Tweet
Zaman, Turkey
June 20 2005
As We Approach, EU Fades Into Distance
ABDULHAMIT BILICI
06.20.2005 Monday - ISTANBUL 16:21
Europe was a synonym of hope for Turkish people until five months
ago. Now, it resembles Mehlika Sultan the dream darling, who can
never be reached and who gets increasingly blurrier in the fog day by
day.
It all seemed pretty simple before December 17. A date for starting
membership negotiations would have been obtained from the EU and all
troubles would have come to an end. Even if full membership was not
acquired at the end, 10-15 years gained within this perspective would
have been enough to solve both the political and economic problems
Turkey faces; however, it didn't happen that way.
Because, when compared to the previous period, an important change
has occured: From Helsinki Summit in 1999 where Turkey got candidacy
for membership, until the EU summit on 17 December 2004; the focus
was rather on Turkey's capacity to adapt to European standards. Due
to lessons learned in the last 40 years, a few people in Europe had
thought there would be any Turkish government capable of
accomplishing the necessary reforms and completing the homework.
According to some, European leaders had given the green light to
Turkey with the assumption that "It would not accomplish what was
demanded."
In fact, among the problems that had to be solved were issues
regarding military-civilian relations, religious minorities and
Kurds, which were described as taboos, and some as old as the
Republic itself. However, Turkish governments that came to power
within this period disappointed pessimistic Europeans with a super
performance which was even a surprise for themselves. Finally, the EU
Commission reported on October 6 and the heads of state summit on
December 17, 2004 acknowledged that Turkey has fulfilled the
Copenhagen Political Criteria.
In contrast to previous period, what is primarily being discussed now
is whether Europe can shoulder Turkey's membership rather than
whether Turkey can accomplish the necessary reforms. The anti-Turkey
stance has made newspaper headlines in several countries, especially
in Germany and France, which are described as the dynamos of Europe.
One of the important justifications of the French "no sayers" to the
constitution referendum held on May 29, was Turkey, which has also
become one of the most important campaign gimmick for German
opposition leader Angela Merkel.
When all these are added up with Europe backing the so-called
Armenian "genocide" allegations and trying to make it a precondition
for developing relations, broken promises on Cyprus and the European
Court of Human Rights' (ECHR) attitude towards terrorist ring leader
Abdullah Ocalan, it becomes more and more difficult to be optimistic
about the future of the relations.
If all these are true, what should be done against this negative
picture? Getting angry and slamming the door would be the easiest
reaction and the anti-Turkey circles in Europe would prefer the most.
The EU is not a structure one can compare to a state so as to get
angry at it. It is an international body that might say "no" to what
it had said "yes" before, it includes every kind of opposite views
and always evolves.
Besides, as Kemal Dervis underlined during his last speech in Turkish
Parliament, staying outside the EU that includes the Balkans where we
have been part of throughout history, turns the River Meric (Maritza)
into an "iron curtain" for Turkey.
Furthermore, remaining outside would not make those who want to play
the Armenian, Cyprus, Kurdish and Alevi cards to the detriment of
Turkey, give up their plans.
It is almost nonsense to suggest that there is need no for the EU
motivation in order to sustain political and economic reforms in
Turkey.
Besides, contrary to the desires of the conservatives and Turkey's
opponents in Europe, we should not forget the existence of forces
that look warmly to Turkey and demand construction of a more
multicultural Europe.
How can we forget the European parliamentarians who declared their
support for Turkey by waving placards with Turkish flags on the eve
of the EU summit in Brussels? European leaders like Tony Blair,
Silvio Berlusconi and Gerhard Schroeder support Turkey as much as
Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy oppose it.
In addition to those, Turkey's EU adventure has other aims related to
global peace and harmonization of civilizations beyond us and it is
worth exerting maximum effort.
Under these conditions, it seems logical to work for closer relations
with the EU on a perspective of full membership without forgetting
the possibility that this process can become clogged. At the same
time, it is necessary not to neglect other options in order to get
ready for the worst-case scenario.
