Turkish Daily News
Oct 7 2006

For those who do not understand
Saturday, October 7, 2006

Angela Merkel, Jacques Chirac, Olli Rehn, Jose Manuel Barroso and
Camiel Eurlings all indicate with their latest remarks in this or
that manner that Turkish membership in the European Union is not
being considered.

Gunduz Aktan
Angela Merkel, Jacques Chirac, Olli Rehn, Jose Manuel Barroso and
Camiel Eurlings all indicate with their latest remarks in this or
that manner that Turkish membership in the European Union is not
being (probably has never been) considered.

The controversial report of the European Parliament (EP) Foreign
Affairs Commission has been "corrected" by the EP General Assembly.
The Armenian genocide allegation remains unchanged; it is just that
in the final text Turkish recognition of it is no longer cited as a
precondition for EU membership. In its final version the report does
refer to the alleged "Pontian and Assyrian genocides" cited in the
initial draft, but it makes those references without actually using
the word "genocide." All in all, the report seems to be written not
towards making Turkey a member but with the purpose of discouraging
Turkey from going ahead with the accession process.

Meanwhile, Chirac’s visit to Armenia has resulted, as expected, in
his voicing the "Armenian genocide" allegations — repeatedly. Chirac
is the vanguard among French politicians when it comes acknowledging
the crimes committed by his country in the past and publicly
apologizing for them. Therefore he may deem it a moral obligation for
himself to "recognize" the "Armenian genocide" as well. On the other
hand, the Armenian community in France is enjoying an increased
weight prior to a tough presidential election. So, this is more about
politics than moral obligations.

France knows that Turkey will never accept the Armenian genocide
claim. And it exploits the genocide issue so as to block Turkey’s
path to EU membership. Their new draft law envisages heavy fines and
prison sentences for those "negating the Armenian genocide." Even if
we endured all kinds of humiliation and reached the stage of signing
the accession treaty, that treaty would be subjected to a referendum
in France; and to obtain a positive result from the referendum we
would be required to "acknowledge the genocide."

The EU calls it "the need to face up to the past." That is the
principle on which the European project has been based in the
aftermath of the Holocaust. We did not play any role in that
disaster. However, obviously if we are to be admitted into the ranks
of the genocide perpetrators, we too will have to find ourselves a
proper case of genocide, declare our regrets for "having committed
it" and pledge not to do any such thing ever again.

Until she became chancellor, Merkel had advocated a "privileged
partnership" status for Turkey as opposed to full membership. Now she
seems not to be opposing Turkish full membership. She must have
adopted that role as a result of the "re-casting of the roles" with
France. This way she will prevent a disruption of her relations with
the sizable Turkish community in Germany. Meanwhile she sees the
Cyprus problem as an issue that can suitably be used in order to
block our path to EU membership.

The commission traditionally sides with the member countries. The
current commission backs our membership bid. However, the EU member
states lack the common political will needed for that. And this makes
the commission’s job extremely difficult. We have reached a certain
point where neither the new government of the Turkish Republic of
Northern Cyprus (KKTC) nor this or any future government of Turkey
can possibly back down. This impasse cannot be overcome with the kind
of proposal the Finns have offered. There is only one way out: The EU
has to acknowledge the erroneous nature of its Cyprus policy and make
the Greek Cypriots toe the line. Since this is not being done, the
commission is focusing on the reforms; however, the lack of political
will has undermined the Turkish government’s eagerness to make
further reforms.

When referring to reform they are talking about the rights of
minorities and Christians, and Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code
(TCK). Almost all of those that have been in trouble due to that
article are "intellectual" Turks who have "acknowledged" the
"Armenian genocide." Therefore, the calls for abolition of Article
301 are aimed at bringing about widescale public discussions in
Turkey on the "Armenian genocide" issue. In other words, these calls
are justified in principle, but the purpose seems hardly justified.
Indeed, it was pointed out to Rehn that the EU demands from Turkey
conflicted with the situation in France (regarding the genocide law
in the offing) and the Netherlands (where Turks who reject the
Armenian genocide allegations are not allowed to run for parliament
seats). He had a hard time trying to respond to questions in this
vein.

Barroso’s latest statement shows that the commission does not fully
back our membership, either. Barroso first talked about suspending EU
enlargement until institutional reforms are made, that is, until the
EU Constitution problem is resolved. Then he pointed out that Turkey
could be a member in 15, 20 or 25 years. What kind of impression have
we given them that they seem to think that we would wait all those
years?

Viewed together, these signs show clearly that basically the EU
does not want to make Turkey a member but that it is unwilling to
openly say so since that would entail a political price. Obviously,
it aims to exasperate Turkey by waging a "guerrilla war" on secondary
issues.

If Turkey’s prestige is to be maintained, even at a minimal level,
we must immediately get out of this masochistic mood we seem to have
plunged into. Otherwise we will come to hate the West, the EU and
Christianity. And our naive liberals and the Justice and Development
Party (AKP) will have to pay for that situation.