
failure for all of us, everybody. And some now compare partition with
the former Soviet republics. It was not bad, so why should it be
different for Iraq they say. But they do not know Iraq enough. In the
former Soviet republics, there were clearly definable natural
borders, but there is no such thing in Iraq. When it is forced, there
will be real, full-fledged civil war. And if it starts, all its
neighbors, willingly or not, will be involved. Now we have a new
strategy: securing Baghdad should have priority. And the ambiguities
in the constitution that are causing the problems that lie behind the
violence must be overcome. A Constitution review committee should
finish its work quickly. And on the Kirkuk issue, there should be
normalization and consensus before the referendum on the fate of the
city at the end of this year.
24.02.2007
YAVUZ BAYDAR
Feb 23 2007
FM Gül: EU unaware of its `soft' power
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül reaffirmed his government's
determination to proceed at full speed with European Union membership
reforms, although he complained the bloc did not treat the issue of
Turkish membership with a foresighted approach.
In a meeting with a small group of journalist from France, Germany,
Romania and Turkey, Gül complained that "EU is not aware of its
power" to set into motion positive changes in Turkey. He said he
expected a more constructive rhetoric from EU, rather than a negative
one shaped by "petty, local politics," in Turkish-EU relations.
Implying that the counterproductive rhetoric was seen as "insulting"
the Turks here, he repeatedly said "Unfortunately, there, EU
underestimates its power."
Gül also reaffirmed the government's intent on amending Article
301 of the penal code, which, by bringing a load of cases against
journalists and intellectuals, triggered high tension both
domestically and internationally. "We will change it" he said. "I
advocate a change, Prime Minister believes it must change. In a few
weeks we will change it."
The European Union, as well as critics at home, say Article 301
restricts freedom of expression and pressure the government to change
or abolish it. The government, which has said it was open to
amendments, has been dragging feet, however. It also appears to be
divided on the issue, with some ministers, most notably Justice
Minister Cemil Çiçek, dismissing calls for a prompt amendment to the
law.
Gül has said repeatedly that he favored changes to the Article
301, because it overshadows Turkey's reform efforts and creates a
wrong impression about Turkey, with many people outside Turkey
believing that people end up in jail simply for expressing views. "I
strongly advocate change on this article. The prime minister also
believes in a change," Gül said. "When we changed the Turkish Penal
Code, our intention was to have no problems anymore with freedom of
expression. Expression is free in this country, but there are
problems unfortunately: some prosecutors take action and that irks
the writers and opinion-builders."
Gül, however, did not elaborate on how the internal disagreements
within the government on the issue would be resolved. He also
remained cautious on results of an amendment. "Even after a change we
might expect problems, this is a matter of education" he added,
pointing out to the fact that prosecutors still can file charges on
certain cases on the basis of other articles in the penal code.
Calling the events in 1915 as "tragedy," Gül warned again that a
possible approval in the US Congress of a resolution supporting
Armenian claims of genocide would have serious consequences. "We have
a wide range of cooperation with the Americans" he said. "How can we
explain this sudden decision to the Turks?" On the issue of opening
the border to Armenia, Gül told that Turkey was expecting responses
of good will from Yerevan. He informed also that there were
continuing "talks" with Armenians on diplomatic level but did not
elaborate.
"We are not happy with the status of our relations with Armenia.
But unfortunately we are not given the opportunity to move forward,"
Gül said, complaining of a lack of Armenian steps to reciprocate a
series of Turkish good will gestures.
Where is Turkey regarding the EU membership process?
The last decision (in December, when the EU decided to suspend
negotiations on eight chapters with Turkey) was not good, of course.
We believe that some EU members were worried about the high speed
with which we proceeded and they wanted to slow it down. And for this
they used some pretexts. It is sad and it is my firm conviction that
the EU is not well aware of its soft power. The problem is coming
from within the EU: there is no self-confidence there. Before the
negotiations, almost all the strategic studies showed that Turkey
would not be a burden on the EU; on the contrary, it would be an
asset. But because of a lack of self-confidence on the part of the
EU, we are now where we are. But I also firmly believe that this is
going to change. Now you must know that definitely everything depends
on our performance. We never ask for favors for us (from the EU). The
conditions and rules are clear and we are well aware of what we are
supposed to do. In the negotiations, one chapter has been opened and
closed. We are preparing position papers on four other chapters, one
which was already sent to Brussels. So, we have not slowed down our
speed at all.
Our conclusion is that the EU has some problems and these problems
are not permanent. But we should speed up the process so that when
"the climate" in Europe becomes better Turkey will be in a better
position in terms of preparedness. Our commitment to the reforms is
not just rhetoric. We are well aware of our shortcomings. We will
upgrade our standards on all levels. And we have a clear road map
with a timetable that we -- State Minister Ali Babacan, the chief
negotiator, and I -- have prepared.
Let us delve into the climate in Turkey. The parties seem sharply
divided, with one group demanding further reform and another
demanding no reform at all. Would it be fair to say that the upcoming
general elections will be seen as a referendum on the EU?
