Turkey must move fast to avoid EU setbacks

January 4, 2008
Reuters
By Paul Taylor

BRUSSELS: Turkey faces a potential "triple whammy" of blows to its European Union membership bid later this year unless re-elected Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan moves quickly to enact human rights reforms, EU diplomats say.

Ankara's accession talks, launched in October 2005, have already been slowed to a trickle by the suspension of part of the negotiations over its refusal to open its ports and airports to traffic from EU member Cyprus.

Now the Turks face a negative European Commission progress report, renewed pressure from Cyprus, and French demands for the EU to discuss setting final borders, with Turkey on the outside.

"Erdogan needs to push laws through the new parliament on freedom of expression, the rights of religious minorities and other fundamental freedoms quickly to give the Commission something positive to report," a senior EU official said.

Without that, the annual progress report due on Nov. 7 is bound to conclude that reforms have virtually ceased over the last year, he said.

Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn made the point forcefully in congratulating Erdogan on Sunday's landslide general election victory for his Islamist-rooted AK party.

"We need in particular to see concrete results in areas of fundamental freedoms such as freedom of expression and religious freedom," he told a news conference on Monday.

"I trust that the new government in Turkey will immediately relaunch the reform process so we can produce results (before) our next progress report in early November."

Joost Lagendijk, co-chairman of the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Assembly, said the top priority was to amend or abolish article 301 of the Penal Code, used repeatedly to prosecute writers and journalists for "insulting Turkishness".

That law was used to prosecute Nobel prize winning author Orhan Pamuk and to convict Turkish-Armenian editor Hrant Dink, later murdered, for expressing peaceful views on the mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in 1915.

A long-stalled law on religious foundations giving more rights to Christian and other minorities and better treatment to the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch in Istanbul is another priority, Lagendijk said.

Turkish political commentators say Erdogan will face resistance from a nationalist opposition, whose acquiescence he needs to get his candidate for president chosen by parliament. The presidency, though armed with few executive powers, is a potent symbol of secularism for a conservative establishment that suspects Erdogan of harbouring a secret Islamist agenda.

The prime minister must also tread carefully with a military suspicious of his Islamist past and nervous about some EU-driven reforms. The AK party has cut back the generals' formal state powers under these reforms, but they remain a force on the political stage.

Erdogan could win more European goodwill by withdrawing some troops from northern Cyprus, making a concession on trade with Cyprus or opening Turkey's border with Armenia, but such moves seem unlikely as they would inflame nationalist sentiment.

Diplomats said Cyprus and France would likely jump on a critical European Commission report to demand further sanctions against Turkey or a rethink of its candidacy.

That too could provoke a nationalist backlash among Turks.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has repeatedly said Turkey is in Asia Minor, not Europe, and has no place in the EU.

His foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, said on Monday that Paris had a problem with five of the 35 "chapters" or policy areas into which the accession talks are divided, because in French eyes they assumed the outcome of full membership. But it was willing to allow the rest of the negotiations to proceed.

Another senior French official, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, has suggested Sarkozy could be satisfied in December with a summit agreement to appoint a committee to study the future of enlargement and the capacity to absorb new members.

That might kick the problem into touch for a year, but the panel would report back under France's presidency of the EU in the second half of 2008, possibly fuelling Sarkozy's drive to move the goalposts on Turkey's talks.

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.

Armenia backs Turkey in EU

December 12 2007
Financial Times, UK
By Tony Barber in Brussels

Armenia favours Turkey's bid to join the European Union because it might improve the prospects for overcoming the strained relations between Ankara and Yerevan, according to Serzh Sargsyan, Armenia's prime minister.

"I think it would be good for us if Turkey's desire to become a member of the European Union were satisfied," Mr Sargsyan told the Financial Times. "Maybe the problems between us could find a solution within an EU framework."

Turkey has no diplomatic relations with Armenia and closed its borders with its smaller, poorer neighbour in 1993 in solidarity with Azerbaijan, its regional partner. Armenia complains the closure has severely disrupted its foreign trade.

Turkey made its move in response to the capture by Armenian forces of Azerbaijani territory during a war over the predominantly ethnic Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, which lies inside Azerbaijan.

Turkey and Armenia are also at odds over the mass killings of Armenians in 1915 in the Ottoman Empire, an event that Armenia regards as genocide, but which the modern Turkish state refuses to recognise as such.

Mr Sargsyan, 53, who is the early favourite to win Armenia's presidential elections on February 19, said he hoped Turkey would produce proposals for improving ties with Armenia after the vote.

Referring to Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's prime minister, he said: "I don't think it's correct to say he's not committed to establishing relations with Armenia. We'll see what happens in the future."

Mr Sargsyan, describing himself as optimistic that Armenia and Turkey would make progress, asked: "After all, what do we gain, what do the Turks gain, from the present situation? Even in the time of the cold war, when Armenia was part of the Soviet Union and Turkey was in Nato, we used to have a certain relationship with Turkey.

"A railway line was built through Armenia to Turkey. A high-voltage electricity line was built between the two countries. Why should my wish for relations not be logical now?"

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

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.

Armenian PM tells EU: too soon to make Turkey a member

Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:24am EDT
By Dmitry Solovyov

MOSCOW, Sept 25 (Reuters) - Armenia said on Tuesday the European Union would be making a "strange" decision if it admitted Turkey before Ankara had made progress in settling disputes with Yerevan.

Turkey shut its borders with its tiny neighbour Armenia in 1993 in protest at Armenian forces' capture of territory inside Azerbaijan, Ankara's historic Muslim ally, during fighting over the Nagorno-Karabakh region.

The two countries are also at odds over Anakara's refusal to acknowledge as genocide the massacre of large numbers of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey at the start of the last century. Turkey has no diplomatic ties with the former Soviet republic.

"I believe it would be very strange for the Europeans to accept to their family a country which sometimes employs principles running counter to the principles of the European Union," Armenian Prime Minister Serzh Sarksyan said.

But Sarksyan, speaking at a news briefing during a visit to Russia, a close ally, said he believed the EU application would pressure Ankara into changing its stance on the border with Armenia and on diplomatic relations.

"I believe ... the more time passes the harder it gets for them to stick to this position, because Turkey aspires to join the European Union and faces a long negotiation process."

"So the ball is in Turkey's yard, nothing depends on us," said Sarksyan, a close ally of Armenian President Robert Kocharyan. Many observers expect that when Kocharyan steps down next year, Sarksyan will replace him as president.

Armenians and some European nations describe the 1915-17 killings of Armenians, as the Ottoman Empire collapsed, as genocide. Turkey maintains they were part of a partisan conflict in which many Turks, Armenians and other nationalities died.

It is a crime in Turkey to call the killings genocide.

Earlier this year a French parliamentary bill making it a crime to deny the killings were genocide soured relations between Paris and Ankara. Turkey suspended talks on a major gas pipeline with Gaz de France in protest at the bill.

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.

EAFJD: MEP covers up Armenian Genocide issue in Turkey report

12.09.2007
PanARMENIAN.Net

The European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy (EAFJD) is mobilizing Armenians from throughout Europe to seek to reverse a series of serious shortcomings in a draft resolution on Turkey, prepared by Mrs. Oomen-Ruijten (Conservative, Netherlands), for the consideration of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee.

