Bilgi Üniversitesinde Türk Dış Politikası Konulu Panel (İng.)

CHP Genel Başkan Yardımcısı Onur Öymen’in Bilgi Üniversitesinde yaptığı konuşma
4 Mayıs 2007

Thank you for your invitation. I would like to give some ideas about Turkish Foreign Policy. The challenges, opportunuties, our brief history and the problems we are facing today. But before doing so, I will try to give you information about what is happening today. I am sure that you are very much interested in reading Turkish and foreign press.

What is happening in Turkey today? The thing is that this year we have to elect our president and our parliament. There will be two elections and we are at the stage of electing the president. So it was a little complicated because of the policy of the government which refused to consult with the opposition to find a candidate for the presidency together. So we told them that we were ready for to compromise and find the candidates from your own party members. We have shown flexibility on that because we said afterall the president should be supported by the majority of the parliament and people. So the government refused to consult with us and they said ‘we have to choose the president and it is up to us.’ The prime minister found the candidates who is among the hard-liners of the party. He is among the few parliamentarians who are coming from previous Islamic parties in Turkey bent from the constitutional court for their anti-secular activities. Former parties of the actual candiates for the presidency were bent by the Constitutional Court of Turkey. Why they insisted present such a candidate instead of looking for a moderate, mutual acceptable candidate? Because apperantly their aim is to dominate all key posts of the state by Islamist politicians. The president of the Repulic, the post of the prime ministry, the presidency of the parliament should all be under the authority of those politicians with extreme religious background. Why it is so important? Because actually in Turkey we have a check and balance system. In 2002, they got %34 of the votes and they had the possibilty to govern the Turkey. A group of ministers in the government have this Islamist tendancy but to balance the government and the majority in the parliament, we had a president who is secular, open-minded person. He used his authority to block the government initiaves which were not compatible with the constitution. We have a constitutional court which has cancelled a number of laws that was accepted by this parliament again in the same line with the anti-secular mantality.

