TURKEY AND EUROPE: THE DANGERS OF DIVORCE
By Patrick Seale Special to Gulf News
Gulf News, United Arab Emirates
Oct 9 2006
The European Union is in danger of making a mistake of immense
strategic importance: instead of welcoming Turkey into its ranks it
is rebuffing it.
At the very moment when the West is in a mood of profound alienation
from the Arab and Muslim world – based largely on ignorance, prejudice
and mutual incomprehension – Europe is turning its back on the one
country uniquely able to serve as a bridge between East and West.
At the very moment when the Middle East is experiencing crises and
wars of unprecedented gravity, which threaten to overspill into
neighbouring countries and into Europe itself, Europe has failed to
grasp that Turkey could provide a key to regional security.
Turkey, heir to the Ottoman Empire and a founding member of Nato,
is a major regional power – dynamic, yet traditional; secular, yet
Muslim; democratic yet militarily powerful. Its ties with Europe are
centuries old. As its Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul likes to recall,
Turkey sent its first diplomatic envoy to France in 1495, while France
chose Istanbul as the site of its very first foreign embassy in the
16th century.
Today, Turkey could play a key role in stabilising Iraq and in helping
to mediate the Arab-Israeli conflict, since it is on good terms with
both sides. It has again demonstrated its commitment to regional
security by sending a thousand soldiers to help keep the peace in
southern Lebanon.
On November 9, the European Commission is due to publish a report on
its negotiations with Turkey over the past year, and on the progress
Turkey has made in carrying out the reforms Europe has demanded.
There are grave fears that this crucial report, which will set the
tone of future relations between the EU and Turkey, will be negative.
Instead of acknowledging Turkey’s very considerable efforts to meet
European norms and adopt European values – instead of looking forward
to Turkey’s great potential contribution to Europe’s security and
stability – it is likely to emphasise areas of continued disagreement,
demand still more concessions from Ankara and put the blame on Turkey
for the current stalemate.
Bad situation
So bad is the situation that many observers believe relations between
Turkey and Europe are heading for a breakdown. If these fears are
proved correct – if the commission’s report is indeed hard on Turkey –
European diplomacy will have suffered a considerable defeat.
The EU’s grudging attitude towards Turkish membership has already
created an anti-European backlash in Turkey, while at the same time
encouraging reactionary right-wing forces in Europe, especially in
Austria, Germany and France, to call for a suspension of negotiations
with Turkey.
One major subject of disagreement concerns the Mediterranean island
of Cyprus, divided between Greeks and Turks. The Greek part – the
Republic of Cyprus – is an EU member state, while the Turkish northern
part has not been recognised as a separate republic and suffers from
a commercial boycott.
The EU is demanding that Turkey open its ports and airports to the
Republic of Cyprus, which Ankara is obliged to do under its customs
agreement with the EU. But Ankara is refusing to comply until the EU
ends its commercial boycott of the Turkish part of the island – which
the EU promised to do so, but has so far not done. The outstanding
issue, therefore, would seem to be one of reciprocity. Fairness and
natural justice would suggest that the Turks have a point.
Moreover, Turkish Cypriots voted in favour of a plan put forward by
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan for the unification of the island,
whereas Greek Cypriots voted against. This, once again, would seem to
give the Turks the moral advantage. It should not be beyond the wit
of European diplomacy to find a solution to this heated but relatively
trivial dispute.
Another difficult hurdle Turkey faces is its historic responsibility
for the massacre of well over one million Armenians in 1915 during
the First World War, when the Ottoman Empire, then in its last years,
was engaged in a struggle with the western powers and czarist Russia.
The Turks feared the Armenians were a fifth column, allied to Russia.
This may go some way to explain, although it cannot justify, the
atrocities the Armenians suffered. Many were slaughtered while hundreds
of thousands died when they were mercilessly driven out of Anatolia,
the remnants of this death march eventually finding refuge in Syria
and Lebanon.
The EU would like Turkey to recognise this genocide, although it has
not made it a specific condition for membership. However, on a visit
this month to the Armenian capital of Yerevan, France’s President
Jacques Chirac declared that "France recognises the Armenian genocide".
When asked whether Turkey should do so as a condition for EU
membership, he replied: "In all honesty, I believe so. Any country
is enhanced by recognising its dramas and mistakes." He drew the
comparison with Germany which, to its credit, made amends for the
Holocaust.
Turkey has proposed setting up a committee of Turkish and Armenian
historians, which could include historians from other countries, to
examine the tragic events of 1915. It has committed itself to accept
its conclusions and to respond accordingly.
But whether this will be sufficient to persuade a deeply divided Europe
to accept Turkey as a full member must unfortunately remain in doubt.
Patrick Seale is a commentator and author of several books on Middle
East affairs.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
