Turkey, EU on collision

coursePublished: Friday, 21 September, 2007, 01:37 AM Doha Time

ANKARA: Turkey’s ruling AK Party, boosted by a big election win in July, has vowed to speed up plans to join the European Union, but its reluctance to push key reforms may put it on a collision course with Brussels.

The EU says Turkey must tackle article 301 of its penal code that makes it a crime to insult Turkish national identity and state institutions. The article has been used to prosecute writers and scholars, including Nobel Laureate Orhan Pamuk.

But Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s government has instead made clear its top priority is to overhaul Turkey’s military-inspired constitution, even if this means a negative annual progress report from the European Commission in November.

“We are not making our reforms to please Europeans and we will continue to do what is right for Turkey to bring more democracy, prosperity and better living standards,” AK Party deputy leader Egemen Bagis said.

Another senior AK Party official was more explicit.

“301 will not be amended now, the priority is drafting and enacting a new constitution. Then we can address the issues of the penal code that don’t comply with the new constitution, such as 301,” the official said, on condition of anonymity.

This unilateral approach worries Brussels and Turkish pro-EU analysts and human rights campaigners, who say it will strengthen opponents of Ankara’s EU bid such as French President Nicolas Sarkozy and undermine Turkey’s friends in the bloc.
Jean-Christophe Filori, head of the Turkey desk in the European Commission’s enlargement section, said he was concerned that constitutional reform, though welcome, was becoming a substitute for progress in other pressing areas.

“A constitution takes a long time. The Turkish penal code and the (religious) foundations law can be addressed today. The constitutional process shouldn’t become the receptacle for all the reforms needed today,” Filori told a gathering at the European Parliament last week.

Turkey’s parliament, in recess until October 1, could still approve the foundations law before November, but in its current form it falls well short of EU demands concerning restoration of property to the country’s minority Christian community.
Among other demands, Brussels wants Turkey to open its ports to traffic from Cyprus, a country Ankara does not recognise. It also wants Ankara to open its border with Armenia and to reopen a seminary near Istanbul seen as vital to the long-term survival of Turkey’s tiny Greek Orthodox Christian community.

But analysts expect no movement on these sensitive issues, just slow progress on more technical aspects of the EU talks.

“The intentions are good, but we are seeing no action,” said Cengiz Aktar, an EU expert at Istanbul’s Bahcesehir University.

“A group of decision makers in the government is more than happy with the fact that EU negotiations started (in 2005) but they think just keeping the process alive is sufficient to keep foreign capital flowing in ... This is pure brinkmanship.”

Turkey’s economy is booming but remains vulnerable because of its heavy debt load. Turkey will lose some of its lustre if investors sense the EU process is in trouble, analysts say.

Turkey and its defenders say it has plenty of time to meet EU standards because it is not seen joining for many years.

Orhan Kemal Cengiz, head of the Human Rights Agenda Association, said government plans to change the constitution, though worthy, would sap the energy it is able to devote to tackling continued rights abuses such as torture.

The constitutional discussions have already ignited a row between the Islamist-rooted AK Party (AKP) and Turkey’s powerful secular elite over whether to lift a ban on the Muslim headscarf in universities. Secularists suspect the government of trying to erode the separation of state and religion, a claim it denies.

Cengiz said the AK Party’s decision to insist on Abdullah Gul, an ex-Islamist, becoming president would also hurt reforms.

“Electing Gul was a big mistake because the AKP will spend most of its energy fighting the secular state bureaucracy. The AKP has been the most powerful reformist government in Turkey because of its exclusion (by the secular elite). They are now trying to occupy rather than to change the system,” he said.

The AK Party-dominated parliament elected Gul head of state in August over the protests of powerful army generals.

Underlying the AK Party’s cooler stance on the EU is a growing belief that the bloc will never admit Muslim Turkey.

The leaders of France and Germany say Turkey has no place in the EU. Brussels has also failed to lift trade restrictions against Turkish Cypriots, while the internationally recognised Greek Cypriot government threatens to block Turkey’s EU bid.

“The EU could play a very positive role just by saying ‘these are our standards, if you meet them Turkey can join’. Instead we have endless debates about whether Turkey is European at all,” said Cengiz. – Reuters

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-TURKISH RELATIONS WON'T CHANGE IRRESPECTIVE OF FACT WHAT POLITICAL FORCE WILL WIN TURKISH PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

May 25 2007
Noyan Tapan

YEREVAN, MAY 25, NOYAN TAPAN. Expressing any position connected with Turkey-European Union relations is very premature for Armenia: involving Turkey into EU, after all, is an issue to be decided by Europe. Armen Ayvazian, Director of Ararat strategic center, expressed such opinion at the May 25 discussion.

As he affirmed, the forecast of Armenian politicians that becoming EU member, Turkey will change its attitude to Armenia, is wrong. A. Ayvazian said that if even that country becomes a member of European family, which, in political scientist's words, is improbable, it will use all possibilities given to it within the framework of that union to exert greater pressure upon Armenia.

Touching upon the elections to be held in summer in Turkey, A. Ayvazian said that irrespective of the fact whether the Islamists or secular political forces will win the elections, Armenian-Turkish relations will not change.

Ruben Safrastian, Director of Institute of Oriental Studies of National Academy of Sciences, reminded that as early as before the previous elections the representatives of Justice and Development Party made sensational statements that in case of coming to power they will cooperate with Armenia purely from considerations of economic contacts. Their promises of the kind, naturally, were not fulfilled.

Nobel Winner Pamuk Said To Live in Fear

February 14, 2007
The New York Sun
By DAMIEN MCELROY
The Daily Telegraph

LONDON — The Turkish novelist and Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk is living in exile in America and is believed to be in fear for his life.

Amid a climate of intimidation that has seen the prosecution and even murder of dissident intellectuals throwing into doubt Turkey's aspiration to the join the European Union, Mr. Pamuk, 54, who is living in New York, is said to have told friends he has set no deadline for his return. Instead, according to the prominent Istanbul columnist, Fatih Altayli, the writer has quietly gone into exile.

"What I was told was more than mere rumor," said Mr. Altayli. "Pamuk recently withdrew $400,000 from his bank account and said he would leave Turkey and would not be returning to his country any time soon."

Following the murder of an ethnic Armenian journalist, Hrant Dink, last month, Mr. Pamuk expressed fears for his own safety. The writer enraged Turkish nationalists by acknowledging that under the Ottoman Empire, Turks had triggered the genocide of 1 million Armenians nearly a century ago.

Such is the sensitivity of Mr. Pamuk's position, his agent and others close to the novelist have declined invitations to comment publicly on Mr. Altayli's allegation.

During the 1990s, Mr. Pamuk, whose novels includes "Cevdet Bey and His Sons" and "The Black Book," began to write candidly about human rights issues and free speech in Turkey. The country's authorities vociferously campaign against any suggestion that the state has inherited responsibility for the unacknowledged massacre of Armenians.

In an interview with a Swiss newspaper last year, Mr. Pamuk said: "One million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds were killed in these lands, but no one but me dares talk about it."

Two weeks ago, Mr. Pamuk abruptly canceled a speaking tour of Germany, fearing that his engagements would expose him to hostile elements within the Turkish immigrant community. Yasin Hayal, a nationalist charged with incitement to murder Mr. Dink, made what appeared to be a threat against Mr. Pamuk. He said, "Orhan Pamuk, be careful."