For the first time in our history, if Mr. Gül has been elected, all three key posts would be filled by this extremist Islamıc political tendency which would be a big danger. The thing is that they didn’t have enough majority in the parliament to vote Mr. Gül because according to our constitution,  you should have two-thirds majority sitting in the parliament in the time of the election. They don’t have this much members. But the president of the parliament who has the same mentality and the Islamist origin, he said that this interpretion of the opposition, of the lawyers are totally wrong and they do not need two-third majority. The simple majority of the members of the parliament is enough to proceed to vote. He did so and we went the Constitutional Court immediately. The court decided that we were right and he was wrong. So the court cancelled the first phase of the election of the president. And now we will start again next Sunday but again they are still making some constitutional mistakes. At the same time they said that the early elections should take place. It was our original proposal. We proposed a few months ago that we should have early elections and we should let the new parliament to elect the new president. At that time they refused that, today they came to this point when they saw the decision of the Constitutional Court. But by doing so, they made another mistake, saying that ‘let’s go to election and in the mean time, let’s change the basics of our constitutional system in Turkey. Today in Turkey the president is elected by the parliament. In Italy, Greece, Hungary and many countries, it is the same way. They said this time we will change the constitution and the people will elect the president directly. But this is an important change and you need time for discussion. So you cannot ask a parliament which finished its term if  it is time to change the system of the state dramatically. They can do only day to day business and not to change the complite structure of the society in the last few days of its tenor. So when BBC asked me about this yesterday, I said what if the house of common after taking the decision to dismiss itself and held new elections besides to accept basic law to change the British kingdom into British Republic for instance. They said ‘it is not thinkable.’ And I said that was exactly what they are trying to do in Turkey. We hope that they will fail and we are using all legal and political means in Turkey to block such anti-constitutional activities of the government by using the Constitutional Court and all sorts of political means.
There was a political fight in Turkey between those who want to continue as a secular democracy as established by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in early 1920s and those who want to change the system and make Turkey a sort of Islamic country. The fight is between these mentalities. Our constitution firmly stated that Turkey is a secular republic and will stay as secular republic. We have put this in our constitution already in 1927. Even before that, we separated religion from the affairs of the state. We are the only country among 57 Muslim nations where the basic rule in the society is secular. Thanks to this system of the secularism, we are the only real democracy among all these 57 Muslim nations. This is the product of Atatürk revolution in Turkey. Before that, Ottoman Empire was a religious state and the head of the Empire, Sultan, was also the caliph, the religious leader of all Muslims in the world. The state was operating under the rules of the religion. It was also an authoritarian regime. There was no democracy, secularism in the Ottoman Empire. These shortcomings were among the main reasons of the failure of the Ottoman Empire before the First World War. After the war of liberation of Turkey in 1920 and the proclamation of the nation of the Republic Atatürk established a modern Republic in Turkey. We cut all ties with the past and we have built a completely different modern society. If you look at the first chapter of our first constitution of the Republican era in 1924, you will find exactly the replicas of the human rights section of the French Revulotion’s constitution of 1791. It shows the mentality of the founders of the Turkish republic. At the same time, the cancelled the post of caliph in 1924 and they said ‘we have nothing to do with the leadership in the Muslim world and we are going to separete the affairs of the state while fully respecting the religion but the religion should not liminate the affairs of the government.’ At the same time, Thomas Jefferson said that ‘while creating the American state, preparing our constitutiıon, we erected a role between the religion and the affairs of the state.’ It is exactly what we did in Turkey. But now, in the last few decades, some political parties wanted to change the system and to return to an Islamic society which would be a great danger for the survival of our democracy. Because in a Muslim country you cannot have a democracy in case you do not seperate religion from the affairs of the state. This is so important. Why? Because in an Islamic state, there is no gender equality. You do not have equality between man and woman. That is why non of the Muslim countries besides Turkey could be qualified today as a democratic country. Only Bangladesh has started as a secular republic after gaining independence from Pakistan. But they could only resist for 5 years and they yielded it under the pressure of the Islamist. They became also an Islamic state. Only Turkey survived as a secular republic. This makes Turkey very particular in this region. So this Turkish model was a source of inspiration for other countries. For instance, in 1930s, the Shah of Iran visited Atatürk and he was very much impressed by the reforms of Atatürk and by the achievements of Turkey. He said he wanted to do exactly the same thing in Iran and where should he start from. Atatürk said, ‘the starting point should be democracy. You have to hold the elections, you should have an elected government and than you should base your state system on the public vote. You have to seperate the religion from the affairs of the state.’ He said ‘OK, I’ll do that.’ And a few months later, he sent a letter to Atatürk and said; ‘don’t believe that I forgot my promise. I wanted to do exactly what you did in Turkey. But religious people in Iran, did not permit me. They are so strong that I was unable to break the resistance and was unable to realize what I promise to you. But I am going to send my son to foreign Western countries for education and I hope that he will do what I could not do. Unfortunately, his son was unable to do either. The king of Afghanistan, came to Turkey to visit Atatürk and there was a similar consultation. Atatürk said; ‘I am ready to help you in case you want to become a modern society, I will try to work today with you.’ And then we sent teachers, professors, doctors, lawyers, military officers to Afghanistan in 1930s. We built political science faculties over there. It lasted until the occupation of the Russians, of Soviet army. So we have such a past practice which shows that the reforms of Atatürk and the modernization process of Turkey was a source of inspiration.

After the war, we started a multi party system. By the way in 1932, we granted the women in Turkey the right to vote and to be elected. It was a revolution in Europe because France, the most democratic country in Europe, granted the same right to French woman 11 years after Turkey. We joined the Council of Europe, we were among the writers of European Convention of the human rights. Sometimes some European politicians try to teach us what is human rights and what is not and we tell them ‘we are the author of the human rights convention of Europe. There may be some shortcomings, some wrong things but they believe that we are unawere of human rights. We were also the member of the OECD, we became a member of NATO in 1952. Turkey was accepted as a member of European democratic societies after the second world war.

We signed an agreeement in 1963 with the European Union aming to join union as a full member. It is written in the text. The principle of the Turkish membership is accepted. The only problem was not if but when. So there was a calender, we had to fulfill some economic and political conditions. What has been changed in the mean time? What are the problems we are facing with Europe today? The main issue is not those presented to the public like Cyprus problem, human rights issues etc. The main problem is unfortunately there is a change of mentality in the new leadership of Europe. For instance, Mr. Sarkozy said repeatedly that; ‘Turkey should never join EU because Turkey is not a European country. Turkey is an Asian country, what Turks are doing in Europe?’ He was on the record while saying this. Then what we are doing in the Council of Europe for years? Why you have not told us to go and establish and Asian Council, instead of Council of Europe? Why we are a member of NATO and OECD? Mrs. Merkel, the German chancellor, said similar things. So those are not positive and encouraging signals for the Turkish people. Austrian prime minister, the actual and the previous one, they publicly said that Turkey should never join the Union. Why it is important since the majority supports Turkish membership? Because to join EU, you need unanimity. All countries should support you. That is why we need to persuade each and every government in Europe.

