IT SEEMS THAT WE WILL NEVER BE LEAVING IT OFF
Turkish Daily News
Oct 11 2005
We were saying that since the negotiating process with the European
Union has begun we can now focus our attention to Turkey’s important
problems that need urgent solutions, problems such as the Southeast,
Iraq and unemployment. Obviously, that is not going to be the case.
It becomes all too apparent what pathological frame of mind we are in,
especially when it comes to any issue related to the EU
Gunduz Aktan We were saying that since the negotiating process with the
European Union has begun we can now focus our attention to Turkey’s
important problems that need urgent solutions, problems such as the
Southeast, Iraq and unemployment. Obviously, that is not going to be
the case.
It becomes all too apparent what pathological frame of mind we are in,
especially when it comes to any issue related to the EU.
It is true that the start of accession talks with the EU on Oct. 3
was a very important event for us. However, it has more historic
significance for the EU than us. Time will tell whether it will prove
to be equally significant for Turkey.
Those who feel passionate about the EU continued to throw stones at
[former Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus President (KKTC) Rauf]
Denktas from time to time, making demagogical remarks about “jobs
and welfare” the EU would provide us. However, their hopes dimmed to
a great extent due to the stance the right-wing parties in France
and Germany had taken against Turkish membership, the EU’s Dec. 17
decision as well as the reciprocal declarations on Cyprus.
Their gloom increased when, during the days that preceded Oct. 3,
Austria acted in a recalcitrant manner, causing a meeting —
that would normally be brought to a conclusion in a few hours —
to turn into a marathon event. Then, thanks to the struggle waged
by Britain, a country that is at the peak of the art of diplomacy,
and also because the EU Commission did not deviate from its mission,
we ended up having the EU adopt the negotiating framework document
we now have in our hands.
Those who had their hopes dampened were in a state of euphoria by
this turn of events. Their exuberance was proportionate to the depth
of their gloom. They generously displayed their confidence that the
EU had thus guaranteed Turkish membership. It was as if they were
returning to the “golden age” of their childhood. The EU would make
the despotic (bad father) state toe the line and the no-good society
would be shaped up, thanks to external pressure.
They acted as if the negotiating framework document was not afflicted
with the same defects that had been inherent in the EU’s Dec. 17
decisions. It was as if, just as the Swedish prime minister said,
the additions made to the text had not reinforced the possibility
that Turkey would be given only “limited” and “conditional” membership.
These circles began formulating new arguments in line with their
wishful thinking. It must be admitted that they are very talented in
his regard. With an air of scorn for those who hold the opposing view,
they confidently declared that documents would not be so important
per se, that no document would bring about desired results unless
backed by political will, anyway, and that the mood that would reign
in the EU countries towards the end of the accession process would
determine the outcome of the talks.
Some of them said that it would be more beneficial to expose ourselves
to the “civilizational” influence of the EU during the accession
talks — just as we did during the first six years of our candidacy —
than actually being a full member. They even argued that it did not
matter if the EU would provide adequate funds for the civilizational
influence.
As they always do, they picked up a few points on which they are
right and then they spread these points thinly to veil so many
fallacies. Their passion for EU membership prevented them from making
an objective assessment.
If the negotiating framework document was not important then why
did the EU countries discuss the draft for 40 hours? Why was there a
constant threat that those talks would break down? If documents were
not important, why did the EU issue a counter-declaration to deal
with Turkey’s declaration on Cyprus? As EU Enlargement Commissioner
Olli Rehn has stressed, why did the EU ask Ankara for immediate
ratification and full implementation of the additional protocol
to the Ankara Agreement? If the EU’s financial contribution is so
unimportant, why have the EU’s 10 new members fought so hard to have
their own shares of EU funds increased?
Do these “intellectuals” think that during the EU ministers’ marathon
meeting the ministers did not remind one another that the negotiating
framework document provides the EU with all kinds of excuses not to
make Turkey a member?
These intellectuals know all this. However, they do not have the
courage to get rid of the fixations they harbor in their dream world.
They believe what they want to believe. With this kind of approach,
they give the impression that tomorrow they would not hesitate to
accept Greek Cypriot demands in Cyprus and Greek demands in the
Aegean as well as the genocide allegations of the Armenian diaspora
and Kurdish demands in the Southeast.
This melancholic mood regarding the EU naturally triggers a
counter-reaction. There are a growing number of people in Turkey who
reject dependence on the EU for the “survival” of Turkey. It is untrue
that these people want to set up an inward-looking, fascist government
in Turkey. Obviously, their only aim is to oppose the current state
of affairs.
No matter what happens, these “intellectuals” do not realize that their
attitude constitutes the biggest obstacle to Turkey’s EU membership. A
great majority of the Turkish nation rejects blind dependence on the
EU. These people do not want to make sacrifices from vital national
interests. They do not subscribe to the argument that preserving
national honor during the accession process would be qualified as
being over-emotional. They know that Turkey can seek EU membership
in a style that is quite different from that of the above-mentioned
“intellectuals.”
If we enter the EU one day, only the realists will have achieved it.