With its candidacy to join the EU already troubled by suspicion of its Islamic government and the treatment of its Kurdish minority, Turkey would be dealt a further blow if its most prominent writer decided he was no longer safe in his homeland.

The damage would be compounded because Mr. Pamuk is the foremost chronicler of Istanbul as the meeting point of Europe and Asia.

In meetings with Western leaders, Turkey's foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, has moved to address concerns that the law granted a veneer of legitimacy to the shadowy figures who were threatening its liberal intellectuals.

He has promised reforms of an ambiguous law that allows nationalists to demand punishment for those they accuse of insulting the Turkish nation.

Mr. Gul confessed that Turkey's standing had been damaged by Mr. Dink's murder and the threat to Mr. Pamuk.

"People outside Turkey think you can be thrown into jail for opening your mouth," he said.

"They think there are hundreds of journalists and intellectuals in jail. This is all false."

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 little problem of genocide

International Intel
Hamza Khan
Issue date: 2/13/07 Section: Opinion
The Brock Press

It's funny how history can catch up with you.

While the old maxim of "those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it" is well known amongst people, and hopefully our policymakers as well, we find in the modern political world a real ignorance of this truth. In Iraq, the Americans are getting a first-hand refresher course of their Vietnam days. The Lebanese are seeing flashbacks of the '80s. Pakistan has been stuck in its own sad loop of corruption and military government for years now, as has its former branch Bangladesh.

Yet for one country, the history that they have been trying to forget has caught up with them at perhaps the worst possible moment. Turkey, the Muslim nation of about 70 million in Asia Minor, has been trying to become a member of the European Union (EU) for several years now. Yet it has faced many obstacles on its road to membership.

Key talking points include the issue of the massacres of ethnic Armenians during World War I. While many countries, including Canada, have recognized these massacres as genocide, the Turkish government has tried desperately hard to bury this chapter of its history. However, it is precisely this issue, along with the Cyprus question, that has emerged and been thrust into the spotlight as EU negotiations take place.
To this day however, more than 90 years after the genocide began, there is still a great deal of controversy. Historians continue to debate just what happened all those years ago in what was then the Ottoman Empire. While both sides acknowledge that hundreds of thousands of Armenians and Kurds were killed, skeptics say that the deaths were the result of inter-ethnic fighting and famine.

Turkish authorities also insist that the deaths were partly due to the notion that Armenian volunteers were aiding the Russians, against whom the Ottoman Empire was fighting, and that they were caught up in the fighting. The French nevertheless, have taken the bold move of trying to outlaw anyone who denies the Armenian genocide.

The deniers and skeptics' major error comes though when faced with countless eyewitness accounts and the memories seared into the survivors' minds. Journalist/author Robert Fisk of the Independent wrote in his book The Great War For Civilisation that the Armenian genocide was "the First Holocaust".

The similarities between these two seminal events in early 20th century history are disturbing. The Ottoman Empire organized mass deportation campaigns against the Armenian people. For a large number of these deportees, they established camps, which invariably became death camps.

On April 24, 1915, the government rounded up hundreds of Armenian scholars and intellectuals. All manners of killing methods were implemented, such as the usual starvation and shootings, as well as burnings and injections of morphine. Though figures vary, the usual number touted by the Armenians is that by the end of it 1.5 million people had died.

Laws have been enacted in Turkey to ban the "denigration of Turkishness", merely an underhanded way of curtailing freedom of speech concerning the genocide. Article 301 in particular of the Turkish Penal Code has been used to muzzle attempts by university professors and others to reveal the full extent of the atrocities. Yet as the country strives for EU membership, it has been forced to soften these restraints and inevitably face its history.

Another factor in this struggle are the suspicions of many that resistance to Turkey's membership comes not from its inglorious past (Germany and Italy are both full-fledged members) but its Muslim identity. The addition of such a large, non-Christian EU member would most certainly take the balance of power away from the classical western Europe members. Yet this hardly excuses Turkey from coming to terms with the actions of its predecessors.

The mere apology and acknowledgement of the genocide would mean the start of a new day for the Armenian people and go a long way towards making a case for membership. History can be buried, and it is written by the victors, but victims carry long memories. Before we can progress from the conflicts of these times, we must try to remember the past, and learn from it.

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.

With or without EU, Turkey is rising

December 11, 2006 edition
Christian Science Monitor

EU leaders meet this week to decide whether to freeze partially the entry bid of an increasingly self-confident Turkey.

By Yigal Schleifer
Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

ISTANBUL, TURKEY – Like a game of high-stakes chicken set on the global stage, Turkey and the European Union have been locked in a tense standoff ahead of this week's deadline for Turkey to open its ports to Cypriot vessels or face consequences.

In a last-minute bid Thursday, the Muslim country looking to join the EU offered to provisionally open one port and one airport. But Brussels has deemed the concession insufficient and EU leaders appear likely to decide at a summit later this week to partially suspend talks on Turkey's membership.

As EU foreign ministers meet Monday to discuss the issue, some observers - particularly in Europe - see Turkey's stance as self-defeating obstinancy. But others say it is in fact fueled by a greater sense of self-confidence, the result of a surging economy and an increased sense of its own growing strategic importance, which may dampen the effects of any rupture with the EU.

"For the first time in my career I am seeing a Turkey that is quite calm and confident of itself," says Kemal Kirisci, director of the European Studies Institute at Istanbul's Bogazici University. "There is an element of confidence that is beginning to permeate the Turkish economy, and a bit of politics as well, and I see this confidence starting to permeate the Turkish foreign ministry. This is very healthy for Turkey and for the European Union."

Economically, Turkey has never been more part of Europe. Some of Europe's most venerable brands, from Bosch to Fiat and Renault, are today being manufactured in Turkey, which has grown to become the largest exporter of televisions to Europe.

But the continent's interests in Turkey may lie beyond the marketplace, experts say. With its strategic location between Europe and Asia, Turkey can act as a key conduit for delivering important goods to Europe, from Central Asian oil and natural gas to greater political influence in the Middle East. In addition, Turkey's young population could ultimately boost the productivity of a graying European population.

Mired in a deep financial crisis only a few years ago, Turkey's economy has been growing at a rate of some 7 percent for the last three years, while its formerly triple-digit inflation has been tamed to a manageable 10 percent. If it were to join the EU right now, Turkey would be the sixth-largest economy in the 25-member organization.

"Both in finance and trade, Turkey is already a big part of Europe," says Murat Yucer, an economic analyst in Istanbul. "Turkey is a big market. Ultimately, it's a solid growth story."

All of this has been attracting an increasing number of European investors, despite tensions between EU countries and Turkey.

Analysts point out that during a recent political crisis between Turkey and France over the French lower house of parliament's approval of a bill that would make it a crime to deny that the mass killings of Armenians by the Ottomans were a genocide, French businessmen worked hard to distance themselves from the legislators' actions.

"[European business leaders] see Turkey as a very interesting and growing market that has a lot of opportunities," says Felix Howald, Europe director for the World Economic Forum (WEF), a Geneva-based organization that brings together leaders from business and politics.

A WEF report issued ahead of a recent high-level summit in Istanbul stated: "Turkey is perceived by many as a source of risk to Europe; it may be just the opposite, a potential source of major risk mitigation."

"Europe needs to look at Turkey in the context of the wider global risks facing it in the future."

Reacting to the possibility of the EU negotiations being partially frozen and of Turkey being forced to abandon the negotiating table, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Europe would be making a "dreadful mistake."