We asked the European politicians; let us not play games against each other. Our question is very simple .In case we fulfill all conditions presented by European Union that other candidate has fulfilled are  you ready to take Turkey as a full member or not? Not today, maybe tomorrow, maybe ten or fifty years later. But we should know in advance that you do not have a basic rejection of Turkish membership. Otherwise it would not be good to wait all the Euopean Union so many years to get an answer for the issues that we cannot change, religion or culture of the people. So please tell us what would be your position. I was in Berlin recently. We set together with the members of European Commission of the German Parliament wtih participation of all parties. So we ask this question to get an answer. No answer. They cannot tell you that even if you fulfill conditions we will make you  a member of Council of Europe. None of the opponents of Turkish membership said today that we can support your membership in case Cyprus Problem is solved. None of them so far said us that we would change our mind and support Turkey in case of the solution of Cyprus Problem. That is the problem. That means Cyprus Problem or another issues are presented  as excuses in front of us. Each time you solve a problem then thereis another problem in front of us to be solved. Therefore to be honest, our policy will be the following when we are in power in a couple of months. I hope we will be in power. Then we will go and tell European Commission, Parliament, politicians, make your mind. If you want to make Turkey as a full member, we are ready to make all reforms that are accomplished by other candidates. To tell the truths, those  reforms are very important for us. The reforms expected by European Unions are of significant importance. We have made so big reforms. My party established by Atatürk in 1923 realised so big reforms that we changed our alphabet, our calendars,  our basic law and Constitution. We introduced secularism and so on. So many big reforms we realised that what is expected today by European Union are small fish for us. We promised to European Union that in case  we are in power in six months time we will finish all what you want. But what will we do afterwords? We will finish the reforms and sit and wait at the door of European Union for fifty years, twenty years? Why are we going to wait for such a long time without knowing exactly what you will attend to do? So we told them and we are going to tell them in case you do not want Turkey as a full member it is why? Tell it. Tell us your internal, historical, religious or cultural reasons. Are you basically against the Turkey’s membership? It is a fair answer. We cannot stay at waiting room for years and we cannot ask seventy millions of Turks to sit and wait at the waiting room of European Union. As simple as that. And then we will of course consider our actual commitments to European Union. For instance, we are entered into the Customs Union with the expectations of joining European Union so at this moment because of the Customs Union, all our foreign trade is linked to European Union’s tariffs.. For example, if you want to import a good from Japan, from China, America, Canada wherever which are not members of Union we have to implement the tariffs of Union. Wh y should we do if we are not going to join the Union. Then we will change the tariffs. So we were not to abide by the rules of European Union. So it goes same for many other issues. To be honest, we are in favor of full membership provided that Europe is ready to take as a member. In case you are ready, we are ready. In case you are not ready, fine, then we will find our way.

As regards to Cyprus, one of the issues that are very high on the agenda, we have shown enough flexibility. we said that Cyprus is established  as a bicommunal state. There should be two communities in the government, in the parliament in the burocracy, ı mean everywhere. So the government was so established in 1960. There was a Greek Cypriot president, Turkish Cypriot vice president with the right of retalk  on laws all agreements on everything. Turkish ministers, Greek ministers, Turkish parliamenters and Greek parliamenters allright.. But at the end of 1963, using their numerical majority on the island they attack and killed many Turks. They kicked out all Turks from the government, from the judiciary, burocracy and parliament. There is not a single Turk in the so called Cyprus Government today. So what European Union is asking Turkey is to consider a governmet composed of only Greek Cypriots as the government of all Cyprus including the government of Turkish Cypriots. We cannot accept this. They have no authority in the North because in 1974 they made coup de’ta. They kicked out Macorios and they brought a terrorist Niko Samson to the post of the presidency. And then Niko Samson said that we joined at that moment the Cyprus to the Greece. So we finished the life of  State of Cyprus. We are going to join Greece. So it a clear violation of Constitution. They started to attack Turkish Cypriots. They killed hundreds of Turks, babies, children, elderly people in remote religion in Cpyrus in Limasol area. Then Turkey had to intervene to stop the killing of Turks. We  intervened and established a security zone in the north. All Turks came there, all Greeks went to the south. Then in the last thirty years , there is an absolute peace in the island. No incident, no killing. Recently we opened the borders to Greek. If they want to come and visit the north, they are able to come. Thay can go to restaurants, hotel. It is free and open. But their leader, Papadopulos is not willing for compromise. The secretary of the United Nation proposed compromise solution. There were a lot of fortcomings. So my party said  that this format of compromise is not good enough. We need to improve it. But still he insisted and our government in Turkey said ok and suggested the Turkish Cypriots to vote for. Turkish Cypriots voted in a referandum for Kofi Annan’s proposal. Greek Cyriots rejected. That  is why we missed a chance for finding a solution. So still today Mr.Papadopulos says he is against Annan’s Plan. He is against any improved version of the Plan. My party says as long as you are not ready for finding a solution under the same roof of the same state on the base of equality as was the case in the origin of Cyprus State, then allright. Let’s live side by side until the day you are ready to find workable solution.

