Avrupalı Gazeteciler Derneği Heyetine Yapılan Konuşma (İng.)

CHP Genel Başkan Yardımcısı Onur ÖYMEN’in Avrupalı Gazeteciler Hayetine yaptığı konuşma
23 Haziran 2006

Onur ÖYMEN: First of all, for us, the membership to the European Union is national policy. Both the government and the opposition are supporting the objective of joining the European Union. It is a long term policy. We started in 1963 by signing the Association Agreement with the aim of full membership. Since then we made steady progress. And finally, we started enlargement talks. On the 12th of June… It is a short story but it was full of problems, ups and downs and still we face some problems. The thing is that Europe is changing, Turkey is changing. Probably we will join a different Europe in a couple of years. And in the meantime, we will upgrade further the standards of Turkey.

For that matter, we engaged a reform process. We changed several articles of our constitution, our basic laws. We continue in this way. We have some different approaches with the government on the modalities. We believe that number of problems we are facing today are coming from European internal difficulties starting with the referenda in France and the Netherlands. After these referenda many people in Europe thought that one of the main reasons for the rejections by these people was the enlargement process. So, many believe that they have to reconsider the enlargement issue, maybe delay a little to permit Europeans to remodel the future of Europe.

Some politicians that we met recently developed their own ideas about the future of Europe. For instance, one of the former prime ministers of France Mr. Balladur, with whom we met last month, said that it won’t go this way, so Europe should be a small group with a full decision power, and then around this group, there should be circles. In his vision, there is no place in Europe for turkey as full member. So we have similar other opinions, but we are not discouraged. In democratic societies, it is normal that you have such opinions. Important thing is the official decisions, what is written on paper. What is written on paper is that the ultimate aim of the European Union is Turkey’s full membership. Some references which might make Turkish membership difficult created strong reactions in Turkey. Because of some –maybe exaggerated, unnecessary, negative- remarks, we have lost the public support in Turkey for Europe at this moment. It was 75 % some months ago; today it’s only 57 %. So, the reason of this decrease is not internal Turkish policies, but mainly, some negative voices from Europe suggesting Turkey a sort of special status instead of full membership. Why it is so? We are grateful that a great number of European countries is supporting Turkish full membership, but in a few countries we have problems. But the thing is that to join the club, to join the European Union, we need the support of everyone, every member country, plus, European Union, plus, the public support in some countries like France, which made the referendum compulsory with the constitutional change last year.

So we are dealing with these problems. We know that, as was the case in all other countries, we have to work further in Turkey to upgrade our legislation beneath new reform laws. The government proposed a new package of reforms, which we are going to negotiate soon in the parliament. We are, to tell the truth, rather optimistic about the final outcome. But the important thing is that we should join the EU with a positive spirit, with a spirit of friendship, with the support of our people, and without damaging our basic national interest. So we have no problem in accepting the acquis communautaire, as accepted by all applicants, candidates so far. We will accept it; otherwise, we know that you cannot join a club, in case you don’t accept the rules. What creates problems for Turkey is some additional demands which have nothing to do with the acquis communautaire. On these issues we urge the government to be very keen. We should preserve the backbone of our society; we should not scarify the basic structures, basic values of our society to satisfy some demands which are not related with the acquis communautaire, totally different from that. Second, as regards to the advice of our European friends in several areas, we tell them, of course we will observe what is written in the acquis communautairre, and what the practice of all EU countries is. If there is an area where all EU countries agree, we should also agree while the abolition of death penalty; that’s what we did. That is because it was a common practice in all the EU countries. But if we are suggested to do something that are not observed, implemented in many EU countries, then we cannot talk about unified European standard. So what is the example? The example is that in one of the recent reports in European Union, it is said that the waters in southeastern Anatolia –big rivers- have strategic value. Also, they are interesting for the strategic interest of Israel; therefore we might put these dams and irrigations systems under international administration. Could you imagine that? There is not such a rule in European community. There is no practice in the EU countries, but it is put in the Turkish report. So, it is just an example. Therefore we have to be very careful on suggestions which are not in line with the acquis communautaire and with the practice of Europe countries. We urge the government to negotiate properly such issues, and before accepting a document, study carefully the situation in the other EU countries.