"Europe, not Turkey, would stand to lose," he said this week, adding that Turkey would still continue to pursue its membership goal, although it has a Plan B and C.

Mr. Erdogan didn't specify what those other plans are, but observers in Turkey believe Ankara can't afford to cast aside its engagement with Europe, no matter how rocky the relations.

Hugh Pope, an independent analyst based in Istanbul, says that even Turkey's growing involvement in the Middle East - often seen as laying the groundwork for an EU alternative - is predicated on the perception that predominantly Muslim Turkey is on the path to joining the European big leagues.

"The relationship is really important for Turkey's power. Even if it's not going anywhere, it needs to be seen as going somewhere," says Mr. Pope. "Turkey has always got to maintain the illusion that the European process is in motion. It will never repudiate Europe."

But Bahar Rumelili, an expert on Turkey-EU relations at Istanbul's Koc University, says the negotiations are as important for Brussels' image.

"For the EU, a healthy relationship with Turkey conveys the image of the EU as an inclusive organization and an international actor that is able to promote change and reform," she says. "There is a growing realization from the European side that to alienate Turkey would be a big mistake. It would damage a major part of the EU's image as an international actor."

The forces of public opinion and political expediency might still get in the way, however, with European politicians certainly giving the impression that they are happy to alienate Turkey.

French conservative presidential hopeful Nicholas Sarkozy kicked off his candidacy by declaring that "Turkey's place is not in the EU." German chancellor Angela Merkel has also made clear her desire to deny Turkey full membership. In that sense, some say a cooling-off period between Turkey and the EU might be a positive thing, particularly with public opinion in some European countries decidedly against Turkey's membership.

"I think a pause is absolutely vital at this moment because the European public is up in arms," says Pope.

"I think that Europe has to catch up with itself."

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 pulls the rug on Turkish talks over refusal to lift Cyprus blockade

November 30, 2006
The Times

By David Charter and Suna Erdem in Istanbul

Negotiations on eight issues halted

Blair denounces 'serious mistake' Video: Has Turkey's EU admission stalled?

Turkey reacted furiously yesterday to the proposed suspension of a large section of its talks on joining the EU as a punishment for its refusal to open trade with Cyprus.

Eight of 34 areas of negotiation will be frozen under the European Commission’s plan until Ankara fulfils an agreement signed last year to open its ports to Cyprus, an EU member that it does not recognise.

The Commission’s move was criticised by Britain, Sweden and Spain, but — in a sign of the faultlines within the Community over Turkish accession — was applauded by France and Germany.

Turkey itself was defiant, insisting that it was not prepared to make any further concessions. “We have set out the framework [for progress on Cyprus],” Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, said. “If they are approaching the issue with the idea that they might grab a new concession, then we have no concession to make.”

He was referring to earlier statements that Turkey would open its ports only if the EU made good a pledge to end the economic isolation of the breakaway Turkish enclave of northern Cyprus. Nicosia has blocked any such relaxation.

Ankara is unlikely to make any move on Cyprus until after elections next year; an increasingly nationalistic public is likely to punish any sign of weakening on what is a pet issue for hardliners.

In spite of the blow to negotiations, Mr Erdogan said that Turkey would continue to make progress towards membership. “This is a long road — previously the date mentioned [for accession] was 2014. In the meantime we will continue talking and working on the remaining chapters and continue on our way just as before.”

Britain backed Turkey, describing the Commission’s position as “disappointingly tough” and voicing concerns that it could fuel anti-European sentiment and drive the country away from the EU.

Tony Blair said that the EU’s proposal was a “serious mistake”, while José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the Spanish Prime Minister, urged EU leaders to keep the door open to Ankara. Mr Blair’s concerns were shared by Carl Bildt, the Swedish Foreign Minister, who spoke of a possible calamity if EU leaders followed the tough Commission line next month. “If you put the brakes on too hard there is a risk of the collateral damage being very extensive,” he said. “If it comes to a standstill, we are talking about a strategic calamity for the EU in a rather volatile, sensitive part of our neighbourhood.”

But Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, who takes over the rotating EU presidency on January 1, approvingly called the proposal a strong signal and President Chirac, a powerful opponent of Turkish membership, insisted that the EU “had no other choice”.

The furore ensures that another row over Turkey will dominate the EU heads of government summit on December 15, which will take the final decision on the sanctions after they are considered by foreign ministers earlier that week.

As part of the punishment, talks on other areas of the accession process could be opened but will not be able to be signed off until Turkey resolves its blockade of Cypriot vessels, Olli Rehn, the Enlargement Commissioner, said. He added that Turkey could score a “golden goal” before the foreign ministers’ meeting.

Christodoulos Pashiardis, a Cypriot Government spokesman, said that freezing some aspects of the talks while allowing discussions on other areas was not a punishment.

Sticking points

Cyprus Turkey does not recognise the southern part of the divided island

Armenian genocide the Government will not acknowledge Turkey’s role in the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Armenians between 1915 and 1917

Article 301/1 states that “public denigration of Turkishness shall be punishable by imprisonment”. It was used to bring charges against the writer Orhan Pamuk, who acknowledged the Armenian genocide

The Kurds the minority group continues to be persecuted, with prosecutions brought against Kurds who use their language in public life. Only Turkish can be taught as a first language in schools

Clash of civilisations the predominantly Muslim culture has attracted accusations that Turkey lacks European credentials. France’s Interior Minister says that Turkey “has no place in Europe”

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.

It is quite different now

25 novembre 2006
European Turkey
By Gündüz Aktan
Source : Turkish Daily News, 18-11-2006

Former high-level diplomat, Gündüz Aktan is one of the best informed and deeply thinking intellectuals of the nationalist and conservatist wing in Turkish politics. Fiercely opposed to any Armenian "allegations" regarding the matter of genocide, he is also able to play the game of a debate that has been recently opened within the Turkish society on historical matters. Although his positions does not always fit well with Turquie Européenne’s ones, it seemed us interesting to publish Gündüz Aktan so as to underline the nature of the debate in Turkey today and the ability of the "enlightened" conservatist wing to tackle the very matter of history, in spite of a strong inclination to denial.

On Tuesday Nov. 14, during debates on the Foreign Ministry draft budget at Parliament’s Budget-Plan Committee, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül said Turkey would take the judicial path to solution of the Armenian issue. Then Şükrü Elekdağ of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) suggested arbitration and Mr. Gül responded by saying that arbitration too could be considered. Thus a bipartisan consensus was achieved on a highly important foreign policy issue. To put it differently, the compromise that had been reached when the prime minister had suggested a commission of Turkish and Armenian historians was confirmed on this occasion by an all the more critical step.

Article 33 of the U.N. Charter specifies the methods to be used for the peaceful resolution of international conflicts. By agreeing to have the Armenian issue resolved through arbitration or adjudication, Turkey has accepted all the methods cited in that article.

The Armenian side and those individuals and organizations in the West that support them are not suggesting paths of peaceful resolution. They are convinced that the Armenian incidents were genocide. They expect Turkey to acknowledge this “fact,” engage in an exercise of memory and face up to its past. A judicial process would require both sides to strain to stretch their capacity to remember. It would also provide a chance to go through the history of the event in a hairsplitting manner.

However, this is not the only reason for Turkey to opt for the judicial path. The fact that Turkey is rejecting the genocide allegations attests to the presence of a conflict. Conflicts can only be resolved via peaceful means, and taking the legal path is one of them. On the other hand, the substance of this particular conflict pertains to law. For this reason there is no way other than the judicial path to resolve it.