The Committee is set to examine the Oomen-Ruijten resolution on Thursday 13 September. Her measure congratulates Turkey for its past progress and outlines a number of areas in which it has not met European standards. The European Armenian Federation, having reviewed the resolution, has found that it represents a retreat from the 2006 Eurlings report and, in light of it unbalanced presentation of the facts, a clear step back from the more principled positions adopted in reports adopted by the Parliament since 2000.

"We are working with all the democratic forces in the European Parliament to ensure that this resolution will accurately identify Turkey’s failure to meet its own commitments to the European family of nations,” said Hilda Tchoboian, the Chairperson of the European Armenian Federation.

"It is, quite simply, unacceptable for the European Parliament to allow the authors of this flawed measure to seek to minimize, cover-up, or even entirely exclude from their report such vital and pressing issues as the Armenian Genocide, Kurdish rights, and the occupation of Cyprus,” added Tchoboian. “As this matter is taken up in Committee, we call upon our constituent members, friends, and allies across Europe to continue educating their Members of the European Parliament, and other European leaders, about the dangers of passing such an unbalanced resolution.”

The European Armenian Federation is calling upon the leaders of Armenian groups across the continent to coordinate with it the mobilization of the Armenian community.

! Reproduction in full or in part is prohibited without reference to «PanARMENIAN.Net».

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.

'New constitution should be for all of Turkish society' says EP rapporteur

Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Turkish Daily News

CANSU ÇAMLIBEL
BRUSSELS – Turkish Daily News

While discussions on the new Constitution abound among political parties and NGOs, a warning to the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) on the same matter came from the European Parliament through Ria Oomen-Ruijten, the parliament's new rapporteur for Turkey who spoke to the Turkish Daily News Monday.

“I am convinced if a new constitution is coming for Turkey, it will be for all of Turkish society, but I cannot wait until it is finalized,” said Oomen-Ruijten. “If Turkey wants to change its constitution it is fine. But I remember from my own experience at the European Parliament, and also my own country the Netherlands, a real change takes years.” Oomen-Ruijten maintains that safeguards are still needed even though the constitution is about to be amended, and Turkey's commitment in 2004 to enhance reforms and opens its ports to Greek Cypriot vessels are imperative.

Answering a question about secularism in Turkey, Oomen-Ruijten said: “If, in a secular state, a party takes inspiration from religion, it is fine with me. I am a Christian Democrat myself. But I do not take the bible for my daily political work.” The rapporteur also praised the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) for its election victory and Abdullah Gül for becoming Turkey's president.

“This Parliament must clear the tasks which were left over from Turkey's 2004 commitments. Turkey is now a stable democracy. Better representation in Parliament can overcome all the problems Turkey had before.”

A message to the military

Oomen-Ruijten also provided information about her new report on Turkey, to be submitted to the parliament's foreign policy body. In the draft there is neither a reference to the April 27 declaration of the Turkish military nor to the political crisis that followed. The repeated interference of the Turkish Armed Forces in the political process, however, is criticized.

“If I had been the Chief of General Staff in Turkey, the morning after the elections I would not feel comfortable anymore. A big majority voted for the AKP, that is a fact. In a democracy it is the government and mostly the Parliament to decide on military policies. It has to be the same in Turkey.”

Armenian genocide

Finally, Oomen-Ruijten explained the reasons behind omitting Armenian Genocide claims in her draft resolution, unlike her predecessor Camiel Eurlings.

“I did not want to open the old debate. The most important thing is that Turkey has good relations with its neighbors, also with Armenia. Studies show us that the closed borders have huge negative impacts on the economy. In a global world you should have good relations with your neighbors, and while doing that you should also reconcile with the past.”

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.

Military protest against the EU

June 8, 2007
Sabah

When Turkey was not given any right to speak in command, the Special Operation Brigade, under the command of the European Union, was withdrawn.

According to the decision made by the general staff, the special operation brigade will not be sent to any operation coordinated by the EU. A Turkish general communicated the decision to Brussels.

Final opinion on military communicated to the EU

The special operation brigade allocated to the EU operations has been withdrawn from the EU command.

Political relations between the EU and Turkey, who are experiencing a shaky period, has reached a point of fracture. Ankara decided to suspend partially active security relations with the EU, requesting support in operations in every part of the world but not giving Turkey a right to speak in command delivery and management.

Within this framework, for the first time in history, the special operation brigade, including the troops in the operations to be led by the EU has been withdrawn. This final decision of Ankara means Turkey will not send its sensitive brigade to any of the operations to be held under the coordination of the EU.

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.

EU invites Turkey to adopt broader Caucasus policy

May 19, 2007
Turkish Daily News – ANKARA
FULYA ÖZERKAN

Peter Semneby, EU special representative for the South Caucasus, suggests Ankara not narrow the scope of cooperation with the 27-nation bloc in the region due to problems with neighboring Armenia

A senior European Union official has called on Turkey not to limit its Caucasus policy to the problems with neighboring Armenia, saying that the strained ties with Yerevan were narrowing the scope of cooperation between Ankara and the bloc in the region.

“Turkey and the EU have common interests in terms of reform and energy security in the region but this cooperation is limited because of problems between Turkey and Armenia,” Peter Semneby, EU special representative for the South Caucasus, told a conference on Friday at the Middle East Technical University.

He said the problems with Yerevan constrained Ankara's role in the region and narrowed the context of regional cooperation. “I hope this limitation will be removed in time,” he added.

Turkish-Armenian relations dominated the conference on the South Caucasus, with Ambassador Ünal Çeviköz, deputy undersecretary of the Turkish Foreign Ministry, urging third countries including the EU to encourage Armenia to revise its policies with neighbors Turkey and Azerbaijan.

He emphasized that Turkey was keen to normalize ties with Yerevan through a set of confidence-building measures but said they were all unilaterally implemented by Ankara. As an example, he pointed to the rejection by Armenia of the Turkish government's proposal to set up a joint committee of historians to study the allegations of Armenian genocide under the Ottoman Empire.

Asked about last weekend's parliamentary elections in Armenia, Ambassador Çeviköz declined to comment, in apparent reference to Yerevan's refusal to issue visas for Turkish observers, who were tasked with monitoring the elections as part of an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) group.

In comments on the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute, Azerbaijani territory occupied by Armenians, Çeviköz said the conflict influenced the entire region and that a settlement would certainly contribute to Turkish-Armenian ties.

But when asked if normalization of bilateral ties between Ankara and Yerevan would not contribute to the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the ambassador said the problems with Armenia were not limited to the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute.

“We look at the issues from both bilateral and multilateral perspectives. They are all inter-dependent. You cannot separate one issue from another. The problem of Nagorno-Karabakh is not the only problem with Armenia,” he added.

The border gate between Turkey and Armenia has been closed for more than a decade. Turkey closed the gate and severed diplomatic relations with Armenia after Armenian troops occupied Nagorno-Karabakh. Ankara now says normalization of ties depends on Armenian withdrawal from Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as on progress in resolution of a series of bilateral disagreements, including Armenia's discontinuation of support to efforts by the Armenian Diaspora to get international recognition for the alleged genocide.


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.

