FM Gül: EU unaware of its ‘soft’ power
24.02.2007
TDN
Interview by YAVUZ BAYDAR ANKARA
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.
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.
Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.
TDN
Interview by YAVUZ BAYDAR ANKARA
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül is embarrassing himself and Turkey in the world opinion. He says about the Armenians genocide "what happened those years, it was sad .....But when you call it "genocide," you have to find another terminology for the Jews that were killed in Germany ... 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."
Since when is Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül expert on genocide? In an Open Letter to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on June 13, 2005 the International Association of Genocide Scholars, said "We represent the major body of scholars who study genocide in North America and Europe. We are concerned that in calling for an impartial study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of the extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian Genocide and how this event conforms to the definition of the United Nations Genocide Convention." Here. Where did 2 million Armenians in Turkey disappear to and only 60,000 of them are left now. Is it because of Turkey's love for Armenians? There are proportionately more Jews left in Germany than Armenians in Turkey. The German Chancellor Angela Merkel after the adoption of the genocide resolution in Germany Here, asked Turkey to examine its history with a critical eye. Turkey came a long way from admitting that no Armenians ever lived in Eastern Turkey to admitting that there was a massacre, it has to go further a step and recognize the genocide of Armenians.
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.
Armenia replied with its own proposal but Turkey only wants to hear agreement to its proposal, in other words capitulation by Armenia. This will not happen. Turkey should get off its imperial past of ordering nations around.
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.
Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.
Labels: Armenia and Turkey, Turkey and EU
posted by Vahe Balabanian at 4:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home