So, in a nutshell, this is the general situation. Of course Cyprus has been presented as an element in front of Turkey on several occasions. We were in Athens, and we spoke with our Greek friends. Sometimes they try to give us the impression that Cyprus is the main element in our way to the European Union, in case Cyprus problem is solved everything will be solved. We said it is not true. In several EU countries that we are facing problems, like France, Germany, Austria, Holland, Denmark, those political leaders or political parties who express their objections or concerns have never ever mentioned Cyprus. They never said that in case the Cyprus problem is solved, they may reconsider their policy have a positive look at Turkish membership. So we should be aware that Cyprus issue is important; it should be solved within some parameters under the UN. But Cyprus should not be presented as a stumbling block in front of us. First, it is not correct to do it, and second, it is not the main element for those who want to delay or block Turkish membership process. As regards to the substance of Cyprus, we told friends that the Turkish size is penalized for a crime that she has not committed. Finally, I’m not talking about history now, but at the end the UN Secretary General made a concrete proposal of very comprehensive solution. Finally, the Turkish side has accepted the report, voted positively; whereas the Greek side rejected. So, despite the Greeks rejected the report, we are admitted as full member to European Union; and there is no practical improvement in the situation of Turkish Cypriots despite their acceptance. So, there were unjust embargos, trade embargos, cultural embargos, and other embargos against Turkish Cypriots; they continue, despite the written promise of European Union that they would be lifted. 24th of April 2004, right after the referenda, they promised to lift the trade embargos, but nothing happened so far. We believe that on Cyprus issue, Europe should treat Turkish Cypriots in a more fair and just way. To be European doesn’t mean that you should be free of your commitments. Everybody should observe its commitments, particularly European Union. High values should be keen in implementing its promises. So, because Europe failed to, so far, implement its promises, the Turkish government says that we are not in a position to make additional concessions for Greek Cypriot ships at Turkish ports and harbors to be accepted. We can do it only in case European Union fulfills its written commitment. It’s where we are on Cyprus. On several other issues you may have questions, and I can answer them in detail. As far as my party’ concern, I should tell you that my party is the most European partying Turkey because we are closely attached to the European values. That’s the important thing. Of course we are also sometimes strongly criticizing Europe in case we see sort of double standard, an unjust treatment, and unfair demand. Of course it’s our job vis a vis our public to express our objections and observations. But it doesn’t mean that we are against European Union in country. We support European Union more than other parties because our party program went side with European values like human rights, secularism, social rights. So, we are urging government to make reforms particularly in these areas and to refrain from taking steps which would not be in line with secularist constitution of Turkey. Those are some basic elements of thought. If you have concrete questions, I’ll try to answer.

Reporter: You mentioned the Europeans standards with regard to death penalty, but it is also European standard, for example, to prosecute a journalist for criticizing the army or the state or having different opinion in the Armenian genocide. If you are in power in the future, will you erase these provisions from the penal code?

O.Ö.: I should say that, as far as my party is concerned, we cannot accept that, in any area, not only in this area, Turkish legal standards and other standards should be one step below Europe. We cannot accept this. In case we want to join Europe, we should admit that the rights of our citizens, irrespective of their origin, thought, and philosophy, should have exactly the same rights as the European citizens but we are also urging our friends not to use these issues for other purposes. In case you mention an issue, you should be sure that information given to you is correct. For instance, as regards to this Armenian genocide issue, I should tell you that in my professional life as a diplomat, I’ve never ever seen or heard in any European such a harsh criticism of any academician against the history of its own people. For instance, some academicians who are today still teaching in Turkish universities said in a recent conference that our ancestors were criminals. Have you heard your historians saying that your ancestors were criminals with these words? Criminal is very strong word. You can criticize your predecessors, your ancestors, but the language is very important. They say that although we have no prove of any sort we still believe that there was genocide. Scientists, academicians say that even I don’t have any prove, I have such a feeling: and because I have such a feeling, my ancestors were criminals. Nothing happened to these persons.