Genocide is a word denoting a specific category of crime. Crimes are defined by law. The U.N. Genocide Convention of 1948 defines the crime of genocide in Article 2. According to Article 6 of the convention, only a competent court can decide whether the crime of genocide has been committed or not. In other words, legislative or executive bodies are not authorized to pass judgment on this issue. Yet the Armenians base their genocide allegations not only on made-to-order books they have elicited from certain “historians” but also on genocide resolutions they have obtained from legislative bodies in 18 countries and statements made by certain political figures.

In reality, the plaintiff itself, Armenia, should have taken the judicial path. It should have sought our permission for retroactive application of the 1948 convention so that it could be applied to the 1915-1916 incidents. Yet Armenia has consistently avoided that. The Armenian diaspora has been lavishly spending money to promote the genocide allegations. It would be unthinkable for them not to have consulted the best jurists in the world. Yet they have always preferred to limit their activities to the realm of propaganda. Obviously they must have received advice from those experts to the effect that the judicial path would not be “auspicious” for the Armenians.

However, the time has come for their ship to run aground. They will either travel the judicial path together with us or their allegations will lose all credibility.

Naturally they are likely to stick to their traditional path for some more time but each time they repeat their allegations the answer they will get will be, “Come and meet us in court.” If they happen to say, “But we have already taken this issue before the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ),” the Turkish side will remind them that the ICTJ is merely a nongovernmental organization, specializing in South Africa’s reconciliation process, and not a judicial body. The Turkish side will point out that the identity of the “bright” lawyer that drafted the ICTJ paper without discussing this issue with anyone has been kept secret. Turkey will also say, “If that is all you are putting forth as a thesis we see better now why you have avoided court action on this issue all these years.”

Then one day they will come to court. And they will regret it. They will see how the century’s greatest baloney will evaporate. It is more probable than not that they will in fact end up as the side that “owes” Turkey something. Armenian gangs killed over 500,000 Turks. We have the names, addresses, ages and sexes of the victims.

The Russian archives will be another source of evidence. Having discerned that possibility, the Armenian side is already launching an intimidation campaign, claiming that the Russians were the Turks’ accomplices in the Armenian “genocide.”

Meanwhile, we will seek access to the archives the Patriarchate moved to Jerusalem, the archives of the Dashnaks in Boston and Armenia’s official archives. Naturally we will demand verification of the authenticity of the relevant documents by a committee of international experts.

In fact, Armenia does not have to be invited to court, since that would further upset the Armenian people, who are already feeling victimized. Instead, we could invite France to court for having acknowledged the “genocide” by passing a law to this effect, or the United States if the U.S. Congress passes a similar resolution.

Going to court is a risky business in any case. One can never know what kind of conclusion the court will reach. For this reason we should congratulate Mr. Gül and the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government for courageously taking political responsibility for such a step, and do our best to prepare an impeccable file for this greatest of all court cases.

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.

Halt this malicious EU process

tr22 November 2006 '
The New Anatolian
Hasan Unal
hasanu@bilkent.edu.tr

The latest polls strongly suggest that the Turkish people are now vehemently opposed, either to the European Union accession process currently underway, or the EU membership of Turkey altogether. Obviously, the whole project has gone down the drain. According to most EU enthusiasts, some years back, a large majority of the people was in support of EU membership. Their polls indicated that public support for the EU membership stood at about 70 to 82 percent for years. Over the last few years, however, this support has eroded, trickling down to 30 percent, at most. And, should the question be asked more specifically, with a view to finding out the public mood as to whether or not the people would condone any major concession on Cyprus or Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)-related matters in return for the continuation of the EU process, the nays are almost one hundred percent.

Now, the EU authorities, Turkey's useless Euro-enthusiasts, who go to, say, London, Paris or Brussels and gasp with admiration for Europe, and who in an exaggerated way talk about European prosperity, as well as the Turkish chattering classes, are not sanguine about the process. They are all shocked. What's gone wrong? The answer is clear: The Turkish public was inclined to view the EU and the EU process in a positive way initially. Should EU membership be attainable, and should this process produce investment, new jobs and a better economic climate, why not? And the chattering classes presented the EU as the only answer to all the ills of the economy.

They would say, look at the Greeks, the Portuguese and the Spaniards; they have sucked all the goodies from the German cornucopia. We should follow the same path: We'll lead a wonderful life, as the Europeans will shower us in money. All we need to do is to bring our democracy in line with Europe, apply human rights, curb the military's power in politics and protect existing minorities.

But, as the process got underway, the people realized that the EU honeypot was already empty, and that there would come no proper EU investment into the country, creating new jobs etc., apart from those who only come to buy the most profitable Turkish companies, and the people also realized that the incumbent government was using this process to restructure Turkey in the most undesirable way, and that, should the process be allowed to continue unchecked, the country would not be necessarily a Europeanized Turkey.

Meanwhile, the Pandora's box opened and all the unacceptable dictates of Europe spilled over the desk. As the latest progress report on Turkey, which the EU Commission released on Nov. 8, demonstrates in a strongly worded fashion, Turkey should implement the Additional Protocol in full, opening its ports and airports to Greek Cypriot shipping and civil aviation. As a result, this would cripple the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) economically, politically, diplomatically and psychologically. And Turkey should "normalize" its relations with all the members of the EU, including what the EU calls unjustly the "Republic of Cyprus" into the bargain.

This is not the only trouble. The report dwelt upon the Aegean dispute and the necessity to resolve it in a way satisfactory to the Greeks. The Armenian genocide claims together with the demand that Turkey should open its border gate to Armenia are inserted in all the European Parliament's resolutions on Turkey, and Ankara was forced to make good on these resolutions as part of the Negotiating Framework Document. And evidently, the demands about sharing the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates are creeping up.

Internal demands are not any less onerous. We should immediately set about creating new minorities in addition to those already recognized by Turkey. A new framework on the basis of ethnicity, linguistic and racial differences should be adopted, paving the way for the creation of Kurdish and Alevi minorities and, perhaps, many others. This can hardly be considered a benign demand, because the Copenhagen criteria talk about the protection of existing minorities, not about the creation of new ones. Should this request be complied with, Turkey would find itself in an ethnic inferno. EU demands on civil-military relations are flimsy and inconclusive, while the part about religious freedoms is full of Christian biases of a Medieval kind.

A close examination of all these reports of the last few years, as well as EU Presidential Conclusion of Dec. 17, 2004 and the Negotiating Framework Document of Oct. 5, 2005, and the comparison of these with those of the newly member states and the ones currently negotiating with the EU, would indicate that the EU has had no intention whatsoever to let Turkey in. Instead of citing fundamental questions in the way of Turkish membership, however, it comes up with excuses and unacceptable demands, trying to push Ankara out of the process of its own choice.

It is clear that this is not a benign process that could continue for years but instead a very malicious one. And if it persists, it could derail Turkey's modernization and destroy its links to the West, given that the anti-Western winds are blowing very strongly among the people. The ruling Justice and Development (AK) Party government started out this process in order to what they call "restructure" Turkey in their own way, and the EU tried all its tactics to wrench major concessions out of Turkey. The "liberal" ideas have been exhausted with no avail.

Now is the time for people of courage, determination and broad-mindedness. Let's not wreck the ship by insisting on what is not achievable, i.e. full membership of Turkey. Let's conclude a special status with flesh and bones on it that would replace the Customs Union, while keeping trade and economic relations going. But first and foremost, halt this malicious process!