Turkey’s membership to EU is not problem for Armenia

20.04.2007
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ “Turkey’s membership to the European Union is not a problem for Armenia, even just the opposite. Armenia would benefit most of all if Turkey fulfilled those preconditions that the EU demands. It would mean an open border between Armenia and Turkey, improving protection of the Armenian minority in Turkey and their property, Turkish intellectuals could freely speak about the Armenian Genocide and EU’s borders would approach Armenia. What else we would like to wish?” Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian stated at the interview to Austrian newspaper Der Standart.

He expresses concerns saying that, “It looks like Turkey cannot be transformed,” “Obviously the country moves on the wrong way, after the assassination of Hrant Dink they even did not change the Penal Code article of “insulting Turkishness”. We also fear that the EU in the issue of Turkey’s membership will compromise and will accept a country without waiting for final transformations to take place there. Also we are concerned that the border with Armenia will continue to be closed. Our hope is the European Union. The Copenhagen criteria state that candidate-states must open their borders. Armenia is not mentioned there, instead our neighbor Turkey is mentioned. Ankara must open his borders. The EU must point to it as soon as possible, to improve political and economic situation in our region. We do not have clear answers for the motives of closing the borders. What’s the matter, in Azerbaijan, in Nagorno Karabakh, what else? The fact is that border is closed and it does not have any justification,” Vartan Oskanian underscored.

! Reproduction in full or in part is prohibited without reference to «PanARMENIAN.Net».

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.

Ankara concerned over EU plans for Genocide legislation

26.03.2007
Today's Zaman
By Süleyman Kurt, Murat Aydın Ankara

At the end of this article there is a mention that "He {Daniel Fried} added that such a step would undercut those voices in Turkey which are calling for a "truthful exploration of these events in pursuit of Turkey's reconciliation with its own past and with Armenia." How ironic is this statement in the face of scholars in Turkey not being free to express their views about the genocide of the Armenians. On the contrary, they are being charged, sent to jail and even killed.

A draft resolution drawn up by European Union term president Germany to introduce punishment for denial of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity has raised concerns in Ankara, which fears it could be used to silence debate about Armenian claims of genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Empire.

The draft legislation was an issue in Justice Minister Cemil Çiçek's talks in Berlin last week and is expected to be debated at a Cabinet meeting today. Çiçek will brief members of the government in detail concerning possible unfavorable results of the resolution for Turkey if it is eventually adopted. Germany, which took the helm of the EU presidency as of Jan. 1, has been working on the draft since the end of last year. The draft, which has been supported by the Armenian lobby, would bring up to three years of imprisonment for those who deny "genocides and war crimes committed against humanity." Çiçek, who held talks in Germany last week, discussed the issue with his counterpart, Brigitte Zypries, and expressed Ankara's concerns over the draft.

According to the draft, crimes of racism, xenophobia and denial of genocide will be included in the joint legislation, which is binding for all member countries. If the draft is adopted, any decision by a national court or a national parliament of an EU member country which would make it a crime to deny that Armenians were victims of "genocide" at the hands of the Ottoman Empire, would open the way for imprisonment for dismissing the genocide charges in other EU member countries.

Germany's goal is taking the draft on agenda of a meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Council before July 1 when it hands over the EU presidency to Portugal. In order to have the draft adopted as part of EU legislation, EU members need to reach a consensus. There is already an opposition to the draft within the EU. Britain, Italy and Denmark are against the adoption of the draft, arguing that "it will limit freedom of expression."

Turkey categorically denies charges that Armenians were subject to genocide during World War I, and says that there were deaths on both sides after Armenians took up arms and revolted against the Ottoman Empire. The parliaments of a number of countries have endorsed resolutions recognizing the alleged genocide, causing serious deterioration in ties with Turkey.

The French National Assembly infuriated Turkey last October, by backing a bill making it a crime to deny that Armenians were victims of "genocide" at the hands of the Ottoman Empire, though it is unlikely to become a law due to opposition from the Senate and President Jacques Chirac. Ankara said the legislation would strike a heavy blow to Turkish-French ties and also accused France, one of the EU's founding countries and which is known for championing liberties, of staining freedom of expression with the bill it adopted. Slamming the bill, the Turkish Parliament then released a joint declaration, signed by all parties in Parliament, and said the bill was motivated by calculations of domestic political gain. They said the bill would also harm prospects for the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia. Turkey also illustrated how seriously it takes the issue when it said it would suspend military operations with France after the vote.

Germany's move as the EU term president comes at a time when the public opinion in Turkey is highly concerned over passing of a resolution supporting Armenian claims of genocide by the US Congress as the April 24, anniversary of the alleged genocide approaches closer.

Earlier this month, a senior US State Department official warned Congress against passing the resolution, saying the move could result in Turkey closing the İncirlik air base that is used by the US military. Daniel Fried, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, told a hearing of a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Europe that Turkish officials have informed the US that approval of the resolution could lead to a shutdown of the base or a restriction on US over-flight privileges granted by Turkey. He also said the US has been informed that Ankara would respond with "extreme emotion" if the Armenian resolution were approved. He added that such a step would undercut those voices in Turkey which are calling for a "truthful exploration of these events in pursuit of Turkey's reconciliation with its own past and with Armenia."

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.

EU made up of Christian values, Turkey has no place in it, says far right EU politician

Saturday, March 10, 2007
Turkish Daily News
CANSU ÇAMLIBEL
BRUSSELS

Far right political group “Identity Tradition Sovereignty” was formed in January at the European Parliament, bringing together 20 MPs from seven EU member states. Italian Fascist leader Mussolini's granddaughter Alessandra Mussolini's participation in the group attracted much of the international attention. However, chairman of the group Bruno Gollnisch remains the most controversial figure. Gollnisch, who is also the deputy leader of France's National Front, was condemned and fined by a Lyon tribunal for questioning the legitimacy of the Holocaust, just a day after officially founding his far right group at the European Parliament.

It has been widely discussed by the opposition of Identity Tradition Sovereignty that Mr. Gollnisch exploited fears of Islamic terror and anti-Turkey sentiment rising in Europe to persuade the MPs to join his group. Gollnisch responded to allegations, at an interview in Brussels. “It is absolutely not true that we are anti-Turkish. However it is true that some of our political parties, such as mine, are not in favor of Turkey's EU membership,” Gollnisch explained.

He referred to their understanding of the geographical definition of Europe to justify why Turkey should not be in. “We consider Turkey as a bridge between Europe and Asia, but not as a European country. Just a little part of Turkish territory is in Europe. Turkish is not a European language at all. But on the other hand Turkey has a very strong, ancient identity we all admire. But Turkish identity does not belong to European identity. Turkey is a country of the near east. We want the EU to remain purely European. But this has nothing to do with being enemies with Turkey. As we do not have anything against Morocco, Argentina or Canada, which are not EU members,” Gollnisch said.

The reasons why the far right MPs oppose Turkey's EU membership does not only arise from simple geographical definitions of the old continent. Identity Tradition Sovereignty members consider themselves as the guardians of Christian values. Chairman Bruno Gollnisch picked his words carefully when he was asked whether the European Union should be kept as a Christian club.