Reporter: The most of these cases is not that extreme. For example, a trial for journalist who just said the current decision to bind a conference on Armenian genocide was wrong. That was not calling anyone criminal.

O.Ö.: I want to believe that there was such a case. I’ll be happy. You cannot judge persons because of objecting a conference. About the conference the interesting thing is that, to the best of my knowledge, they co-organize a conference to which they invite only the persons who have their own views. We expect from academicians to let people of different opinions to come together and discuss their case. The interesting thing is that unfortunately a group of academicians consider this matter in a sort of militant way without permitting the other guys to express their views, to present their documents. Therefore, I would suggest you to be very careful in case you hear some comments from some circles. You are in the right address here. We have no reason whatsoever to protect the government. We are the last organization in Turkey who would minimize a mistake of the government. We can, on every occasion, criticize very strongly the government. But in case we read or hear things that have never happened or exaggerated, then we have to tell the truth.

Reporter: Didn’t you have a dialogue with French Armenian minority club who asked the recognition of the genocide?

O.Ö.: We urge a dialogue. My party proposed to the parliament last year that we should bring together Turkish and Armenian historians to come together, to exchange documents, information and to see from a scientific point of view what has happened. Unfortunately the Armenian side rejected it. The good thing is that both the government and the opposition parties agreed to our proposal and we passed a resolution in our parliament urging Armenia to send their experts to any place in the world to come together with Turkish and other experts, and to open their archives. We opened our own archives, but the Armenians had not opened their archives. Have you heard this? No, because those people who inform you only about one part of the story. The real thing is that we opened our archives and they don’t. There are also Armenian archives in Boston, in America; they didn’t open it either.

Reporter: Do you have an idea why they don’t open it?

O.Ö.: They say that we have nothing to discuss. Everything is known, everybody should accept this, and we don’t need to open a discussion on that. Is it a scientific approach? I don’t know.

Reporter: You mentioned before that you do things and other people reject. For example, you did that with the Armenian case and the Armenian rejected; and you do steps in good will and the Greeks reject. I would like to ask you if you are in government, and if everything is set up with the Cyprus issue and you have an agreement on these, are you planning to withdraw all the people that were brought from Turkey into Cyprus and change the amount of population in the island.

O.Ö.: All these were in the Kofi Annan Plan. There were also articles about the displaced persons, refugees, with trouble of military forces. Everything was there. Unfortunately the Greek Cypriots rejected it. What you have suggesting has been already proposed by UN Secretary General, and it was rejected not by the Turkish side, but by the Greek side. If there is an agreement with the Greek side, why should we reject our own agreement? It would be nonsense. So in case there is an agreement, you have to observe the agreement. But in case the other side rejects the agreement, Turkish side should not be taken as responsible for not fulfilling the conditions.

Reporter: You have said that the major Turkish parties fully support you future membership. I’d like to know are there any written documents on it, or was it only a general agreement?

O.Ö.: Yes, of course. We have written a book on that; about 300 pages, expressing our views about European Union. The title of the book is “YES for Full Membership, NO for Special Status.” It contains all our official statements of our party chairman, myself, and other colleagues.

Reporter: What do you disagree with the government?

O.Ö.: The point of disagreement is that we believe that actually the government is a little slow in the reform process. As suggested by European Union, some western newspapers, we believe that they have somehow lost their enthusiasm for their own reasons. They claim that they will pursue the reforms. We said, OK, but, do it! There are some demands of European Union most of which we agree for, such as education, health, agriculture, etc. We need more progress in Turkey in all these fields. This is because if we want to join European Union as soon as possible, we have to finish our homework as soon as possible and not to give pretext to those who want to delay Turkish membership for their own reasons. Therefore our purpose is to do it as soon as possible.