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 knot – Trip poses daunting, interlocking tests for Pope Benedict

11/21/2006
National Catholic Reporter (www.ncronline.org)
By John L. Allen Jr.

ROME (National Catholic Reporter) – When Pope Benedict XVI travels to Turkey Nov. 28-Dec. 1, he faces a series of challenges that, like concentric circles, become larger and more daunting as they’re arranged around one another. Coupled with the intense media attention the trip is certain to draw – more than 2,000 journalists are expected to follow the pope on his first visit to a majority Muslim state – these complexities make Turkey the trickiest high-wire act of his pontificate to date.

Benedict is scheduled to make stops in Ankara, Ephesus and Istanbul. Among the conundrums awaiting him:

- How to reassure Muslims that he’s a friend of Islam, especially in the wake of his controversial Sept. 12 comments at the University of Regensburg, quoting a 14th-century Byzantine emperor to the effect that Muhammad brought things “only evil and inhuman”? Benedict won’t have to wait long; on the first day of the trip, he meets Ali Bardakoglu, Turkey’s top religious affairs director, who called the Regensburg remarks “regrettable and worrying ... both for the Christian world and for the common peace of humanity.”

- How to encourage moderate Muslim voices in Turkey, a country often seen as the best hope for dialogue with the Islamic world, without inadvertently reinforcing either of two contrary forces: on the one hand, a rising tide of Islamic fundamentalism sometimes linked to nostalgia for the Ottoman Empire; and on the other, the rigid secularization associated with the modern founder of Turkey, Kemal Atatürk, who attempted to suppress virtually every public expression of Islam?

- What, if anything, to say about the dire situation facing Turkey’s small Christian communities, such as the forced closure of the seminaries of the patriarchate of Constantinople and the Armenian Orthodox church? If the pope is perceived as confrontational, it could further sour relations with Muslims, especially given the bitter history in Turkey of foreign powers demanding special treatment for Christians. Yet the original purpose of Benedict’s visit was to reinforce ecumenical relations with the Orthodox, especially Bartholomew I, patriarch of Constantinople, and it’s difficult to imagine that the pope can remain silent on the issue of religious freedom.

- What, if anything, to say about Turkey’s candidacy for the European Union – a move which then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had opposed prior to his election as pope, on the grounds that it would further muddy Europe’s Christian identity? (Ironically, the more radical Muslim forces in Turkey, which Benedict wants to discourage, are the most likely to be Euro-skeptics.)

- What, if anything, to say about the decimation of Turkey’s Armenian population in the early 20th century, which Armenians recall as “genocide,” a term bitterly contested by Turks? Especially when Benedict meets the Armenian patriarch in Turkey, Mesrob II, on Nov. 30, it will be a tough question to avoid.

- What, if anything, to say about the delicate situation on Cyprus, where an unrecognized Turkish regime controls the northern portion of the island? On Nov. 10, Benedict met with President Tassos Papadopoulos, who governs the Greek-dominated (and therefore predominantly Christian) portion of Cyprus, receiving a collection of photos from Papadopoulos showing Christian churches in the north that have been destroyed or converted into mosques, bars and hotels. The meeting was widely seen in Turkey as a pro-Greek gesture, and it raised expectations that Benedict may address the Cyprus question during the trip.

Beyond these challenges, one final unknown hovers in the form of security considerations. In perhaps the most ominous premonition, a potboiler novel published in Turkey over the summer titled Papa’ya suikast (Attack on the Pope) predicted that Benedict will be assassinated while in Turkey. Written by novelist Yücel Kaya, the book is subtitled, “Who will kill Benedict XVI in Istanbul?”

Both senior Vatican officials and local organizers say that while the pope can be protected, it may prove more difficult to secure local Christian targets – churches, schools and Christian-owned businesses – against reprisals should public opinion turn against the trip or should extremist groups want to capitalize on the pope’s presence to lash out.

Turkey thus offers both promise and peril aplenty for Benedict’s effort to engage Muslims in what he has called a “frank and sincere” dialogue.

Despite Atatürk’s vision in the early 20th century of a modern, pro-Western Turkey, the Islamic roots of the country are never far from the surface. Historically, the Ottoman Empire was considered the great carrier of Islamic civilization from the 16th to the 20th centuries, and Turkish Muslims have kept that heritage alive despite several decades of official secularization.

The electoral victory of Islamic-inspired political forces in the 2002 national elections, which brought former Istanbul Mayor Recep Tayyip Erdogan to power as prime minister, offered a clear reminder of Turkey’s enduring Muslim identity. (Erdogan will not meet Benedict in Turkey, opting instead to attend a NATO summit in Latvia.)

A recent national poll conducted by Professors Ali Carkoglu and Ersin Kalaycioglu from Sabanci and Isik Universities in Istanbul found that more than 60 percent of Turks would refuse permission for their daughter to marry a non-Muslim, 60 percent blamed a lack of religious beliefs for “failure in life,” and 46 percent favored schools specialized in religious teachings for their children over schools with secular curriculums. Almost 70 percent said they considered the country’s ban on headscarves for women to be religious oppression and supported its repeal.

Further, it’s uniformly believed in Turkey that if the country were to lurch too far in the direction of an Islamic theocracy along the lines of neighboring Iran, the Turkish military would intervene and restore the country’s officially secular orientation. The military toppled heads of state in 1960, 1971 and 1980, and engineered a bloodless “postmodern coup” in 1997 that resulted in the forced resignation of then-Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan, who had exploited pro-Islamic sentiment.

Benedict’s more challenging line on Islam with respect to his predecessor, John Paul II, has to date revolved around two points: terrorism and “reciprocity,” meaning the need for Islamic states to respect Western standards of religious freedom. In that light, it’s difficult to imagine that Benedict would visit Turkey and not at least indirectly raise issues of religious freedom, such as the status of the Halki Seminary of the patriarchate of Constantinople, shuttered by government edict for 35 years, or the status of Greek Orthodox churches and other institutions in Cyprus.

Such issues, however, risk inflaming Turkish opinion, potentially being seen as further proof of an anti-Turkish bias. At least one local Christian leader, the Armenian patriarch in Turkey, Mesrob II, has expressed hope that the pope won’t bring up such matters, which he described as “interfering in the internal affairs of Turkey.”

“It should be dealt with on a different basis, not during an apostolic visit,” he told National Catholic Reporter in September 2005.

In part, such reluctance reflects historical memories of the long decline of the Ottoman Empire, when first the French and then other foreign powers extracted a series of “capitulations” granting special privileges to Christians. The system began at street level: Christian women, for example, were allowed to travel first-class on second-class tickets on the ferries that crisscrossed the Bosphorus. In fact, when Atatürk declared equality before the law for all Turkish citizens in the early 20th century, some Christians protested on the grounds that it would mean giving up a patchwork of special advantages and perks.

Many Turks associate these capitulations with the gradual undermining of the Ottoman Empire, so the specter of Western figures demanding better treatment for Christians today tends to awaken these historical ghosts. Benedict faces the challenge of phrasing his defense of Turkey’s Christians, who are generally Greek and Armenian, as a matter of universal human rights in a way that doesn’t simply deepen Turkish defensiveness.

That may be especially tricky, given that for many Turkish Muslims, Benedict XVI doesn’t start with a clean slate. Aside from Regensburg, he is also known for widely publicized comments prior to his election as pope opposing Turkey’s European Union candidacy.

