New Europe ile Mülakat (İng.)

NEW EUROPE

Turkish opposition says EU, Turkey should be more European

13 September 2009 – Issue : 851

On a recent visit to Brussels to meet with MEPs the Vice-President of CHP (Turkey’s main opposition and social democratic party) Onur Oymen, former Ambassador to NATO and Germany took some time out to speak with Alia Papageorgiou at his party’s representation office to the EU overlooking the Rond Point Schuman. He commented on Turkey’s accession process, the EU and what his party sees as the resolution to the Cyprus and Kurdish issues. He also stressed some facts about Afghanistan. The conversation that followed is below.

A report was released today (September 7) by the Independent Commission on Turkey  claiming that the European Union institutions have completely stalled Turkey’s accession process and that this is harmful to the future business climate of the EU, Martti Ahtisaari, Chair of the Independent Commission, former  President of Finland and the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate has said that fierce opposition from some European politicians combined with a growing public resistance to further enlargement, has deepened resentment in Turkey and slowed the necessary reforms and that the EU must simply follow through on previous commitments to keep the path to membership open; no new promises are needed, do you agree with this statement?

Yes. The majority of member States and the Parliament support Turkish membership. However, Mr Ahtisaari is one of the few politicians who made such an honest, right-to-the-point comment. Indeed some negative attitudes coming from some countries slowing down the process of membership of Turkey damage the reputation of the European Union in the World and in Turkey. As a result of this, six – seven years ago, the popular support for EU membership in Turkey was 72 percent, today it is only 52 percent. Such negative attitudes perhaps coming from the internal concerns of the EU, such as domestic politics in some new country members, create a lot of damage in our relations and also influence Turkish public opinion negatively. This is clearly in contradiction with the EU’s global credibility, interests and values.

So you would say that the whole process has stalled then due to national politics not the EU institutions themselves?

Well some politicians want to get votes from their public claiming that they are against Turkish membership so there’s no danger to see Turkey as a member as long as they are against. So they use Turkey’s accession as an internal political matter. All this information is of course, reflected in the Turkish press and the Turkish public is fully aware that Turkey’s issue is exploited for internal political reasons in Europe.

Your trip to Brussels today stems around the European Parliament and its new makeup?

Quite often we come to Brussels to maintain our contacts because the more we understand each other the more we will be able to explain the realities of Turkey and understand their concerns and find solutions. Turkish membership is a matter of priority for my party, CHP. As social democrats, we have been supporting Turkish membership from the beginning, so it is our duty and ideal to work in this direction.

How far away do you think that direction is?

Well, unfortunately as Mr Ahtisaari says some chapters are blocked. Some are blocked on the grounds that the Cyprus problem has not been solved. Other chapters are blocked by France alone, which say that those chapters may lead to membership. So it’s an open hostility of the French government against the accession of Turkey and its people, which is unacceptable. Definitely unacceptable. And it’s unconditional, they do not say that Turkey may join the European Union if it does this or does that. This also creates a serious blow to Turkish-French traditional friendship and cooperation. And it creates a lot of reactions in the Turkish public against France. Not only France but their leading coalition partner Germany is also reluctant to Turkish membership. This also creates a problem between Turkey and Germany. These negative attitudes do not only affect negatively the Turkey-EU relations, but also our bilateral relations; and the feelings of our people towards the EU and towards these countries. Moreover, because of these politicians without vision, the EU is seen by the rest of the World as returning to the darker periods of its history.

As a contrast, President Gul seems to be very present in the public eye internationally. What does the governmental position in Ankara have to say about chapters closing? What is the focus in terms of the EU?

Well he has a talent of talking with everyone -be it Americans, be it Europeans, or Iranians, Palestinians, Israelis, Iraqis… In reality there are very different opinions between Americans and Iranians, for instance Europeans and some radical elements in the Middle East. Sometimes it creates problems because when you promise something you create a climate of hope and optimism, but if it’s understood you cannot deliver what you promise then it creates disappointment. That’s what we are facing very often on the Cyprus issue and fighting terrorism in Iraq, these are our main concerns. So there are a lot of issues where the government promises something, but is not able to deliver.

