Babacan’s Performance
Zaman, Turkey
July 19 2005
Brussels that has recently learned the correct pronunciation of Babacan
finally had the opportunity to listen to Turkey’s chief negotiator in
length after months of waiting. The same goes for the Turkish press
in Brussels as Babacan, establishing a timid relationship with the
press so far, does not enjoy holding press meetings.
It was only natural that his address to the European Parliament (EP),
that has been the fiercest critic of Turkey, would attract a great
deal of attention when Ankara was only 2.5 months away from starting
accession talks. The chief negotiator of a country whose prospective
and possible membership would change almost all the parameters of
the European Union (EU) has been eagerly awaited. Lots of wise men
who rightfully think the question of what direction EU would take in
the wake of constitutional rejections in France and the Netherlands
would be clarified in the answer to be given for Turkey’s membership,
had taken their seats in the EP to listen to Babacan.
To cut a long story short, Brussels found Babacan as “uneasy”. Being
unable to deliver his speech with a dynamic English, extending
some of his answers unnecessarily, giving the impression he was not
well-prepared for some of the questions and speaking as a serious
bureaucrat instead of incorporating humor in his speech have made
Bruxelloise grade Babacan between “mediocre” and “could pass only
with the teacher’s assent”.
It is necessary to classify the criticisms about Babacan in two groups:
Those in the first group are the supporters of Turkey’s membership
while those in the second group are fierce opponents of Turkey’s
accession who would even criticize the late Osman Bolukbasi if he
was in Babacan’s place. I will return to the second group but let me
underline that the ones who should be taken seriously are of course
those in the first group.
According to the ones in the first group, Babacan received an
“average” grade, but he should improve himself rapidly, hasten his
speech and prove that he is competent not only in Turkey’s issues but
those of the EU as well. The thorniest issues between Turkey and EU
are those of political ones. He should enrich his knowledge on the
Kurdish and Armenian issue, the minorities and religious foundations.
About the Armenian issue, going beyond answers like, “We suggested
a joint commission,” he should equip himself in a manner that he
could come up with arguments considering the historical background
of the case and from time to time bring up the deficient attitude of
the West. Babacan’s most affirmative attitude, which impressed this
group, was his sobriety which he kept even when he was answering to
provocative questions. This group agrees that the one who would carry
out Turkey’s negotiations should be able to master his nerves and does
not concede on his sobriety. Of course, along with criticisms, they
appreciate Babacan’s success in his educational life and his actions
as the minister responsible for the economy. They are optimistic
that Babacan will beat his deficiencies in a short time taking into
consideration of his fast learning capacity.
The second group, which criticizes Babacan are the Christian
Democrats who want Turkey to accept their “privileged partnership”
proposal. They made nonsensical remarks after Babacan’s trip. They
stated that Babacan’s comment that privileged partnership was something
implausible for Turkey was very unfortunate. Going further, one of the
Christian Democrats- Renate Sommer -argued that Turkey would have to
accept the privileged partnership proposal meaning that “do not waste
our time”. There is no way one can take these criticisms seriously.