Reporter: Do you think situation with human rights in Turkey is not an important obstacle for accession? Is it maybe the most important in your opinion? What about freedom of labor?

O.Ö.: As regards to human rights, we started to work on human rights before our application to European Union. So with or without European Union, we cannot tolerate any misuse of human rights any ill-treatment of persons. One case is too much. In case we learn about ill-treatment or an irregularity, we sat immediately, a parliamentary group composed of deputies of our party, to the place southeastern Anatolia or elsewhere to make a report to the parliament. We informed the press and public opinion. So, those are issues that we cannot tolerate and it has nothing to do with our membership. In case we say that we have to improve our human rights because we want to join European Union, we would do a big disservice to our people, because human rights issues should be dealt with irrespective of our membership process to European Union. We cannot tolerate human rights violations.

Reporter: Is it important matter for the EU?

O.Ö.: Of course it is important. It is mentioned in EU reports, but as far as we are concerned, we are very sorry that such issues are mentioned. In EU report we should have solved these matters before being criticized by anyway outside Turkey. This is because we have a long tradition of human rights, tolerance in our society. Our society is based on tolerance.

Reporter: So, why have democratic and secular forces, then, waited for 40 years, and then given the service to Islamists to have the successful story of the path into the EU?

O.Ö.: We started this EU membership process in 1963. We signed our first agreement aiming at full membership; it is written by our party chairman at that time and prime minister. In the meantime, we made steady progress with European Union. We had a long term agreement with European Union to pass to a customs union. We are the first country who concluded a customs union with European Union before being a member. In the meantime, in 1978, we applied for full membership. Bu we noticed that there was an effort in some European circles, parties, governments to delay our membership. Why? They say, Turkey is too big, and they tell us very often friendly that we are too competitive. One of the problems of Turkey is that we are too big, too strong, and too competitive. For instance, when I was ambassador in Germany, we learned that Poland, a candidate at that time, had signed an agreement on permitting construction companies in Poland to come and work in Germany. We asked, “Could you do it with us as well?” They said, yes, and then I signed the agreement. The agreement said that Turkish companies should be allowed to come to Germany and work in German markets with the condition that the total number of Turkish in these companies at any moment should not exceed seven thousand people, just seven thousand.

Reporter: That’s the same of Poland. It’s very restrictive. There is an agreement, but it’s very restrictive.

O.Ö.: I know but, let me tell you the rest of the story. Six months later, they invited me once more, and they said, we are sorry, you are too competitive, our companies are complaining, we can’t compete with seven thousand Turkish workers, so we have to reduce it to two thousand. Imagine that! The German government said this, the minister of economy. Then they reduced it to two thousand. A few months later, they invited me once more, and said, even two thousand is too much, and we have to cancel because you are too competitive. You see, we are paying a price because we are competitive.
What they tell us, for instance, is that all candidate countries so far had the possibility for their citizens of travel to EU’s Schengen countries without a visa with the exception of Turkish citizens. Why not? Why all citizens of candidate countries, Bulgarians, Romanians, and others, today can travel to Schengen countries except the Turkish citizens. Why not? The rule was that all citizens of all candidate countries were permitted to travel to Schengen countries without visa. They prevented this. They also put some conditions, for instance, a clause saying that on free circulation of people (one of the four basic rights), on agriculture, and on social politics, EU may have permanent safeguards against Turkey. No such a language was used for any candidate before us. They impose this expression just for Turkey. Those are some elements introduced in our documents. That’s why we urge our government to negotiate better this document before signing. Unfortunately they signed in a premature way before making this in line with other candidate countries. For instance in 1999 Summit of Helsinki, it was stated that Turkey should be treated equally with other candidates. Now they are changing the rules of the game. They said each country should be treated differently.