The border with Armenia was announced as opening last week, how does this plan seem to you?

CHP wants a fully peaceful and cooperative Turkish-Armenian-Azerbaijani relationship, among states and people. Apparently the government conducted confidential talks with Armenia for three years starting in 2007. They initiated two protocols; there are a lot of chapters in this protocol but the most important thing for us is that the government promises to open the border between Turkey and Armenia. So far all Turkish governments have said that the border is closed because of the occupation of 20 percent of the Nagorno-Karabakh territory by Armenia. So therefore to reopen the borders, Armenia should retreat from all occupied territories from Nagorno-Karabakh, but in the protocol they have not put any reference to Nagorno-Karabakh or a possible retreat of Armenian troops.  In the meantime on May 14 our prime minister went to Baku and spoke to the parliament of Azerbaijan and promised very openly that Turkey would never open the borders as long as Armenia has not solved the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.

The Kurdish issue?

CHP asks the solution of the Kurdish issue in full compliance with the EU’s Copenhagen political criteria. We first released a comprehensive report 20 years ago and earlier this year again in a very tangible plan involving cultural freedoms, social reforms and economic stimulus measures. CHP wants a Turkish Republic which has no ethnic or religious discrimination or policies. This is a social democratic and secular approach. Now the government says that it will start the process of solving this problem and asks the support of political parties, without telling the public the content of its plan. What are they planning? What’s their project? So, we as opposition and social democrats, have expressed our roadmap on the Kurdish issue, on how to solve the terrorism problem, on how to develop the region, guarantee the ethnic freedoms… But so far, the government has been unable to present any concrete ideas.

What are your thoughts, through your background in diplomacy and NATO ambassadorship on the resolution of the Cyprus issue?

The Cyprus issue should be resolved through talks between the two parties. There were a lot of talks in the near past on the UN’s Annan plan. Although we had some serious concerns about this plan Turkish Cypriots approved it in a referendum that the EU was explicitly requesting. Nevertheless the Greek-Cypriots rejected it. But this time Mr Christofias said that the Annan Plan is dead. That’s to say what they are seeking is an agreement which would be better for Greek Cypriote nationalistic view than the Annan plan, which means that in their mind their project would be worse than the Annan Plan for Turkish-Cypriots. So our government states that the Annan plan is our bottom line and we cannot go below this. So how can we solve this issue? There has been some pessimistic analysis from the British press, from others, what would happen in case there is no solution. Nobody can wait until eternity for a successful end to these talks. So the Greek-Cypriots should finalize their position and try to accommodate also the views of the Turkish-Cypriots as well. So if an agreement is put on the table that says “fine, Greek-Cypriots only” it would definitely not be acceptable by Turkish-Cypriots. At this point we do not have many reasons to be optimistic on Cyprus, but we hope that reason and European values will prevail and at the end of the day there will be a positive outcome.

How do you see the Afghanistan issue today?

It’s an easy issue in a sense because NATO’s involvement in the beginning was a partial involvement. It’s different from Kosovo; in Kosovo the NATO council was conducting the war they planned everything and I was a member of that NATO council and I know how we conducted that war. In that case we were taking the major decisions avoiding the micromanagement and the end result was very successful, very positive. We won the war with zero causalities and a minimum level of collateral damage, whereas in Afghanistan the operation started as an American operation and a formal coalition of the willing and NATO had an additional or supplementary role. In the beginning we were in charge of the protection of the Kabul and Baghdad airfields. The rest of the operations elsewhere were conducted by the US and some fellow member countries.  Now, NATO is slightly more engaged today, but still we do not have the full responsibility of the operation. NATO is engaging troops, taking risks without having full control of the situation. That’s the problem. We command the NATO troops, but at the end of the day you notice that we do not control the political decision-making system. I believe that NATO should have full responsibility, command and control, and accountability for the operations. Now we see a lot of civilian casualties and an incredible amount of collateral damage. People in Afghanistan think NATO is responsible. This is also one of the reasons explaining why the European Union needs to be a stronger political actor and how Turkish membership will be a great contribution to Europe’s future, not only in economic terms, but also in terms of security.