In a 2004 interview with the French daily Le Figaro, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said that Turkey has always been “in permanent contrast to Europe,” and that it should look instead to play a leadership role in a network of Islamic states.

“In the course of history, Turkey has always represented a different continent,” Ratzinger said, giving as an example the Ottoman Empire, which once invaded Europe as far as Vienna. “Making the two continents identical would be a mistake,” he said. “It would mean a loss of richness, the disappearance of the cultural to the benefit of economics.”

It’s not clear whether Ratzinger’s private opinion as cardinal will drive the Vatican’s formal diplomatic stance now that he’s pope. Some Christian leaders hope not.

“Isn’t it hypocritical to say that a Muslim country at the edge of Europe, which is much more moderate than many other Islamic nations, as secular as it can be within its own tradition, can’t enter simply because it’s Muslim?” said Mesrob, the Armenian patriarch in Turkey, who studied in Rome at the Dominican-run Angelicum University.

Mesrob gave three reasons why he supports Turkey’s entry:

- “As a citizen on the street, I believe that if Turkey is in the EU, its whole system of law will have to be upgraded by the standards of European forms of democracy.”

- As a Christian, I believe that Turkey’s entry will help build a multicultural society in which Christians have equal opportunities.”

- “As an Armenian, I believe Europe will not allow Turkey to enter without fixing its problems with Greece, Cyprus and Armenia.”

The Armenian question is itself yet another potential headache.

There are only some 2,000 Greek Orthodox Christians in Turkey, but almost 100,000 Armenian Orthodox, including 68,000 Turkish Armenians and 30,000 migrant laborers. Both they and the worldwide Armenian diaspora, which is especially strong in the United States, will be waiting to hear Benedict say something about the mass killing of Armenians in Eastern Anatolia in 1915, and again in 1922 and 1923, a tragedy that Armenians remember as a genocide, but which Turks insist involved atrocities on all sides. (Conventional estimates are that somewhere between 800,000 and 1.5 million Armenians died during this period.)

When John Paul II in 2001 visited the Tzitzernagaberd Memorial in Yerevan, capital of the independent republic of Armenia, he did not himself use the word “genocide,” referring instead in Armenian to the Metz Yeghern, a phrase that means “great killing.” Yet John Paul and Armenian Patriarch Karekin II put out a joint statement recalling the suffering of “what is generally referred to as the first genocide of the 20th century.”

Given that precedent, it may be especially difficult for Benedict XVI to avoid the term himself. Yet if he does, it is sure to be taken by many Turks as another slight, especially in light of a recent dustup with France over a proposed French law that would make it a crime to deny the Armenian genocide.

At almost every turn in Turkey, Benedict faces tough choices. His every utterance will be subjected to microscopic scrutiny both by the media and by Muslim commentators.

Whatever happens, the world should have a more clear sense by the evening of Dec. 1, when Benedict’s plane leaves Turkish airspace, of what kind of dialogue with Islam he may be able to engineer – and, perhaps, of what kind of pope he hopes to be.

- - -

John L. Allen Jr. is National Catholic Reporter senior correspondent.


- - -

Republished from the Nov. 24, 2006, issue by Catholic Online with permission of the National Catholic Reporter (www.ncronline.org), a Catholic Online Preferred Publishing Partner.


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.

British Deputies Launch Campaign Against French Armenian Bill

Tuesday, November 21, 2006
zaman.com
By Selcuk Gultasli, Brussels

In a written declaration, three British deputies in the European Parliament have harshly criticized France’s draft Armenian genocide bill, which was adopted in the parliament on Oct. 12.

For the declaration, a joint initiative by British Labor Party deputies Michael Cashman and Richard Howitt, and British Liberal Andrew Duff, to become a resolution, it has to be signed by 367 deputies.

Cashman asserted that the French draft bill was aimed at undermining Turkey’s EU bid and Howitt noted that the French parliament’s decision was hypocritical and provocative.

The written declaration states its regret for the French Assembly’s decision and noted that this contradicted the principle of freedom of speech, a universal right and one born in French enlightenment.

The declaration said that the genocide bill would impede the efforts of those who have been working on the amelioration of Turkey’s freedom of speech record.

Furthermore, it would not make any contributions to relations between Turkey and Armenia, and called on the French Senate to reject the draft.

The declaration also called on the EP President to transmit this document to the French Assembly, French government, European Council and European Commission.

Duff: The Ottoman State was not Strong Enough to Commit Genocide

Speaking to Zaman, British Liberal EP member Andrew Duff said that most EP members opposed the French Parliament’s decision, but it was not clear how much support their declaration would garner.

Asked whether he was hesitant to be labeled by the Armenian lobby and their supporters a “denier,” Duff recalled that they had already declared him one.

He said Turks should be able to face with their history: “However, I do not think this would mean the acceptance of the allegations. At its dawn, the Ottoman State was not strong enough to commit genocide. There were massacres; however, genocide is a strong expression to describe what had happened.”

Duff also said that it was not fair to force Turkey to accept the existence of an Armenian genocide while most European countries had a dark history of their own.

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 ties with France unravel over Armenia dispute

Ankara lashes back over law on Armenia
November 15, 2006
The Associated Press
ANKARA:

Turkey has suspended military relations with France in a dispute over whether the mass killings of Armenians in the last century amounted to genocide, the land forces commander said Wednesday.

The move was the latest backlash against French legislation that, if approved by the French Senate and president, would criminalize denial that the World War I-era killings of Armenians in Turkey were genocide.

France and Turkey, both NATO members, have previously had close military ties, and Turkey has been a buyer of French-made weaponry. But the Turkish military has also blacklisted several French companies in the past in similar disputes over the mass killings of Armenians.

Basbug, announced the suspension to reporters at a reception in Ankara, according to the state-owned Anatolia news agency. The lower house of the French Parliament approved the genocide-denial legislation in October.

"Relations with France in the military field have been suspended," Anatolia quoted Basbug as saying. Asked whether there had been any cancellation of military visits, Basbug said: "There are no high-level visits between the two countries."

Turkey sees the French bill as a hostile, anti-Turkish move, and has said that the lawmakers' vote has already deeply harmed Turkish-French relations. The French bill still needs the approval of the upper house and the signature of President Jacques Chirac to become law.

Turkey vehemently denies that it committed genocide against Armenians, though many nations have classified the killings as such.

Turkey acknowledges that large numbers of Armenians died in mass expulsions and fighting, but says the number of dead is exaggerated and that most were killed in ethnic conflicts as the Ottoman Empire collapsed.

Armenians and many nations say about 1.5 million Armenians were killed in a genocidal campaign devised and carried out by Turkish leaders.

The European Union and the European media have criticized the French bill, saying it is not in line with the principle of free expression and does not promote dialogue with Turkey, which wants to join the EU. The United States also criticized the bill, saying that it got in the way of Turkish-Armenian dialogue.

The Armenian issue is one of the most divisive and emotional in Turkey. Those who classify the killings as genocide are often accused of treason.

EU rebuffed over Cyprus

Turkey will not succumb to European Union "blackmail" in the dispute over the divided island of Cyprus and its bearing on Ankara's prospects of joining the bloc, the Turkish foreign minister said Wednesday, according to The Associated Press and Reuters in Nicosia.

The EU has told Turkey it must open its seaports and airports to ships and planes from Cyprus to avoid a breakdown in EU membership talks, but Ankara does not recognize the government of Cyprus.