“Mostly, Western European civilizations derive from Christianity. This is not the case for Turkey. Our values are very different from Islamic values. It is not only Muslim countries that we do not want in the EU. Buddhist countries and others also do not comply with our identity. Although my wife is a Buddhist from Japan, I would never ever want Japan or China joining our union,” he replied. Gollnisch continued with a metaphor, “If you set up a football association, you do not let the rugby clubs in. This is the logic that lies behind our position.”

As far as the immigration policies are concerned, Identity Tradition Sovereignty offers nothing more than France's controversial Le Pen. Gollnisch, known as the right arm of Le Pen, argued that immigration has become a threat to EU member states' national unity. “If there were 10 million French people living in Turkey. Wouldn't this be a cultural and social problem for Turkey?” he asked. While saying, “We welcome visitors from Turkey,” he implies that we should only be allowed as tourists on French soil.

History belongs to historians:

Recently, Gollnisch has been shuttling between Brussels and Paris more often as he is the master mind behind Le Pen's presidential campaign in France although he is much frustrated about the counter campaigns to kick Le Pen out of the game. Gollnisch complained, “My party leader Mr. Le Pen is being tried to push out of the presidential campaign. We are not even sure that he will be allowed to run for the elections.”

Bruno Gollnisch ends our interview by saying “When I see these restrictions in my own country, I think we have absolutely no lessons to give to your country. Today France is not in a position to give lessons to anyone in the world.” Gollnisch clearly refers to the law concerning the denial of Armenian genocide in his country. As a controversial name who suffered from the denial of Jewish genocide, he rather supports a self-seeking view on Armenian genocide. “I know there had been massacres in Armenia at the time of World War I. And I respect these. But I think Turkish people can not be considered guilty or responsible for that. I respect all the Armenians and Jews who suffered in the past. But I think history belongs to historians,” he said.

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.

FM Gül: EU unaware of its ‘soft’ power

24.02.2007
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.

EP report says Dink’s approach more effective than Armenian diaspora

09.02.2007
Today's Zaman
SELÇUK GÜLTAŞLI BRUSSELS


The European Parliament reiterated its determination to keep up the pressure on Turkey regarding freedom of expression and the Armenian question in a report on slain Turkish journalist of Armenian origin Hrant Dink.

The five-page document, prepared by Joost Lagendijk, co-chairman of the Turkey-EU Joint Parliamentary Commission, and obtained by Today’s Zaman, reports on the funeral and debates in the wake of the Jan. 19 assassination that led to one of the largest demonstrations in İstanbul’s history.

The report was presented to President of the Parliament Hans-Gert Pöttering at the beginning of February. Lagendijk, who attended the funeral and represented the EP, argues that though the killer was caught shortly after the crime, many questions surrounding the murder remain unanswered.

The report praises Dink’s attitude toward the events of 1915 and underlines the fact that he tried to avoid the word “genocide.” The report also says that his approach was more effective than the Armenian diaspora’s way of dealing with history. “Hrant firmly believed that the past can only be addressed and understood where there are prospects of future relations. Armenia’s painful history exercised his mind no less than the Armenian diaspora. But he took a different, and perhaps more effective, approach to the debate on the Armenian genocide of 1915 than is customary in Turkey. In his speeches and writings, he tried to avoid the term ‘genocide.’ He informed his readers and listeners, describing the events of 1915, but left the definition to them and invited them to find the appropriate term.”

The funeral was a historic event for Istanbul, the report argues, and adds that the sheer dimension of the masses who gathered to pay their respects and protest the murder was utterly unexpected.

“The funeral of Hrant Dink turned into one of the largest-ever mass demonstrations in the city of Istanbul. Although it was expected that thousands would come to pay their last respects to Hrant Dink, not even the greatest of optimists could have foreseen the vast sea of more than a hundred thousand people,” stated the report.
Dink was a very well-known figure in the EP, in particular among the Green group. He had attended several conferences organized by the EP. The report strongly calls for continued support to the Turkish-Armenian newspaper Agos, the paper Dink worked at as editor-in-chief, and believes its closing down would be a great loss for Turkey. The report concludes by highlighting the fact that Dink’s murder has put two important issues in the spotlight: freedom of expression and the Armenian question. The report wants to “ensure that these two issues are high on our agenda in the coming months and years.”

The European Parliament officially recognized the Armenian genocide in 1987 and claims Turkey should recognize it for possible EU membership.

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.

Don't miss this window of opportunity

05 February 2007
The New Anatolian
By Ayhan Simsek - Ankara

We are all shocked with the dreadful murder of journalist Hrant Dink and also very much impressed with the thousands of Turks marching in his funeral showing sympathy, EU Term President Germany's Ambassador to The New Anatolian. "Now this can open a new window of opportunity for Turkey and Armenia. I have also said this during a recent dinner of EU ambassadors with Prime Minister Erdogan. This positive momentum should not be missed."

Journalist Hrant Dink, one of the most prominent voices of Turkey's Armenian community, was killed by a gunman last month in Istanbul. His funeral drew some 100,000 mourners on to the streets to protest at the militant nationalism which apparently inspired his killer.

German Ambassador Dr. Eckart Cuntz also participated at the funeral and said that everything there was highly emotional. "Hundreds of thousands of people were on the street to show their solidarity with Dink. They showed that they are against all tendencies of nationalism of any kind. They have demonstrated that they are for freedom of expression and for a better understanding among all Turkish people," Cuntz said.

"Turkey is a big country and of course there are extremists. But the vast majority of the people are looking for a stronger democracy, human rights, freedom of expression and better understanding," German ambassador said and urged the Turkish government to quickly introduce a change in controversial Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code.

Article 301 makes "insulting Turkishness" a crime punishable by up to three years in prison. Journalist Dink, a Turkish-Armenian journalist had been tried and convicted under it and prominent novelist Orhan Pamuk, who also faced prosecution under Article 301, blamed the article for the killing.

"Nowadays we are having growing discussion on Article 301. Even the Turkish government sees that there is an absolute need to at least change the article," Cuntz stressed. "This is very important. I personally think that it is best to get rid of Article 301 as quick as possible."

In an exclusive interview with The New Anatolian, Ambassador Cuntz also responded to questions on Turkey's troubled EU accession talks, Cyprus problem and Kurdish issue. Here is what he had to tell us:

TNA- Public polls show that, ahead of general elections in Turkey late this year, support for Turkey's EU perspective has sharply decreased. Several analysts blame the EU and Turkey skeptic politicians in Europe for alienating Turkish people by irritating statements as well as what is perceived as "double standards" on many issues from Cyprus problem to conditions for full membership. Do you have some concerns for the future of this process?

CUNTZ- Well, certainly in recent opinion pools the image of the EU is not the best one. Maybe the majority of Turkish people still see the objective of joining the EU but the image of the EU is so bad that sometimes people are telling us: "If you use the word EU it will not lead to any motivation." Of course, this is not a good thing. If you want to have the support of the people to join the EU, you need a positive image of the EU. But this cannot be done only by the EU. This is a task of all those who are in favor of the EU process. We also have to work for a better image of Turkey in the EU countries. This goes hand in hand. We also have to make more visible to the Turkish people, what the EU really is. If you look at the very high growth rates of Turkey in the last couple of years and development of trade, you will see that more than 50 percent goes to the EU. As of November last year, 83 percent of investments is coming from EU countries. Economic development in Turkey is very much due to the EU process. When we look at the political developments, I am sure that achievements in terms of democracy and human rights are felt by most of the Turkish citizens.