June 20 2005
As We Approach, EU Fades Into Distance
ABDULHAMIT BILICI
06.20.2005 Monday - ISTANBUL 16:21
Europe was a synonym of hope for Turkish people until five months
ago. Now, it resembles Mehlika Sultan the dream darling, who can
never be reached and who gets increasingly blurrier in the fog day by
day.
It all seemed pretty simple before December 17. A date for starting
membership negotiations would have been obtained from the EU and all
troubles would have come to an end. Even if full membership was not
acquired at the end, 10-15 years gained within this perspective would
have been enough to solve both the political and economic problems
Turkey faces; however, it didn't happen that way.
Because, when compared to the previous period, an important change
has occured: From Helsinki Summit in 1999 where Turkey got candidacy
for membership, until the EU summit on 17 December 2004; the focus
was rather on Turkey's capacity to adapt to European standards. Due
to lessons learned in the last 40 years, a few people in Europe had
thought there would be any Turkish government capable of
accomplishing the necessary reforms and completing the homework.
According to some, European leaders had given the green light to
Turkey with the assumption that "It would not accomplish what was
demanded."
In fact, among the problems that had to be solved were issues
regarding military-civilian relations, religious minorities and
Kurds, which were described as taboos, and some as old as the
Republic itself. However, Turkish governments that came to power
within this period disappointed pessimistic Europeans with a super
performance which was even a surprise for themselves. Finally, the EU
Commission reported on October 6 and the heads of state summit on
December 17, 2004 acknowledged that Turkey has fulfilled the
Copenhagen Political Criteria.
In contrast to previous period, what is primarily being discussed now
is whether Europe can shoulder Turkey's membership rather than
whether Turkey can accomplish the necessary reforms. The anti-Turkey
stance has made newspaper headlines in several countries, especially
in Germany and France, which are described as the dynamos of Europe.
One of the important justifications of the French "no sayers" to the
constitution referendum held on May 29, was Turkey, which has also
become one of the most important campaign gimmick for German
opposition leader Angela Merkel.
When all these are added up with Europe backing the so-called
Armenian "genocide" allegations and trying to make it a precondition
for developing relations, broken promises on Cyprus and the European
Court of Human Rights' (ECHR) attitude towards terrorist ring leader
Abdullah Ocalan, it becomes more and more difficult to be optimistic
about the future of the relations.
If all these are true, what should be done against this negative
picture? Getting angry and slamming the door would be the easiest
reaction and the anti-Turkey circles in Europe would prefer the most.
The EU is not a structure one can compare to a state so as to get
angry at it. It is an international body that might say "no" to what
it had said "yes" before, it includes every kind of opposite views
and always evolves.
Besides, as Kemal Dervis underlined during his last speech in Turkish
Parliament, staying outside the EU that includes the Balkans where we
have been part of throughout history, turns the River Meric (Maritza)
into an "iron curtain" for Turkey.
Furthermore, remaining outside would not make those who want to play
the Armenian, Cyprus, Kurdish and Alevi cards to the detriment of
Turkey, give up their plans.
It is almost nonsense to suggest that there is need no for the EU
motivation in order to sustain political and economic reforms in
Turkey.
Besides, contrary to the desires of the conservatives and Turkey's
opponents in Europe, we should not forget the existence of forces
that look warmly to Turkey and demand construction of a more
multicultural Europe.
How can we forget the European parliamentarians who declared their
support for Turkey by waving placards with Turkish flags on the eve
of the EU summit in Brussels? European leaders like Tony Blair,
Silvio Berlusconi and Gerhard Schroeder support Turkey as much as
Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy oppose it.
In addition to those, Turkey's EU adventure has other aims related to
global peace and harmonization of civilizations beyond us and it is
worth exerting maximum effort.
Under these conditions, it seems logical to work for closer relations
with the EU on a perspective of full membership without forgetting
the possibility that this process can become clogged. At the same
time, it is necessary not to neglect other options in order to get
ready for the worst-case scenario.