Reporter: Why do you actually want to go into the EU? You have the customs union; so, you could negotiate the law of great economic deals.

O.Ö.: We want to join European Union because it was a political choice. We believe that our place is in Europe. This is because we share the same values. In other parts of the world also we are noticing that countries are coming together to defend better their own national interests. Why should we exclude ourselves from the European family as long as practically all EU countries are joining the club? As long as we fulfill the conditions, why should we isolate ourselves from European Union? Our place is in Europe, our tradition is European tradition, and our republic is based on European values. So why should we exclude us from Europe? If we are forced to stay outside, we will, of course, have other options. As I have already told, for us, European Union is a value system. In this part of the world, particularly in a country with the great majority of Muslim citizens, it is important to live in a society where European values are valid like secularism; because in Turkey unfortunately, some political and social forces want to backtrack to non-secular constitution.

Reporter: I want to ask about this. There are some fears in Turkey that the AKP government is using the EU membership process as a tool to limit the army’s power and this way to adopt the EU rules on the freedom of religion, and for this way, to open the door for Islamization of the Turkish state. Can you see such effort?

O.Ö.: That’s a very good question. I believe that European Union is a little misinformed about the role of the army in Turkey. They asked the Dutch government to establish a committee on civilian-military relations in Turkey, and this committee under ministry of defense of Holland has visited Turkey several times, and they invited us, also, to their meetings. I participated to those meetings. They had the impression, at least in the beginning, that the army governs Turkey; the army takes the major political decisions, and the politicians and the political parties are just rubber-stamps. We told them that is not true at all; because the highest political body in Turkey is the Turkish parliament. So, there is no mechanism whatsoever nowhere of influencing the Turkish parliament. Nobody can influence the Turkish parliament. I am a member of Turkish parliament for the last three and a half years; I’ve never ever heard anyone, military or else, to suggest us, to vote this way or that way. On many occasions we voted against the expectations of the army. Nothing happened; nothing could have happened. But the impression is given in the EU reports or in some other documents that the army governs Turkey, so we have to put the army into order, they should no try to express their views, which is incorrect. I served as NATO ambassador, and in all our political meetings there was a representative of the military committee composed of chiefs of general staffs of NATO countries, and practically in all our meetings, they were expressing their views. So it’s wrong to believe that in EU countries the military doesn’t speak at all. They speak when needed. In Turkey it is also the case. Particularly on two issues the military are sensitive. First, fighting against terrorism. It’s their job anyway. Of course they have to express their views about this. Second, about secularism, because lack of secularism may lead to Islamic terrorism in Turkey. They are very keen on this but besides that, we never heard the military telling us or the government that we should do the education in this way, health in that way, or any political issue, etc. But it is sometimes comfortable for some politicians, not my party, to tell to foreigners that we would be ready to do exactly what you want us, but we cannot do it, because the military is so important that they would probably not permit us to do that. It’s completely wrong. Probably for their internal political reasons, party reasons, or other reasons, they fail to do what they have to do. They present the army as an excuse, as an argument. As far as we are concerned, for instance, we never ever had any suggestion from the army on any issue in these last three and half years that I’m in the parliament.

Reporter: We noticed that the latest election results that the very big amount of Turkish citizen is not represented in the parliament due to your electoral system. Is your party supporting a change in this system, so that all the people of Turkey can be represented in the parliament? And if yes, what’s the threshold?