"We won't bow to blackmail, in the same way that we did not bow to blackmail in the past," Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul of Turkey said in a speech on the Turkish Cypriot side of the island's capital, Nicosia.

Cyprus has been split between the Greek Cypriot south - whose government is recognized by the international community - and the Turkish Cypriot north since 1974, when Turkish forces invaded in response to an attempted coup by military officers who were trying to unite the island with Greece. Only Ankara recognizes the Turkish-run north.

On another issue that has clouded Turkey's ties to the EU, meanwhile, officials said Wednesday in Ankara that it planned to amend a law that the EU asserts curbs freedom of expression in time for an EU summit meeting in December.

The law, Article 301, which makes it a crime to insult "Turkishness," has been used by nationalists to prosecute writers and intellectuals, although most cases have ended in acquittals. The Justice Ministry is exploring new forms of wording that would make it more difficult for politically motivated lawyers to open cases.

Turkey has warned the EU not to try to arbitrate in the dispute, saying the 25- nation bloc could not help secure a balanced solution because Cyprus is already one of its members.

Gul said that the United Nations should play the role of mediator. "To expect concessions from Turkey by moving the question from the United Nations to the EU is a dead-end road," Gul 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.

Analysis: German govt split over Turkey

By STEFAN NICOLA
UPI Germany Correspondent
BERLIN, Nov. 9 (UPI) -- The European Union's growing dispute with Turkey is sure to dominate the German EU presidency, which starts on Jan. 1, 2007, but the two top politicians in Berlin are at odds over whether to push for Turkey's EU accession or not.

Wednesday's "progress report" by the European Commission in unusually harsh words gave Ankara an ultimatum to solve the conflict with Cyprus within the next month or face suspension of the talks to join the 25-member club.

The report, which also asserted that Turkey had slowed down its democratic reform process, is a serious setback to the accession talks that started in October 2005.

While the current Finnish presidency has constantly stepped up its efforts to find a compromise between Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus, an EU member, the issue will likely be passed on to the German government, which will take over the EU's rotating six-month presidency at the start of the year.

Germany, in a way, mirrors the European attitude towards Turkey: It is deeply divided, with a majority against Turkish accession.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, of the center-right Christian Democratic Union, recently said that if Turkey wants to be accepted into the EU, Ankara would have to open its airports and harbors to Cypriots and recognize the Republic of Cyprus.

Cyprus, a popular Mediterranean tourist destination, has been divided into a Republic of Cyprus -- the Greek Cypriot south -- and a Turkish-occupied north since a 1974 Turkish invasion. Ankara wants the EU to recognize the Turkish state in the North before it agrees to any compromise, it has said on repeated occasions.

In the wake of the report, Ronald Pofalla, the general secretary of Merkel's CDU party, said if Turkey wouldn't solve the Cyprus issue, then this "must lead to consequences for the accession process."

Merkel has been critical of Turkey's EU accession and favors the model of a "privileged partnership" instead -- as many conservatives in Europe do, she feels that Turkey, a country with unsolved regional conflicts and roughly 70 million citizens, nearly all of them Muslims, is a burden, rather than an asset to the EU.

Germany's Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, however, strongly favors Turkish EU membership because the country could serve as a bridge to the Islamic world, and fuel democratization efforts in the region.

Breaking off talks with Turkey would thus be a bad and "hasty" decision, Steinmeier said earlier this week at a conference of European Socialists in Berlin. He added that he was optimistic that a compromise with Ankara could be found before Jan. 1.

"I am in favor of fair negotiations with Turkey. I know and I maintain that the Ankara Protocol will be ratified," he said.

While Germany's grand coalition government has agreed to officially endorse the accession process, the conflicting statements of Merkel and Steinmeier make experts wonder how Berlin will really conduct its Turkey policy once it is in the driver's seat of the EU.

"Berlin right now reminds me of a two-headed creature, each head wanting to go off in the opposite direction," John Hulsman, Europe expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations, told United Press International in a telephone interview. "To me, a privileged partnership sounds like 'we care about you but we don't want you in the club.'"

Observers say it is no wonder Ankara is less energetic in its reform process given the EU's cautious to repulsatory stance whether to invite Turkey in.

In what observers say was a bid to bank on anti-Turkey sentiments, France recently angered Ankara by adopting a bill that makes it a crime to deny that an Armenian genocide occurred in Turkey during World War I, a move that was criticized in most of Europe. France is home to roughly 500,000 people whose families came from Armenia, many of them descendants of families that experienced the 1915-1923 violence that killed some 1.5 million people. Turkey denies that genocide took place.

In Turkey, many people feel the EU treats them unfairly; in Western Europe, the sentiment on the street is that Turkey doesn't really share the club's values, a view that could eventually spell disaster for Europe's security policy if Turkey stays away from the EU, Hulsman said.

"Nobody wants Turkey going into the arms of Syria and Iran," he told UPI.

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 to improve rights of non-Muslim minorities

AFP
November 10, 2006

ANKARA -- The Turkish parliament passed Thursday a law to improve the property rights of the country's tiny Christian and Jewish communities, a key European Union demand, and faced criticism that the bill falls short of expectations.

The legislation, which needs the president's approval to take effect, paves the way for mainly Greek, Armenian, and Jewish foundations to recover properties seized by the state since 1974 under a controversial court ruling.

Community representatives have slammed the bill for failing to provide a remedy for the return of or compensation for properties the state had since sold to third parties, warning that Turkey risks hefty compensation cases at the European Court of Human Rights.

They have also denounced a provision that limits the period for applications for the return of properties to 18 months.

In a report on Ankara's progress toward membership, the European Commission said Wednesday that "non-Muslim religious communities have no access to legal personality and continue to face restricted property rights," even though freedom of worship is "generally respected" in the country.

The bill, an overhaul of the Foundations Law, loosens the tight state control over all foundations and broadens their rights on property and administration.

In another move to address EU criticism, it allows foundations to operate abroad and receive foreign funds, but only on the condition that international activities are mentioned in their statutes, a restriction that, critics say, effectively excludes non-Muslim institutions.

The bill, on parliament's agenda since September, faced harsh objections by the main opposition, which accused the government of compromising Turkey's interests under EU pressure.

Non-Muslims in Turkey are mostly Greeks and Armenians, often viewed with suspicion because of deep mistrust toward Greece, a historical rival, and Armenia, which accuses Ottoman Turks of having committed genocide against its ancestors during World War I.

In September, legislators also broadened the rights of minority schools, but scrapped a proposal that would have allowed them to enrol foreign students, in a move to avoid laying ground for the reopening of a Greek Orthodox theology school, another EU demand.

The 1971 closure of the century-old seminary, on the island of Halki off Istanbul, deprived the Eastern Orthodox Church, seated in Istanbul since Byzantine times when the city was called Constantinople, of a facility to train clergy.

The issue of Christian minority rights is also likely to figure high on the agenda of Pope Benedict XVI when he visits Turkey in late November.

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.

P.M. Erdogan Attends "News Xchange" Meeting In Istanbul

Published: 11/5/2006
Turkish Press

ISTANBUL - "Despite several negative developments, Turkey achieved important successes thanks to democratic reforms fulfilled in the country," Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said during "News Xchange" meeting in Istanbul which brought together executives of news TV channels and news agencies as well as correspondents from all over the world.

Stating that Turkey was located in the center of a large geography extending from Europe to Asia and from Caucasus to Africa, Erdogan noted that Turkey was affected by developments that took place in Caucasus, Balkans, southern and Central Asia.