Many times I hear criticisms saying injustice done to Turkey on the Cyprus question. I don't think that this is true. Cyprus is unfortunately divided. The EU supports the unification of the island and the resumption of UN talks for a comprehensive settlement with the aim of reunification. I think this is the best for the people in the south and north of the island. Economically speaking the south is at the level of richer countries already in the EU. We see the point that one has to do something for the development of the north and the Turkish community in Cyprus. That's why the EU has made available Euro 259 million for the development of the north. And that is not peanuts for a population about 250 thousand. We should also do something to work for direct trade. This is one of the commitments of the German Presidency. We will work to enable the Turkish community to develop its own economic bases. And I would like to also note that there is already considerable tourism from Germany and other EU countries. This is also a movement helping to end the isolation of the Turkish community.

TNA- There is an expectation among Turkey and Turkish Cypriots that efforts to put an end to isolation of Northern Cyprus should include direct flights. Will your initiative also include this?

CUNTZ-I always say that we should not go to such questions which don't have an easy solution. We should better concentrate on the direct trade issue with the Turkish community. Our commitment is to work very hard on direct trade. At this stage it would not be good to raise such questions.

TNA- What do you think the EU and your Presidency can do to revive the talks for a comprehensive settlement on Cyprus?

CUNTZ-First of all, Turkey has always said that the Cyprus question is not a matter for the EU. So we have to be very careful becoming active as the EU. Our prime task is to support what is happening in the framework in the UN and not to make the job itself. We welcome any such efforts. Any move which will lead to rapprochement of the two communities is certainly welcomed. As you know, there are ongoing technical talks. I personally welcomed [Turkish Cypriot leader] M.r. Talat demolishing that bridge. Unfortunately it has not yet led to another gate between south and north but it showed a preparedness to go there. Other than that, we do have now a newly appointed Secretary General who has declared that he is going to work on reaching a comprehensive settlement on Cyprus.

TNA- Turkey currently has a lively discussion on presidential elections, secularism and foreign policy issues where from time to time high ranking military officials are also involved with public statements. Sometimes we are witnessing harsh criticisms by the EU on military's influence in politics, but it is also a widespread assumption that it will take some time for Turkey to fully align with the best practices of the EU countries. What would be your comment on this issue?

CUNTZ- Turkey has a constitution which clearly describes the responsibility of institutions in your country. The constitution describes distribution of the power and checks and balances in your country. So when the EU made the judgment for the opening of accession talks with Turkey, it accepted that this constitution is a democratic one and offers possibility of fully comply with the political criteria of the EU. What is essential for Turkey is that in a democratic country decisions are taken by the bodies according to the constitution which are democratic and legitimate. Having said that, of course all the people can contribute to the political discussions…In Turkey I can see there is a very lively discussion in such matters and I do think it is good to have such discussions. I am confident that Turkey will find ways and means to get the proper answers for these matters.

TNA-Turkish Prime Minister recently said that the year 2007 will be a year of Iraq for Turkish foreign policy. What is the level of cooperation on political level with the EU and Turkey on Iraq and do you have worries that the situation in the neighboring country may have negative impacts to Turkey?

CUNTZ- The developments in Iraq are certainly a concern for all of us. Stability, territorial integrity and unity of Iraq is a common interest among us. Turkey, EU and others should work in the framework of their possibilities to this end. It is our strong interest that the democratically elected government in Baghdad will have full control of the situation in Iraq. Our aim is to closely cooperate with that government. I do understand Turkey's concerns of Kirkuk. And I am convinced that all those who are involved in that matter… they will take knowledge of Turkey's concerns. I see the Turkish government is very active in informing others on Ankara's concerns.

TNA- Turkey expects U.S. and Iraqi governments to eliminate terrorist PKK presence in northern Iraq but so far no serious step came from Washington or Baghdad. On the other hand Turkish officials say a cross-border operation is still an option on the table. We do also know that EU officials so far stressed the need for a socio-economic plan towards the Southeast. What is your assessment for the recent developments on this issue?

CUNTZ- We have always stated that we are standing together in the fight against terror. It is also true for PKK. But fight against terrorism is not just a task for security forces but it is certainly a task for all lines of political society and business life. It is important to economically develop the region and win the hearts of the people. We have to work to diminish regional disparities.

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.

War is going on for the soul of Turkey

Jan 27, 2007
Hamilton Spectator
By Gwynne Dyer
Independant

From their powerful positions in the army, the judiciary and the bureaucracy, 'republican elite' work to undermine the reforms and to wreck Turkey's chances of joining the EU.

When they buried Hrant Dink in Istanbul last Tuesday, more than 100,000 Turks came to his funeral, filling the streets and chanting "We are all Armenians." There is a war going on for the soul of Turkey, but at least a lot of Turks are on the right side.

Dink, who called himself "an Armenian from Turkey and a good Turkish citizen," was murdered because he insisted on talking about the great crime that happened in the country 92 years ago: the mass murder of most of Turkey's Armenian population in eastern Anatolia. The newspaper he founded and edited, a bilingual Turkish-Armenian weekly called Agos, had only a small circulation, but his outspoken editorials had made him one of Turkey's most famous journalists -- and a target for assassination.

His killer, 17-year-old Ogun Samast, was a semi-educated young thug from Trabzon in the far north-east of Anatolia. He was given the gun by a group of older ultra-nationalists including Yusuf Hayal, who was convicted of bombing a McDonald's restaurant in Trabzon in 2004. But these marginal characters are just pawns in the larger war between those who want a more democratic, more tolerant Turkey and those who are desperately defending the power and privileges of the old "republican" elite.

Samast shot Dink from behind in the street in front of his newspaper office. "I feel no remorse," the killer allegedly told investigators. "He said that Turkish blood was dirty blood." Of course, Dink never said any such thing. What he actually said, in a newspaper article addressed to his fellow Armenians, was that their obsession with the massacres of 1915-17 was having "a poisonous effect on your blood."

But it's east to see how a useful idiot like Samast could have believed that Hrant Dink was an enemy of the Turks, because just over a year ago a Turkish court took that phrase out of context, found Dink guilty of "insulting Turkishness", and gave him a six-month suspended sentence under Article 301 of the Criminal Code. A number of other Turkish citizens including Nobel Prize-winning author Orhan Pamuk have been prosecuted under the same law for daring to discuss what happened to the Armenians, and most of them have received death threats too.

It really is a kind of war, and the villains of the piece are precisely the army officers, judges and senior civil servants who were once seen as the guardians of the "republican" tradition, the people who were going to modernize and democratize Turkey. Unfortunately, "republican" doesn't really mean the same as "democratic."

The forms of the Turkish republic were democratic from the start, but for a very long time the reality was a mass of illiterate peasants under the harsh tutelage of a narrow educated elite who were determined to Westernize the country. The "republican" elite rewrote history (including the denial of the Armenian massacres) in order to mould a new Turkish national consciousness, and saw religion as a retrograde force that must be banned from politics.