More important is the security issues. Because after the end of Cold war we had a new situation in Europe, NATO and in the world as well. So there was  as what we called it peace dividend for all NATO countries except Turkey. What does peace dividend mean? Since we are not faced with real threat from the Soviet Union that doesn’t exist anymore we do not need to spend so much money for defense. Germany for instance spends 1.5% of their Gross National Products for defense. Canada 1.3. most of NATO countries are spendind less than 2%. Turkey more than  4 % almost 5 %. Why? Because the security environment in our religion has not changed. Turkey is the only NATO country with  nondemocratic neighbours. All other NATO countries are surrounded by democratic countries with the exception of Turkey. That is why we need to have a strong army and spend so much money. In case we have democratic neighbours we  wouldn’t spend so much money for defense and and would spend this amount of money for social and ecenomic projects. So we would say according to some estimations 8-9 billion dolar every year to be spent for social project. So what is the solution? Solution is Turkey should work for the democratization of the area. How we can do that? There is only one way. As ı said in the beginning democracy can be established in Muslim society only if you seperate religion from the affairs of the state. Turkey is a secular, democratic model. If the Middle Eastern countries adopt Turkish model there will be a completely different situation in the Middle East. In the last thirty years there was a massive democratization in the enitre world starting with eastern Europe and Latin America, Africa or Far East with one exception. Why there was no democratization in Middle East? It is a question mark. Some scholars like Samuel Hungtington says that in a Muslim country there cannot be democracy. Democracy is a product of Christianity. In a Muslim country there could be no democracy with one or two exception like Turkey. So we do not believe them. We do not beleive that 1. 3 billion Muslims in the world should be condemned for living in non democratic societies. It would be unfair. Why should not Muslims have the right to live in democratic socities.? As ı told you why among 57 Muslim countries there is not  a single democracy outside Turkey.. Imagine if you go from Turkey  to east. Our next democratic neighbour would be Japan. You can make a step in India if you want. But there is cast system  and  some antidemocratic basic rules and traditions. Otherwise none of the countries in the east are democratic societies. With the exception of Israel we have no democratic neighbours in Middle East. We are living at this moment. In case Turkey can be seen as a democratic model everything will change. Why? I beleive that this will be  insurance policy for peace and stability in the region. Because so far there was no  war among democratic countries in the world.