I don't want to say "yes" or "no." Although the opposition leaders,
such as Deniz Baykal and Onur Öymen, appear to be against reforms in
their public statements, those who support their parties actually
back the EU process. A similar conclusion holds for the opposition
Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) as well. The dangerous thing is,
mind you, that the EU sometimes is seen as "insulting." The EU
expects positive rhetoric from us, but its rhetoric sometimes becomes
very counterproductive. It is "petty politics" we witness in the EU's
policies, and inter-party politics overshadow this process. The EU is
unaware of its soft power, it underestimates its power. For example,
what goes on in France is petty politics. I am sorry to say this but
I must be frank. France has now decided to hold a referendum on
Turkish membership when the time comes. France has the key. Even if
we complete negotiations with 100-percent success, even if the EU
Commission says that Turkey is ready to join the EU, the French
referendum will still hold key importance. It is possible that
because of just a hundred votes against, our membership may be
rejected. While France has this key in hand, why are French
politicians speaking out against Turkey's membership today? Why do
they try to block negotiations now? You can say "no" in the end and
we would respect it. But we have all the time for that, maybe ten
years later... But why should this be an issue today? This is why I
call it narrow-minded politics, that is unbecoming of the great
French nation. France is a country with which we have great
relations; it is like a window for us toward the West... Yes, our
relations with EU are not easy. But Turkey is a fully legitimate
negotiating country because all the EU leaders decided on that. They
agreed and signed for it. The question is this: Is the EU paying
enough attention to its future? If the EU is to play an important
role in world affairs, I wonder whether the EU is tied up or not?
Free speech is high on the agenda. Will there be any change on
Article 301 soon or is it only rhetoric?
You know that I strongly advocate change on this article. The prime
minister also believes in a change. There are, in my opinion, two
reasons why Article 301 should change. Firstly, when we changed the
Turkish Penal Code, our intention was to have no problems anymore
with freedom of expression. We made it very clear then. It was clear
that we may not like dissenting views but we should allow them. You
see expression is free in this country, but there are problems
unfortunately: some prosecutors take action and that irks writers and
opinion-makers. We are aware of these problems. Secondly, Article
301, as it is, actually overshadows Turkey's reform process. People
outside think that because of 301 you are unable to express yourself
on any issue, they think that a lot of people are in prison! They are
not. But people believe that! So we will change this article, we took
that decision. It will happen soon.
How soon?
In a few weeks' time, it will be changed. But mind you, that it is an
ongoing process. Even if we change it tomorrow, we might still face
problems again. Maybe not with 301, but maybe with other ones. Now
the important thing is the intention of the government and also
public opinion on this matter. But as politicians, we also have to
educate people.
During your recent visit to the US, what did you tell American
officials about the consequences if the Armenian genocide resolution
passes in the Congress?
Look, our relations with the US are very special. Our agendas are
similar. I do not think there are other countries that have the same
agenda as us. We are in cooperation on very many issues: for example
in Afghanistan with our schools, we teach 35,000 students there, our
hospitals have treated 650,000 Afghanis. In Iraq, we give logistics
to coalition forces, we distribute electricity to northern Iraq, 90
percent of gasoline sent to Iraq goes through Turkey. We work on
energy oil pipelines, we are in Lebanon in UNIFIL. And, now, suddenly
you have a resolution against Turkey... Although I do not believe
that it will pass, but suppose that this passes: what will we tell
the Turkish people? Of course, what happened those years, it was sad,
it was a tragedy, in fact. But when you call it "genocide," you have
to find another terminology for the Jews that were killed in Germany
before and during World War II. For the Ottomans it was different. In
World War I, the army was at war, and in fact some Armenians were
given arms by Russians to revolt against the Ottoman Empire and they
started to kill civilians in Anatolia. When all this was happening,
the foreign minister of the Ottoman Empire was an Armenian! And,
Armenians held senior state posts then, churches were functioning in
many parts of the country. If they (Ottoman rulers) had hostile
feelings against their Armenian subjects, why should they wait until
they were at their weakest throughout their history? Hitler acted
only when he was strong. So, these genocide claims offend us. This
was a tragedy, many people lost their lives; Turks, Armenians,
Muslims, non-Muslims... Our offer is, if you are so interested in the
truth, let us open all archives and initiate a committee of
historians. Let's study these events. But unfortunately the Armenian
side is not forthcoming. We ask also the French and the US to join
these efforts.
A recent survey shows that up to 47 percent of Turks are willing to
see open borders and economic, political relations with Armenia.
Would the government act on opening the border?
I understand that. And we are not happy with the status of relations
we have with Armenia. But sadly we are not given opportunity by them
to go forward. We wish this would happen. Now, although we have
closed borders we have direct flights to Yerevan. We also have
Armenian immigrants that work here who send their savings to their
relatives there. These things should be looked at too. We must also
get a positive response for our gestures. But let us not forget
Karabakh: there are two million people - Azeris -- living in
miserable conditions in refugee camps. How can we close our eyes to
this tragedy? We are active in diplomacy, we have met Azerbaijanis
and Armenians before. The world should also pay attention to this
fact.
Are you talking to Armenians now?
Yes. We are. We in fact expect some responses to our proposals.
What is Turkey's position on Iraq. Are there any changes?
Iraq's unity and territorial integrity is of primary importance to
us.
Is it not too late?
No, it is not too late. Partition is not an alternative, neither for
us nor for the Americans. The disintegration of Iraq would be a huge
failure for all of us, everybody. And some now compare partition with
the former Soviet republics. It was not bad, so why should it be
different for Iraq they say. But they do not know Iraq enough. In the
former Soviet republics, there were clearly definable natural
borders, but there is no such thing in Iraq. When it is forced, there
will be real, full-fledged civil war. And if it starts, all its
neighbors, willingly or not, will be involved. Now we have a new
strategy: securing Baghdad should have priority. And the ambiguities
in the constitution that are causing the problems that lie behind the
violence must be overcome. A Constitution review committee should
finish its work quickly. And on the Kirkuk issue, there should be
normalization and consensus before the referendum on the fate of the
city at the end of this year.
24.02.2007
YAVUZ BAYDAR