The decades passed, and much of the elite's dream came to pass. Turkey today has a per-capita income higher than Romania or Bulgaria, the most recent countries to join the European Union. Democracy is a reality, and the current prime minister, Recep Tayyib Erdogan, leads a party whose members openly refer to themselves as "Muslim Democrats." Under Erdogan, there has been a wave of legal and administrative reforms designed to qualify Turkey for EU membership. But all this threatens both the rigidly secular ideology and the autocratic privileges of the old republican elite.

From their powerful positions in the army, the judiciary and the bureaucracy, they work to undermine the reforms and to wreck Turkey's chances of joining the EU. In de facto alliance with ultra-nationalist right-wing parties that also oppose EU membership, they incite hatred of minorities, bring false prosecutions against the advocates of a more open and democratic Turkish society, and pursue the long-term goal of destabilizing the democratic order.

It was they who smuggled the notorious Article 301 into the Criminal Code when it was being reformed to align Turkish law with EU standards, they who brought false prosecutions for "insulting Turkishness" against Hrant Dink, Orhan Pamuk, and other well-known writers, journalists and scholars, they who spread the lies about what Dink had actually said. It is they, not some ignorant, angry teenager, who are really responsible for his death.

But the war is not over yet, and the good guys have not lost. Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul vowed last November to change or abolish Article 301, and last week 100,000 Turks thronged streets of Istanbul to mourn the country's best-known Armenian and condemn his murderers.

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.

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.

Journalist's killing a test for Turkey

Tuesday, January 23, 2007
The Gazette

Turkish authorities moved quickly when Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant Dink was murdered last week. Within a couple of days, police arrested a teenager who has reportedly confessed, and now investigators are trying to learn if "ultra-nationalist" groups were involved.

That's good news. Unfettered police work and full disclosure are the marks of a state ruled by law. It is also encouraging that thousands of Turks joined a spontaneous public march of mourning to the offices of Dink's newspaper Agos. "We are all Hrant Dink," the marchers chanted. "Hrant Dink's murderer is this country's betrayer."

Dink upset his 17-year-old killer by using the word "genocide," and defending others who did so, about the killing of as many as 1.5 million Armenians about 90 years ago during the last days of the Ottoman empire . "Genocide" is now widely accepted around the world - including by this newspaper - as the mot juste. But many in Turkey still deny any attempt at genocide. And the Turkish state, moving well beyond healthy historical skepticism, has made it a crime to "insult Turkishness" by speaking of this genocide.

Hesitating in the doorway to the modern world, Turkey is wrestling with itself about many aspects of its identity, not least acceptance of its own history.

Just this weekend, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who faces elections this year, was accused publicly, by a senior member of his own party, of using too-harsh nationalist rhetoric. By yesterday, Erdogan was saying "the kind of people who did this ... can definitely not call themselves nationalists."

Municipal officials have invited representatives of the Armenian diaspora to come to Dink's funeral, and have warned the government that the world will be watching the funeral for signs of official interest.

And not just the funeral. Especially if this killing proves to have been plotted, the global wave of revulsion against it will, we hope, send a signal to those who govern the country: If Turkey doesn't move forward - starting with genuine free speech and honest acknowledgement of the past - it's doomed to slide back into a more backward and impoverished way of life.

That's the price of "ultra-nationalism."

© The Gazette ( Montreal ) 2007

French Vote on Armenian Genocide Adds To Turkey’s Growing Anti-EU Sentiment

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 2006, pages 30-31
Talking Turkey
By Jon Gorvett

Turkish protesters demonstrating in front of the French consulate in Istanbul Oct. 14 carry signs calling for a boycott of French goods (AFP photo/Bulent Kilic).

WITH THE FRENCH parliament passing in early October a resolution to make denial of the Armenian genocide a crime, the issue of 1915 once again was buried beneath a mass of knee-jerk responses in Turkey.

Protests were held, tricoleur flags were burned. Calls for a boycott of French goods were wheeled out of the nationalist garage, where they had been gathering dust since 2001—the last time the French parliament had intervened in this dispute—and plenty of brave speeches were made.

Yet while the motion in Paris may have been a storm in an electoral teacup likely to be quashed by more sober heads in the Senate and the Presidency—just as it was back in 2001—this time it may not be a case of plus ça change, plus ça la meme chose.

This is because, nowadays, support in Turkey for the European Union—of which France is such an important symbol—has never been more dismal. Illustrative of this was the fact that the resolution was passed just as Turkey was about to be on the receiving end of another annual European Commission report on its progress in EU membership talks. Widespread leaks, and a condemnatory version of the report from the European Parliament, had left little doubt in Turkey that this year’s end-of-term grade would have a definite “could do better” ring to it.

Thus the French vote added to a growing feeling on the Turkish street that the EU spends all of its time attacking Turkey rather than helping it.

Some in Istanbul and Ankara also pointed to the bill as illustrative of a perceived double standard in European attitudes toward free speech.

Only a few weeks before the French vote, Europe had condemned Turkey for putting on trial one of its most respected authors, Elif Safak. She had been accused of “insulting Turkishness” under the controversial Article 30 of the revised Turkish criminal code—the same article used unsuccessfully last December to try to prosecute recent Nobel Prize winner Orhan Pamuk.

At a hearing attended by many European Union representatives anxious to establish their free expression credentials, the Safak case also was dismissed. But, some columnists asked, how come the Europeans condemned Turkey for gagging free speech under Article 30 while at the same time they were busy gagging free speech over the Armenian genocide?

The effect of the French parliament’s decision, therefore, was to create another sense of grievance in Turkey against the Europeans. This also plays to a central part of the Turkish national narrative—that of the persecuted Turks, forced back into Anatolia via massive bouts of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, the Middle East and the Caucasus, as the Ottoman Empire collapsed in the later 19th and early 20th centuries.

Indeed, in this narrative, which continues to be spread at school and beyond in Turkey, the Armenians themselves come as essentially the last straw. Even in Anatolia, the nationalists say, they wanted to push us out—“they,” in this case, being the Armenians, erstwhile citizens of the same Ottoman Empire, who lived in Anatolia and are then portrayed as fifth columnists of the Europeans and the Russians. This allows the nationalists to then claim that it was the Turks, not the Armenians, who were the victims in 1915.

Challenging this view not only has long been highly dangerous for Turks, but has only recently been open to debate at all. Whether the French parliament’s effective closing of the issue to discussion is at all useful in encouraging openness elsewhere remains to be seen, but the French vote was largely seen as a setback by those in Turkey trying to bring the events of 1915 out into the open.

At the same time, it also clearly is a setback for the pro-EU camp in Ankara, which recently has been under fairly constant shellfire over foreign policy in particular, and over the perennial Kurdish issue as well. Joining the barrage with its heavy artillery was the Turkish military, which launched a series of attacks on perceived concessions to the European Union over the nation’s fundamental interests.

The first salvo came at the end of September from the head of the navy, Admiral Yener Karahanoglu, who said that Turkey would never make the concessions being demanded of it on the path to membership. These were widely seen as being over Cyprus—where Turkey is being asked to open its ports and airports to the vessels of EU-member Cyprus, as represented by the Greek Cypriot government.

Indeed, the Cyprus issue duly arose again, like Banquo’s ghost, to rattle its chains over the annual membership accession talks between Turkey and the EU in October. EU Enlargement Commissioner Oli Rehn warned that unless Turkey made a move on opening its ports, a “last window of opportunity on the Cyprus issue in the coming weeks or months for a very long time, perhaps for years” might close.