O.Ö.: At this moment, in this way, the most democratic country is Holland. In Holland the threshold is 1 %. In Turkey it was even better. It was zero about twenty years ago. But then we discovered that it was practically impossible to form a government. If there is such a system that there is no threshold and all political parties are represented equally, then it was impossible to form the government. So as a reaction to that, they put the threshold at 10 %. Many people in Turkey believe that it is too high. But at this moment I don’t believe that there is a consensus in the parliament to change it. There s a case in the European Court of Human Rights to candidates of the party who were not able to pass the threshold applied to European Court of Human Rights, we are expecting the result of the court. Previously a similar result was rejected by this court. We will see what they will decide this way, and we will discuss it afterwards. As far as my party’s concerned, to tell the truth, we don’t see a majority in the parliament at this moment to change the threshold. This is because the party in power fully enjoys the system with 34 % of the votes they got 66 % of the seats.
We believe that it will take time to change the system, but as an ultimate goal, of course we will have to reconsider this threshold. But not today. Unfortunately there is no ideal model in the world for this.

Reporter: What is your position on the referendum in France or the next enlargement?

O.Ö.: I believe that it was a mistake to change the constitution, to tell you very truth, because the article in other all the French constitution was permitting the parliament either to ratify as parliament any international treaty or to vote a referendum. Nothing was preventing the French parliament to go to referendum. In the last enlargement, they didn’t use this right to go to referendum. In no enlargement except the joining of the UK they went to referendum, and everybody knows why they went to referendum for Britain. But no other candidate went to referendum although constitutionally it was possible.
If the purpose is to exclude Turkey, it is good to say afterwards, instead of waiting ten years, you fulfilled all conditions but we are sorry, we had a vote, you made all concessions to Greece, Cyprus, Armenia, whatever you want, you did everything; but unfortunately 51 % of our people says no. We are so sorry, but you are out. So it will be very unfair. If your political decision is against Turkish membership, you have to say today.

Reporter: Are you also prepared to this other alternative, which is very common in Germany, the privileged partnership? So why it is not?

O.Ö.: It is not because either you join a club, or you don’t join a club. You cannot stay in the waiting room for eternity. To have s special status means that you will have obligations but no right to vote. It is not acceptable. No country so far was treated as second class member. Nobody told us in the last forty years that the ultimate solution might not be a full membership, but something different. In all EU documents, there was a reference to full membership of Turkey in case Turkey fulfills conditions. Now they say, even if you fulfill the conditions, perhaps we cannot accept you.

Reporter: Why did the Turkish of population in favor of the EU membership decrease? Is it related to these referendums?

O.Ö.: Obviously. If they have so many negative voices from Europe that’s normal. We are proud people; sometimes our people get the impression that we are trying to join to a club that we are not wanted to join. So if you are not wanted, people say, alright then let’s look for another horizon. Why should we insist? In several conferences that I gave in the EU subject, I explained about the merits of the European Union membership. They say alright, but they don’t want us. Why should we put ourselves as a second class country begging in the doors of Europe in case they don’t want us? We say it’s not true. So many friends support our membership; those are the documents. Prime Minister Juncker from Luxemburg, for instance, said two weeks ago that he was in favor of Turkish membership, but that we should know that Turkey should never ever has a status equal to Belgium, Luxemburg, Germany, or, Italy.
We are, of course, as I said, for full membership. We believe that despite all the difficulties, problems, negative voices, we have to work for that direction. When there was veto of General De Gaulle against Britain, the British government said that for them no answer was not an answer. But we should always have plan B in our pocket. So in case in a referendum or elsewhere we have negative voice, what shall we do? So, we should know it from now on. What would be the alternative? The alternative would be that Turkey, according to our party, should continue to be a European country. We believe that it will be wrong to say that we have to join the Islamic Conference, Islamic countries, or Middle Eastern Common Market as an alternative. Those are not realistic, because we don’t share the same values with them.

Reporter: How do you want to convince European citizens that Turkey should be a member of the EU?