Democracy is a guarantee for peace and stability. All wars have taken place either among nondemocratic countries or one democratic one nondemocratic countries. It will be a good example for entire region and everybody will win. First, countries of region,second Turkey, third Americans , fourth Europeans and the rest of the world. Who will be unhappy to have democratization in the region?. We spoke with political parties from Iraq. They are visiting us one by one. Then we explain them. Most of them react positively. They are ready to go ahead. Kurdish parties for instance are very much in favor of secularism. Turkoman parties are also in favor. Syhia leader is also in favor. Christians are also in favor. We have a number of political parties representing millions of people are in favor of secular, democractic Iraq whereas in the new Constitution of Iraq it is stated that no law could be drafted against the rules of Quran. Of islamic principles. So they made Iraq an islamic society instead of a modern, secular state. We told this to Americans. Their diplomats understood our message but half of their politicians did not understand us. Some of them not exactly. German Democratic Republic had democracy in the title but they were not a democratic society. Iraq today, according to our standards is not a democratic society. If you want to make Iraq democratic country, let’s work together. This is our message. Finally ı will touch upon a very important issue which is terrorism. There  was terrorism problem in Turkey  since 1984 started with actions of Kurdish terrorist, organization called PKK. They are responsible for killing of more than 30 thousand people in Turkey. Ten times more than what the America lost in Twin Towers attack. This terrorist organization operates in Turkey but they get support. That is why Turkish Armed Forces was able to eradicate terrorism practically in Turkey towards the end of 2002. then they flat to Northern Iraq. They have already hardcore in Northern Iraq. Today they continues to operate from Northern Iraq. They have bases. There are about 3500 terroists. They cross the Turkish border and kill people. They attack economic targets. And they return to Northern Iraq. So we have an agreement with Iraq. Border Agreement of 1926 saying that both countries should protect border areas. 75 km deep from both side should be protected by respective governments and thay should not allow terrorists to cross borders. But at this moment Iraqi government is unable to protect the border. We have 300 km of border and Iraqı Government doesn’t have enough troops to send to the border. We couldn’t protect it from Turkish side. Because border line has 3000 m high mountains. It is practically impossible to protect the border from our side. Then you need to protect it from Iraqi side. What are American doing? Just nothing. We told them what we want them to do. I was in the USA two weeks ago. I spoke  with State Department and Department of Defense also congress leaders they said they have other priority in Iraq. They said we are under attackwe need to defend Baghdat, Tigrid.. so we don’t have forces to spare and to combat with terrorism. This is allright. Then let’s do it. We have enough capabilities and forces. We did it during the period of previous government. Previous government sent  troops to protect the borders and to fight the terrorists. Who will stop and control them? . Answer: nobody.  So Northern Iraq is the only place in the world where a terrorist group is operating without being afraid of any security force. There is no other example in the world. In each country  security forces are charge of commatting with terrorism with the exception of Northern Iraq. This is a big danger. We ask American what is your reason? Because President Bush has said  after attack of 11 September that Americans have no gray area. He said to the  Nation of the world. You are either with us, or you are with terrorists. We have no gray area. We told Americans exactly  what we are telling you here. Are you either with us or with terrorists? We do not gray area either. Then result is this. We are asking why you are doing this. They said we cared for stability in Northern Iraq. If we operate against terrorists then there will be no security no stability in the North. Then we said it is a sort of some game. In case you care for stability but you do nothing to prevent terrorism. They continue cross the border and creat instability in Turkey. You cause instability in your biggest ally  in the region. Why are you doing this? Thereis no reason, no explanation. More in more in American press articles are ciritising this policy of America. This is the most difficult problem between Turkey and USA. Because of their policy in general in Iraq and also in Northern Iraq they have lost dramatically the support of Turkish people. A few years ago 52% of Turkish peole were supporting USA. Today only 12 %. According to some opinion polls only 7 %. This is the result of their policies. In none of other countries there is such a low rate of support for America today. We don not want it. We are not enemies of America. But we cannot accept the fact that Americans are somehow tolerating terrorism and preventing Turkey from fighting with terrorists. Yesterday again, a Turkish officer was killed together with soldiers.. Why? Because there is a safe heaven in Northern Iraq. There is n another explanation. Because we are strong enough to finish terrorism in Turkey if there was no such a foreign dimension. It is the most important issue in our foreign policy. Chief of Staff declared recently in a press conference that Barzani and Talabani Kurdish leaders in the North are supporting firmly terrorist organizaton by suppling them with arms. We have strong intelligence, evidence that  they are threatening Turkey. they said in case you attack to terroristsi n Northern Iraq then we will provoke Kurds in Turkey to revolt against Turish government. Can you imagine that? Those people are friends of America. How can they do it? Americans reacted verbally. But so far they failed to stop kurdish leader from making such statements. Whereas the same Kurdish leaders were fighting witk PKK a few years ago when ı was Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs. I was co chairman of Iraqı Group Ankara Process together with American Deputy Minister and British High Offical. We were working togethet against PKK.  Together with Barzani Talabai and Turkomans. What happened in the meantime? Big question mark. We do not know. We do not know why they changed their policy in PKK.