The other foreign policy issue over which the EU is pushing Turkey is Armenia, with which Turkey is expected to normalize relations. Since the Azerbaijan-Armenian conflict in the early 1990s over Nagorno Karabakh, Turkey has closed its land frontier with Armenia and will not reopen it until there is a settlement between Baku and Yerevan.

Admiral Karahanoglu’s words were then backed up by the head of the army, Gen. Ilker Basbug, who warned of “intentional, patient and systematic attempts” to undermine the achievements of the secular Turkish Republic. This was interpreted as a widening of the attack to target the Turkish government, which with its Islamist past has long been held in deep suspicion by the generals.

Finally, the bunker buster itself was dropped by Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, the new chief of the General Staff and thereby Turkey’s topmost military official, when he spoke out to accuse the EU of having “a hidden agenda” for Turkey.

Given that the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) comes from an Islamist tradition that also has long been hostile to the EU—indeed, it was one of the great achievements of liberals within the AKP to have turned this around after the “soft coup” back in 1997—support for “concessions” has never been high among Turkey’s politicians either.

So, with such a basis of mistrust at the highest levels of both military and government—and a bureaucracy that has a long history of opposition to the kind of reforms EU membership would entail—it is no surprise to find that support in society as a whole for EU membership has plummeted. Recent opinion polls suggest around half the population support membership. Even five years ago, the figure was nearer 80 percent.

Nor is Turkey immune to broader global polarizations that have been underway in recent years. The U.S. also is massively more unpopular in Turkey now than it was before the “War on Terror.” As a Muslim country, Turkey feels the pull of the widespread condemnation of Western actions found elsewhere in the Islamic world.

Given such circumstances, the path toward EU membership has been growing thornier, even as it has seemed to be getting clearer. This contradiction is evidence of the complexity of Turkish attitudes toward Europe—and vice versa—while also perhaps serving as cautionary tale to those who see the world in simpler terms.

Jon Gorvett is a free-lance journalist based in Istanbul.

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.

In Spite Of The Genocide . . .

Friday, December 22, 2006
The Wall Street Journal
By Serge Sarkisian

YEREVAN, Armenia -- Over the past few months, attention in Europe has focused once again on the genocide of the Armenian people. The debate in the European Parliament over whether Turkey's recognition of the genocide should be a precondition for membership in the European Union, and the French National Assembly's bill criminalizing genocide denial, have put the spotlight on this tragic period of Armenia's history.

I want to look to the future and I hope that Turkey's negotiations for EU membership will provide the long-awaited opportunity for our two countries to establish civilized relations for the benefit of our peoples and the region. Armenia is part of the new European Neighborhood Policy and is seeking closer ties with the EU. As the country with the oldest Christian community in the world, we are a neighbor to Europe, but also to Georgia, Azerbaijan, Iran and Turkey.

Turkish-Armenian relations and the genocide are, of course, important factors that need to be considered during Turkey's negotiations for EU membership. It is important to remember the past to ensure that such crimes against humanity are not repeated. Nevertheless, Armenia has a very straightforward and practical position in terms of future relations with Turkey. We would welcome starting normal diplomatic and other relations -- without preconditions. That includes not tying the establishment of diplomatic relations to recognition of the genocide. More importantly, we want to profit from such diplomatic relations as a means to overcome the issues that burden our relations. We cannot expect solutions to come before we start talking to each other. Solutions will only arise when we work hard for them, starting by establishing an open dialogue.

In addition to building diplomatic ties between our two countries, we believe that in negotiating for membership -- and perhaps as a future EU member state -- Turkey will contribute to an economically stronger and more stable neighborhood. This is in the interest of both Turkey and Armenia. EU membership would also make Turkey much more predictable. It is always easier to deal with a predictable neighbor.

Sadly, in the past Turkey's response to Armenia's desire for normal, diplomatic relations has been to punish and threaten those who have recognized the genocide. The breakthrough promised 15 years ago when Ankara announced its recognition of Armenian independence remains unfulfilled. Turkey refused then to establish diplomatic relations with my country -- and refuses to do so to this day. The result is that our bilateral relations are zero. Worse, Turkey maintains closed borders with Armenia despite growing international pressure and condemnation, throws every effort into isolating landlocked Armenia from international and regional transportation projects and does not play a constructive role in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. While these policies contradict contemporary principles of international relations and world order, Armenia does not regard Turkey's potential membership in the EU as a threat to national security. Quite the contrary. We hope it will mean that Turkey will change, and be in a better position to face both its history and future.

The entry negotiations hold seeds of hope that the impasse between Turkey and Armenia can eventually be broken. If Turkey lifts the blockade of its border with Armenia, my small country becomes geopolitically closer to Europe. Armenia already shares a common interest with the EU on a large range of issues ranging from regional security to democratic development.

The statehood that both Armenia and Turkey enjoy is not an apartment. You cannot sell it and leave it. Neither Turks nor Armenians will leave the region. The logical solution is to have normal relations with each other. That's what neighbors seek to do in today's world.

I do not say that Armenia should resolve its relations with Ankara at any price. What I do say is that it is ready to regulate its relations with Turkey without any preconditions. Armenia is committed to doing everything it can to find a way to develop bilateral relations, as much as we are seeking close cooperation with the EU. We look forward to the EU becoming increasingly involved in finding a way to a breakthrough for relations between Turkey and Armenia.

Finally, let me make yet one more appeal to Turkey. We cannot be permanent enemies -- and even if we could, there is no need or sense in being such enemies. So for the sake of our future, let us move forward.

Mr. Sarkisian is Armenia's defense minister.

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.

EU Could Use Armenian Genocide Against Turkey

12.19.2006

By Selcuk Gultasli, Brussels
Monday, December 18, 2006
zaman.com


Intensified efforts to make Turkey recognize an Armenian genocide during World War I have fallen on the European Union and Turkey’s membership process.

The Armenian Revolutionary Federation says Turkey should be made to recognize the genocide before it can become an EU member.

Kiro Manoyan, the director of the organization, said the EU had used Greece and Cyprus against Turkey and the time for Armenia would come as well.

According to the PanArmenian agency, Manoyan said the Armenian issue would eventually become an instrument for the European Union and urged all Armenians to be ready for such a development.

The genocide issue and the Armenian lobby have a significant impact on some EU countries. France and Holland, two countries seemingly against Turkey in the EU, have made the matter an internal one.

A bill making it a crime to deny the existence of an Armenian genocide passed in the French parliament on Oct. 12. The bill awaits approval from the Senate and President Jacques Chirac, through probably will not pass.

On Oct. 22, three Turkish electoral candidates in Holland were removed from their party lists for denying the genocide.

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.

Turkey: Astride Two Worlds, Turks Look To The Future

Monday, December 11, 2006
RFE/RL

By Jeffrey Donovan

Turkey's bid to join the EU is controversial both in Europe and in Turkey

ISTANBUL, December 11, 2006 (RFE/RL) -- Partly in Europe, partly in Asia, Istanbul straddles two worlds.


"So this is Europe," says 68-year-old Istanbul resident Nagme Bas. You see on the other side of the water, that's Asia Minor over there. The Black Sea is about 50 kilometers from here. This is the Bosphorus."