O.Ö.: It’s very easy. It depends a little on journalists. There is a book published in France recently by former advisor of Prodi; you cannot find just one line saying that for that purpose Turkish membership might be in the advantage of Europe. On every occasion, it’s against Turkey’s membership. If you propagate such impressions to your own public, how do you expect us to compete with your own prime ministers, political leaders, journalists, etc. They said you should make better public relations. Good; I will go to Germany and compete with Angela Merkel. She will say that instead of full membership, special status is better, and we will go to say about she wrong, don’t believe her. She is the prime minister! So it’s unfair to expect from Turkey to compete with your own politicians in your own countries. Therefore, we urge our European politicians to tell the truth to the people. The truth is that Turkey’s membership is advantageous for individual European citizens. We will be much more important than possible problems.
For instance, the main problem in Europe is energy security. Whoever politician we are talking about the insecurity for the energy supplies that oblige them to rely too much on Russian supplies. They are even afraid of the next waiter. And we provide additional energy supply possibility. We are building today a gas pipeline between Turkey and Greece, to which Italy, so that, Europe, will join. We are going to build Nabucco Pipeline from Turkey to Austria bringing the national gas from Caspian Sea countries through Turkey to European capitals. We have made operational Baku- Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. We started to supply oil through Turkey without passing through Russia and Ukraine. It’s a concrete example.
Another concrete example is that one of the dimensions of the EU is that defense and security. Who else can provide more capabilities than Turkey to European army? Everybody is reluctant to pay an extra penny for European army. And to fulfill your own targets you have tremendous difficulties. Whereas we are the largest military force among all European NATO countries. So, we can be extremely to the EU in fulfilling Europe’s defense and security targets.
We have 73 million people market, which is incredible opportunity for European countries. So, all the economic discussions are made about “market”.
The main problem in Europe is aging population, decreasing population. Whereas, we have young and moderately increasing population, which will fill the gap in Europe in the next ten or twenty years.
The different Turkish culture should not be an impediment, but should be a positive value for Europe. We need all to learn from each other. Culture is not only paintings and sculptures. Culture is a way of living. We have 700 years of state tradition and culture. We are going to bring our cultural heritage to Europe.
Consequently, if you put all these together, I believe that the European citizens will enjoy on Turkish membership instead of seeing Turkey as a big burden. But unfortunately, it’s also the case in Turkey. Negative news makes the news. In case you have a Turkish businessman employing 5000 Germans in Germany it’s not news, or is a very small one. It is our wish that the European journalists be as objective as possible. If you want present the problems, do it. But don’t miss the opportunities and the positive sides.

Reporter: Is it still possible to prepare a new Cyprus plan?

O.Ö.: Let’s be realistic. The feeling is that the majority of the Greek Cypriots are not willing to live together with the Turks; whereas the Turkish side opted to live together with Greeks. The feeling in the Greek side is not in same direction, at least at this moment. We believe that we have to create a better feeling, a better understanding. They should not see each other as their enemies. But they should consider each other as members of the same family. As long as there is unwillingness from the Greek side, I don’t believe that, through this or another plan, we can solve the problem. This is the basic problem.

Reporter: Do you think the AKP government is keen on getting rid of secularism?

O.Ö.: We have serious concerns about some moves of the government. For instance, only two days ago referring to a statement of mine in the television program, a pro-government newspaper’s columnist wrote that secularism is very bad for Turkey. It’s a Western invention, they want to impose us secularism, and our future should be in the Muslim world. There is no place for secularism in Turkey, he said. Yeni Şafak is the name of the newspaper, which is very close to the government, and this person was the former chief of the paper. The top person in the Prime Ministry, the highest civil servant, wrote an article saying that we have to change the republic and secularism for a Muslim country. “Ömer Dinçer” is his very name. So, how can we believe that this government is very keen on secularism? The speaker of the House says that although we cannot change the word “secularism” in our constitution, we can perhaps redefine secularism.

Reporter: What do you think of the future of the AKP’s Islamism tendency? Is it a problem for Turkey?

O.Ö.: Of course, it is. We believe that they are preparing themselves for a nice seat in the opposition after the elections. We don’t believe that they will be elected once more. Despite the writings of some pro-government newspapers about their continuing support from the people, we have the impression from Anatolia that we have trouble everywhere, and they are losing ground.