"Turkey has been exerting great efforts for peace and stability in the region and the world," he underlined.

Erdogan noted, "AKP (Justice & Development Party) government fulfilled significant reforms during the last four years. We also achieved important successes in Turkish economy and foreign policy. Turkey has become one of the biggest 20 economies of the world."

"There has been a sound and dynamic structure in Turkish economy. Direct foreign investments in the country amounted to 9.7 billion USD at the end of 2005," he stressed.

Noting that Turkey has met necessary criterion to start full membership talks with the EU, Erdogan stated, "Turkey showed that it has quality and capacity to join the EU."

Erdogan said, "one third of the constitution has been amended, adjustment packages have been approved and several legal and administrative arrangements have been made in regard to Turkey`s EU process."

Replying to a question of a correspondent from Yorki Media operating in Armenia, Erdogan said that the incidents in 1915 were a displacement.

"We have opened our archives. Armenian President (Robert Kocharian) should also open Armenia`s archives. Jurists and historians should work on the matter and then politicians make a decision on it," he stated.

Stating that when AKP came to the political power in the country, the government started air transportation between Turkey and Yerevan, Erdogan said that they also restored Armenian Orthodox Church on Akdamar Island in Van Lake.

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 urges Ankara to rethink stance on Hamas

4 November, 2006
Abhaber.com - EU Turkey News Network

Describing Hamas as a "terrorist group" in its upcoming progress report on Turkey, the European Union indirectly criticizes Ankara, urging it to conform with the common position of the Union.

According to the draft progress report obtained by The New Anatolian before the text is released by the EU next Wednesday, although the Union states that "Turkey has broadly continued to align its foreign and security policy with that of the EU…and has continued to support the Middle East peace process," it continues by saying, "Turkey declared in February 2006 to share the objectives EU Common Position on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and ensure that its national policies would conform to that Common Position. Hamas is on the list included in this Common Position."

On other issues about foreign, security and defense policy, while the Union praises Turkey's participation in the EU-led police missions including Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM), former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima) and in Congo (EUROPOL KINSHASA) and UN and NATO peace missions for the development of European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP), it criticized Turkey's resistance to including Greek Cyprus and Malta in the EU-NATO strategic cooperation based on the "Berlin Plus" agreement. The reports also notes that Turkey continues, for political reasons, to block Greek Cyprus' membership in certain suppliers' groups, such as the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies.

Touching on Turkey's relations with the Middle East, while the report says that Turkey's relations with Syria continued to develop positively, it also praises Ankara's efforts and concrete initiatives to promote stability in Iraq by facilitating dialogue between U.S. authorities and Sunni Arabs. "Turkey argues that there is a direct link between the recent escalation of violence in the southeast of Turkey and increased clashes between Turkish Armed Forces and the PKK and 'infiltration of PKK members' from the Iraqi border," it was said in the report, saying that a significant number of troops were deployed along the Iraqi border in order to prevent infiltration by PKK terrorists from northern Iraq.

The report also praised Turkish efforts to encourage Iran to comply with the demands of the international community and the country's support to EU efforts to obtain long-term guarantees for the implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its Nuclear Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by Iran.

The continued strong support of Turkey for the "Bonn process" concerning the reconstruction of Afghanistan was also praised in the report.

Brussels urges Turkey to open its border with Armenia

The Union in the progress report also urges Turkey to open its border with Armenia, stressing that this would be an important step forward in the establishment of good neighborly relations between the two countries and would boost trade relations.

While urging Turkey to open its border with Armenia, the EU cites the lack of significant developments in relations between Turkey and Armenia since the official exchange of letters between Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Armenian President Robert Kocharian in April 2005.

However the EU notes a closer alignment of Turkey's official position with EU positions in relation with the Southern Caucasus and Central Asia. "Turkey has reiterated its support for the European Neighborhood Policy. Turkey participates in the regional initiative GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova) with observer status. Turkey followed closely the elections in Azerbaijan. It aligned itself with the EU Presidency statement on the elections in Azerbaijan on 10 November 2005," said the report.

ABHaber 04.11.2006 thenewanatolian.com

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.

Analysis: Turkey’s democratic reforms get poor grades

2 Nov 2006
World Peace Herald
By Stefan Nicola
UPI Germany Correspondent

BERLIN -- A new European Union report is set to give Turkey low grades on its democratic reforms and further delay the country's EU accession, a process already under scrutiny by most of Europe.

An unnamed EU official told the Financial Times Germany newspaper he was surprised that Turkey was so significantly behind in its democratization process.

"We would have hoped that Turkey would have delivered a lot more during the past 18 months, certainly since the beginning of negotiations in October last year," the official said. "If Turkey had been moving more, if there was greater freedom of expression, if there wasn't any torture, things would be a lot more promising."

The official report, which the newspaper said it has seen, will be presented next week. It said "prosecutions and convictions for the expression of non-violent opinion ... are a cause for serious concern," although on the weekend, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he has no plans to change the penal code for such cases, the newspaper reported.

Such bad grades for Turkey are by no means a surprise, experts say.

"Since the beginning of the accession negotiations, Turkey and the EU have constantly distanced themselves from each other," Heinz Kramer, Turkey expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, a Berlin-based think tank, told United Press International. "That's also because the accession process within the EU has not much or only half-hearted backing."

Public support for Turkey's EU membership is at an all time low, with less than one in three Europeans supporting it.

"Large parts of the population and -- mostly conservative -- political elites feel that Turkey does not belong to Europe," Kramer said.

A country with unsolved regional conflicts and roughly 70 million citizens, nearly all of them Muslims, Turkey is seen by many European governments as a burden, rather than an asset to the EU.

France, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark and Slovakia are among the most outspoken opponents, with Paris speaking loudest. In what observers say was a bid to bank on anti-Turkey sentiments, France earlier this month adopted a bill that makes it a crime to deny that an Armenian genocide occurred in Turkey during World War I, a move that was criticized in most of Europe. France is home to roughly 500,000 people whose families came from Armenia, many of them descendants of families that experienced the 1915-1923 violence that killed some 1.5 million people. Turkey denies that genocide took place.


The Cyprus problem

Another unresolved issue involves the Republic of Cyprus.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently said that if Turkey wants to be accepted into the EU, Ankara would have to open its ports to Cypriots and recognize the Republic of Cyprus, an EU member.

Cyprus, a popular Mediterranean tourist destination, has been divided into a Republic of Cyprus -- the Greek Cypriot south -- and a Turkish-occupied north since a 1974 Turkish invasion.

Merkel has been critical of Turkey's EU accession and favors the model of a "privileged partnership" instead, although her coalition government officially endorses the accession process.

Finland, which currently holds the rotating the EU presidency, has been beefing up efforts to prevent a possible escalation of the Cyprus crisis, wanted by "neither the EU nor Turkey," Kramer said.

Within the EU, the supporters of a Turkey membership, including Spain and Britain, argue Turkey could serve as a bridge to the Islamic world, and fuel democratization efforts in the region. Most EU governments, however, feel the enlargement process, with Croatia becoming a member soon, has reached its limits, and pointing to Turkey's reform shortcomings is an easy way out of a quick accession.

But the EU, with its half-hearted support of the Turkish accession process, is also to blame for the lack of reforms in Turkey, Kramer said.

"In Ankara, politicians think: 'Why should we make all these efforts if in the end, nothing comes out of it,'" he told UPI. "From how it looks now, it may only be a question of time until the whole process becomes deadlocked."


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.