On a recent morning shortly after Pope Benedict XVI returned to Italy after four days in Turkey, Bas was weaving in and out of car traffic on his way to the ferry in Besiktas. The pretty seaside neighborhood, in the European half of Istanbul, is where thousands of residents commute daily on an eight-minute ferry ride between Asia and Europe.

"I think now we have an opportunity where Turkey has been taking steps for almost a century now to become closer and more similar to us," former Italian ambassador Francesco Olivieri says. "And I think Europe has a great opportunity to accept and reciprocate that approach."One can imagine oneself suspended between two continents as one takes the commuter ferry across the Bosphorus to the Uskudar district on the Asian shore.

The Debate In Brussels And In Istanbul

The European Union appears to be growing increasingly negative about Turkey's membership bid. At a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels today -- and a two-day summit of heads of state on December 14-15 -- the European Union is expected to decide whether partially to suspend Turkey's membership negotiations amid a dispute over whether Ankara is moving fast enough to recognize Cyprus in accordance with EU demands.

And in Turkey as well, the debate continues about whether the country's future belongs with Europe.

"To tell the truth, I don't want to join the EU," says Tansu, a young laborer commuting on the Besiktas ferry. "Because it looks to me like the conditions are really demanding. I think instead of joining the EU, we should establish a Turkic union with other Turkic countries or an Islamic union. That would be better for Turkey."

Yener, a fanatical fan of the Istanbul soccer team Fenerbahce, agrees.

"We cannot join the EU" he says. "They won't let us in. We do not want to join, anyway. Fenerbahce is the best!"

But university student Gokcen is more optimistic. She says that with patience and positive steps by Turkey, the country has a great chance of eventually joining the EU.

"Of course, joining the EU would be a very good thing for Turkey," Gokcen says. "Hopefully, there will be improvements gradually. A little time. Sixty percent, with improvements it might be 80 percent, but for now it is 60 percent."

Exiting through the ferry turnstiles in Uskudar, Bas makes no secret of his own desire to see Turkey one day join the EU. But like so many Turks these days, he feels European public opinion, at least for now, has turned against his country, as European governments and politicians throw up obstacles to Turkish membership.

"Personally, it's very difficult," Bas says. "There are big problems. The problems are Armenia, and the Kurds, the Aegean Sea, Cyprus -- they ask something everyday. I mean, day by day, ‘We want something' or ‘You do this.'"

History And Commerce

Off the water and onto the streets of Istanbul, the visitor is struck by two main sensations.

One is the city's cultural and historic richness, with landmarks that are living testimony to Istanbul's place as a historic link between Europe and Asia, such as the Ottoman-era Blue Mosque and the Ayasofya, once the most important church in eastern Christendom.

The other sensation is the strong commercial pulse that beats at the heart of this metropolis of 15 million people. It's a pulse that European markets would love to tap into and is most evident in the sprawling Grand Bazaar, where tourists from around the world shop for handmade carpets, Anatolian mosaics, jewelry, and other treasures.

A park in Istanbul "Price range starts from $100 up to any kind of price," one carpet seller said. "The most expensive rug we have is $120,000 – pure silk, fine quality, 7 by 10 feet [2.3 meters by 3.3 meters]. It's made in Turkey, in a town called Heraclea [the ancient Greek name of today's town of Eregli] about 100 miles [160 kilometers] from Istanbul. Close by."

But despite the widespread use of English, Istanbul has a decidedly non-Western side.

This is Asia, the Muslim world -- a world that some Europeans clearly believe should be kept distinct from their own.

But other Europeans feel just the opposite and argue that Europe is incomplete without Turkey -- albeit that Turkey is geographically in Asia.

A Historic Mission

Francesco Olivieri, a former Italian ambassador to Czechoslovakia and Croatia, says the EU's historic mission has always been to make Europe whole and peaceful. He says that has happened with the EU's incorporation of former nemeses France and Germany.

Now, Olivieri says Europe can resolve its historic conflicts with the former Ottoman Empire, once a leader of the Islamic world, by bringing its secular successor Turkey into the EU.

"If we look at it this way, I think now we have an opportunity where Turkey has been taking steps for almost a century now to become closer and more similar to us," Olivieri says. "And I think Europe has a great opportunity to accept and reciprocate that approach and perhaps bridge that other cleavage that has been the reason for war on both sides of the Mediterranean over some almost 1,400 years."

European leaders this week look likely to partially suspend membership talks with Turkey because of its refusal to trade with or recognize Cyprus. Nonetheless, Turkish leaders say they are far from giving up their European aspirations.

Speaking last week as rumors swirled that negotiations on key membership issues were about to be slowed down or cut off, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said: "Before, they were talking about a 'train wreck' -- there was no train wreck. Now they're just saying the train has slowed.... We'll continue on our way."

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.

Turkish professor suspended for criticizing Ataturk's cult

December 4, 2006
International Herald Tribune
Source:The Associated Press

ANKARA, Turkey: A Turkish university has suspended one of its professors for remarks he made about Turkey's revered founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, an official said Monday.

The case highlighted the European Union candidate country's continuing ambivalence over upholding freedom of speech.

Ankara's Gazi University suspended Prof. Atilla Yayla last week, after the political scientist criticized Ataturk at a conference in the Aegean coastal city of Izmir, an official at the state-run university said on condition of anonymity because of rules that bar civil servants from speaking to reporters without prior authorization.

News reports said the professor was suspended after he referred to the late soldier-statesman as "that man," criticized the statues and pictures of Ataturk that adorn government offices and schools, and said an era of one-party rule under Ataturk had led to "regression rather than progress."

Today in Europe

In Scotland, a revival of Gaelic
Italian emerges as an odd footnote in Litvinenko case
Schröder, in memoir, goes on the offensive
Turkey's EU membership bid looks increasingly troubled over what European officials say is a slowdown in reforms, including in free speech, and on Turkey's refusal to open up its ports and airports to EU member Cyprus. The European Commission recommended last week that the EU freeze negotiations on eight of 35 policy areas in Turkey's membership talks, which started in October 2005.

Ataturk founded secular and Westward-looking Turkey from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire in 1923, after saving the country from invading Western powers. Regulations require that his portraits are hung in government offices and schools, but Turks' affection is so great that many also hang his picture in their homes, shops and offices in respect for the leader.

His allure has endured despite his death in 1938 of cirrhosis of the liver but more and more Turks are questioning his legacy and the rigid way some of his followers — hard-line Kemalists inside the military, the bureaucracy and the judiciary — are interpreting his principles to oppose liberal reforms and change.

"They (the Europeans) will ask us why this man's pictures and statues are everywhere," Yayla reportedly told a group of people from the youth wing of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Islamic-rooted party.

The university's chancellor on Monday defended his decision to temporarily suspend Yayla until an investigation is completed.

A professor "does not have to like Ataturk but I cannot allow a person who is opposed to the Republic's main principles to educate students," Yamac told Vatan newspaper in an interview published Monday.

Yayla's comments have divided the Turkish public. A group of protesters sent Yamac a parcel containing sticky tape over the weekend, so that he may "gag professors." Others petitioned the university saying Yayla should not be allowed to teach.

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.