Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Reply to Financial Times for promoting Turkey's accession to the EU

Dear Sir,
It seems that you (i.e. FT newspaper) have taken it upon yourselves to promote Turkey to EU membership. And in doing so, you find it necessary to dismember Cyprus permanently.
A couple of examples from your relevant articles:
David Lidington MP : "we are the strongest supporter of Turkey’s accession to the European Union and are proud to be a leading advocate for Turkey in the EU." Nov. 13 2010
In the same article he refers to his prime minister in Turkey who said:
“…to make the case for Turkey’s membership of the EU. And to fight for it”.
“And it is not just the UK cheerleading for Turkey – on November 9 the Italian and Turkish foreign ministers published an article in Italy’s La Repubblica in support of Turkey’s EU ambitions.” continues Lidington.

Editorial:If the Turkish Cypriots asked for recognition of their state, it would be difficult for the UK to oblige, because London is bound by a 1960 treaty of guarantee not to promote partition. Other EU countries would also hesitate. But many states are impatient with the constant Greek Cypriot disruption of EU business on account of the Cyprus dispute. They believe Turkey’s rising geopolitical and economic importance makes it imperative to show Ankara that the EU will not be hostage to the Greek Cypriots for ever. Even Russia, a long-time friend of the Greek Cypriots, is signalling a possible change of course on account of its newly blossoming ties with Turkey.” November 12 2010

Editorial: “They should be making its case more forcibly. Pushing for the unblocking of more chapters would help. Ultimately, though, a way must be found to deal with the Cyprus problem, the chief obstacle. Admitting that country before it had resolved its dispute with Turkey was a grave error.” November 9 2010

The TURKEY 2010 PROGRESS REPORT of the European Commision is more than 100 pages long. It mentions a series of “progress” points made but with a very large number of qualifications on why Turkey is still not ready.
It contains about ten introductory sections the longest of which are
2.1. Democracy and the rule of law, 2.2. Human rights and the protection of minorities of about ten pages each. The rest are one or at most two pages long.
Just about one page is devoted on Cyprus within 2.3. Regional issues and international obligations.
Further, section 4. Ability to assume the obligations of membership consists of thirty-three chapters. Each of these is usually one or two pages long; occasionally three pages. Exceptions, however, form the following:
Chapter 19: Social policy and employment and Chapter 23: Judiciary and fundamental rights four and five pages respectively.
Various problems are mentioned quite frequently through the whole text, notably  the Kurdish issue, the Armenian genocide, rights of children, human rights in general and of course the Cyprus issue. However, one would hardly conclude that this is the major problem Turkey faces vis-à-vis her ascension to the EU.
To what then do we Cypriots owe your venom against us?
Well, there is a revealing footnote on p. 5 of this report:
“The decision sets out that negotiations will not be opened on eight chapters relevant to Turkey's restrictions regarding the Republic of Cyprus and no chapter will be provisionally closed until the Commission confirms that Turkey has fully implemented the Additional Protocol to the Association Agreement.”
Cyprus, despite its tiny size is a member of the EU and can block Turkey’s ascension forever. And the mighty Alvion – mind you toothless by now – cannot stand that. She – toothless and almost demented – perceives her interests to lie with Turkey. And she sheds crocodilian tears about the “isolated Turkish Cypriots”. Well, you should recall that Turkey invaded in the name of the Turkish Cypriots but today they are a minority within the occupied areas. About half of them refused the benevolence of mother Turkey. Just about eighty thousand remain, plus about forty thousand troops plus at least two hundred thousand settlers from Turkey. What kind of isolation is it then? why would people choose to come and live in isolation? or do they not choose, maybe?
As far as the other reasons, correctly mentioned in thee report but grossly underemphasized, none of the “great powers” really care. There is no Kurdistan to block Turkey’s entrance into the EU and the little Armenian state is not a member. Amnesty International and othe human rights organizations can give advice, can shout, can issue reports but they have no veto right.
Of course you are interested in the emerging markets of Turkey, but …well, did you read Mr. Davutoglu’s book? In Turkish it is called “Stratejik Derinlik. Türkiye uluslarasasi konumu” and it means “Strategic Depth. Turkey’s international position”. If you know Turkish or Greek you can read it, otherwise make sure it is translated into English. It is enlightening about what your favorite Neo-Ottoman islamists. You may draw the same conclusion I did: Turkey is more likel to become another Iran rather than a shield against it.
Her arrogance is, of course, greatly enhanced by the likes of you (e.g. Jack Straw and any other Foreign Office former or present official).
Mr. Davutoglu approves what the Kemalist have done in Cyprus (pp 278 -280 of the Greek translation):
“Even if there was not even a single Muslim Turk there, Turkey ought to maintain a Cyprus Issue. N country can remain indifferent to such an island which is situated in the heart of her vital space.”
On p. 200 he informs us of what the plans are for the Balkans. You do not have to guess, he spells it out himself, the same as in Cyprus:
“The two short-term and middle-term targets of the foreign policy of Turkey in the Balkans are the strengthening of Bosnia and Albania into a framework of stability and the creation of an international legal framework which will set the national minorities under its protection. In this international legal framework Turkey must continually seek to safeguard guarantees that would give her the right of intervening in the matters pertaining to the Islamic minorities in the Balkans. The legitimacy of the intervention in Cyprus, which constitutes an impressive example in contemporary times, was made possible within such a kind of legal framework.” (By the latter “legal framework” he means the Zurich-London Agreements of 1959 that created the Republic of Cyprus
Many European countries are skeptical about Turkey and do hide behind little Cyprus, but that does not mean that your arguments are correct. On the contrary, any Turkish policy against Cyprus was originated in your Foreign Office.
As an epilogue I want to mention that if any country became by mistake an EU member, that is your country and not Cyprus (have a look expel the UK).
 Yours sincerely,
F. Genas

No comments:

Post a Comment