The question is what we think about Greater Middle East Project. And whether there is a link between islamization in Turkey and Greater Middle East Project. When we heard about American’s project, we said ‘ Aha, it is a good idea.’ Because the purpose was the democratization of area, economic development. We heard a lot of promises. We heard this when we read the statement of President Bush in North Caroline University. But when we studied the text we discovered some basic missing points. The main missing point was that Americans were trying to make Middle East a democratic area without talking about at all, without making any reference to secularism. This was the biggest fortcoming of American project. Apparently they want to combat with fundemantalism and radical Islam using moderate islam as a tool which was aganist the realitşes of region. I attended a meeting in Bonn recently with participation of  high level military people and politicians. Very high ranking American Amiral told us the following. He said ‘look’. There are 1.3 billion Muslim in the world. If one of them are radical Muslim then we have 13 million enemies. How to fight with them? To fight with radical we need the support of moderate Muslim. To use moderate muslim as a tool against radical Muslim. We said that it was wrong. You cannot put a dividing line between moderate Muslim and radical Muslims. Those radical Muslims of today were moderate Muslims few years ago. Imagine Iran was not a radical country two decades ago. Then they become a fundemantalist state. So there is no way to make a difference between two. We told them there is no such a thing like moderate Islam. We explained them  that the best way to combat with radicalism in the region is to use secularism and democracy as a tool. Authoritarian Islamic regime in the Middle East is precisely is secular democracy. This is the connection. We shouldn’t overlook Americans oil interests in the Middle East. We understand strategy is based on control of oil resources. It is legitimate. We understand it. What we understand less is that they want to use power each time they beleive that their economic interests are threatened. This is against UN Charter. Because in UN Charter it is stated that you can use force only if you are attacked. In new American strategy, preventive strikes, it is said that Americans can attack any country in the  world when they feel that a threat may come from that country. It is against the basic concept of UN Charter. For that matter they went to station troops in the region which attracks terrorism, violence and all sort of political reactions. Their strategy is not exactly what we have suggested them. Turks and Americans should talk more, because we are living in this region for one thousand years. We know the conditions of the region, and strategic importance of it. We have suggested Americans to consult with us before deciding operating. Unfortunately, our American friends do not have the tradition of consulting other people before deciding operating. Only after deciding to stage of operation they came to us and asked for assistance. They said that they established their strategy , operation plans and asked for our assistance. So we said ‘ İt is ok, but let’s work together from the beginning.’ Let’s consult to each other and see the realities of the situation. I talked with them. I was Ambassador of  NATO. In case you attack Iraq, you will have another Philastine problem, terrorsim, violence..They said you are wrong. We are told by some Iraqi that all Iraqi people would accept us with flowers. This was the hope of America. All of a sudden, they faced with massive violence. They have lost more than 3200 soldiers so far, hundreds of thousand casualities from Iraqı side. Why? Because it was a wrong decision, wrong timing and wrong operation. If they properly consulted to us and paid attention to our advice, probably all things would be different. Today more than 70% of American people  are against the American’s Iraq policy. Majority of Congress is against this policy. They came to our position. This is our message.

Sometimes in politics, you cannot understand the reasons.  A small party who has absolutely no chance to pass the threshold in the next parliamentery elections insisted that we should change our constitutional system and elect the president by direct vote from the people. So ı cannot understand why they propose this, why now. If it happened during the normal period you could understand. But parliament has finished. They decided to hold election in July. So how you can do such a change in the last weeks by a caretaker parliament. It is against common sense. But sometimes it happens in politics. I must confest that particulary for students of Law Schools, it is not very easy to understand politics. I am trying to use all my academic background to understand political life. Sometimes ı fail.

There are different tendencies in Europe. They cannot develop a common language. Some political parties particularly Christian Democratic Parties are very much against Turkey’s membership. They had a meeting in 1997 in Brussel at the top leaders level to discuss the future of Turkey and European Union. Former Belgium Prime Minister Mr. Martens made a statement that we agreed that Turkey should never join EU. Why? Because European Union is a civilization project. As if we are out of the civilization. Later, other leaders said it was not exactly what we had concluded. But there is such a tendency. Other European leaders said just the opposite. For instance, British conservatives, Spanish conservatives think differently. As we need unanimaty iı poses a serious problem for us. Social Democrats and Greens are more in favor of Turkey. in 1997 EU Brussel Summit they accepted to make all Eastern European countries formal candidates for full membership, except of Turkey. Why? Because at that time in Germany there was a Christian Democratic government. They refused to put Turkey in the list of candidates. Two years later, in Helsinki Summit they made Turkey a formal candidate. Why? Because in the meantime German elections the Christian Democrats left the government, Social Democrat and Greens came to power. Such things influence the policy. How the things will develop in the coming years? We will see. But whatever the developments in the Europe will be, in Turkey we should care for our commitments, express our readiness to our European friends that we are ready to join the Club, but when we feel that
It will not be possible for obvious reasons, then we will conduct our policy. We will find our way. We want to be a member of EU, but we are not condemned to it.