Zaman Online, Turkey
May 10 2005
What Kretschmer Said
SELCUK GULTASLI
05.10.2005 Tuesday – ISTANBUL 15:22
No matter how we criticize the December 17 results, there is a
European group that considers this decision as a great concession to
Turkey.
Even if the December 17 decisions reflect the most discriminating
dispositions taken for a candidate country so far, even if they do
not guarantee membership and have the potential to pull a privileged
partnership formula out of the hat at any moment, even if when Turkey
becomes a member, they may say “Sorry, we have no money left, we
cannot allocate a budget for you from the agriculture policy and
regional funds,” even if they have guaranteed visa requirements for
Turkish citizens after membership, “former Ratzinger, new Pope” and
other like-minded Europeans still consider the decisions that give a
membership perspective to Turkey as steps that have gone too far.
While the voices of those who say, “great concession given” to Turkey
after December 17 were hoarse, these comments have been brought to
the agenda more powerfully nowadays. As if the discriminating
qualities of the summit results are not enough, when any development
goes wrong in Europe, the cries of “great concessions given” to
Turkey echo even more.
Let’s take a quick look at three concrete events: First of all, it
was revealed at the Partnership Council meeting on April 26 that the
European Union (EU) had forgotten who said “yes” and who said “no” to
the Annan Plan, who banned the Union’s activities in favor of the
plan, and who former commissioner for enlargement Gunter Verheugen
was blaming when he said, “I was misled.”. As if calling on Turkey to
normalize relations with the Greek Cyprus at the Council was not
enough, had Britain and Italy not intervened, the recognition of
Greek Cyprus would have been demanded.
The second incident is the seriousness of the speech by European
Union (EU) Commission representative to Ankara, Hans Jörg Kretschmer,
that echoed on NTV. Since Kretschmer has not disclaimed his remarks,
we can therefore comment on this speech.
In fact, the EU representative was saying how direct trade
regulations with the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) are
tied to the condition of the diplomatic recognition of Greek Cyprus.
Whereas the EU had made decisions that would end the isolation of
TRNC after the referendum held in 2004. The reason they made these
decisions was because of the “yes” of the Turks and the “no” of the
Greeks, to the Annan Plan. Among the April 26 decisions, there is no
item like “Isolation will end if Turkey recognizes Greek Cyprus.”
The third and a far more serious one is Kretschmer’s implication that
the so-called Armenian “genocide” may become a condition. The
representative says that this issue “will cause a great problem” for
Turkey during the negotiations. As a person who has closely followed
how the Cyprus issue has now become a condition, even though it is
not, I got the impression that hscmer had said the Armenian issue
would become a condition.
The EU has got such a poor recollection to forget who said “no” to
last year’s Annan Plan but by no means forgets events that happened
90 years ago. Inevitably, a picture emerges as follows: The EU is
extremely forgetful about issues concerning Turkey and Turks or its
memory is too selective. On the other hand, it never allows issues in
which pressure may be put on Turkey to be forgotten. As Foreign
Minister Abdullah Gul says, it is as if they want Turkey to slam the
door and go away. It is impossible to interpret what Kretschmer said
in any other way.