Nikos Konstandaras is managing editor and a columnist of Kathimerini, the leading Greek morning daily. He is also the founding editor of Kathimerini’s English Edition, which is published as a supplement to The International Herald Tribune in Greece, Cyprus and Albania. He worked as a correspondent for The Associated Press from 1989 to 1997 before joining the Greek press and has reported from many countries in the region.
Close.
Nikos Konstandaras
Athens, Greece
Nikos Konstandaras is managing editor and a columnist of Kathimerini, the leading Greek morning daily. He is also the founding editor of Kathimerini’s English Edition, which is published as a supplement to The International Herald Tribune in Greece, Cyprus and Albania.
more »
Turkey is a country with many secrets. As far as joining the E U? not so fast!.
They critisize the E U as a Christian club, and yet they are members of NATO. Doesn't that make fools of the American and European coalition? Especially NATO? And why doesn't NATO order them to stop attacking the Kurds or else you are out!
Reporters in the right wing political arena have supported NATO without questioning the real problems with Turkey,
It is time to get your facts straight and protect Europe and the innocent from Turkish agression and never mind the hypothetical analysis.
Turkey is a clever evil empire, and it should be dealt accordingly!
Genocides is mass murder, whether it happened now or yesterday, many counties are to blame, even today with Darfur,Iraq, Kurds, etc etc.
If your newspaper took a stronger stand and not follow the English tabloids, Murdocs catastrofic mind and the other newspapers that tend to lean towards the simple minded sides mainly right and left then and only then, the world will be at peace!
But to do that reporters must have guts and passion and not worry what big brother says.
FIGHT FOR COSMIC EQUILLIBRIUM, CLOSE THE GAP AND REWARD THE WEAK, CAUSE IN REALITY THEY ARE THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLD.
There are two independent states in Cyprus. Why should Turkish Cypriots want a "unified Cyprus". It's illogical. In any such "unified Cyprus" Turkish Cypriots would be a minority among a racist xenophobic people that has tried for 11 years (1963-74)to committ genocide against them.
Recognize the two independent countries on the island and move on.
Also, why should Turkiye want to join the EU. This is a dying organization politically and economically. Also, the birth rate growth is 0% in most of Europe. Whereas, in Turkiye, the youth population is expanding (too) rapidly. One day, European peoples might become extinct! Everyone knows the future lies in Asia.
Angelo of Portugul u know nothing about turkey, stating it is undemocratic, and that it fears democracy because of the threat of islamic fundalmentalism, Kemalism will forever protect the nation against islam, the military is the protector of the state, do not compare your country with turkey or your puny militaary either.
regarding cyprus, why would turkey want a mini greece just off its southern flank?? its a matter of strategic importance that turkey have a foothold on this island, actually i find it surprising that the turks are ok withso many greek islands so close to turkey in the agean/west. I know deep down that all greeks hate turks, whether they say they support their EU bid or not, whereas turkish hatred towaRDS greeks is usually a reaction to the greek mentality. Turkey in the Eu is a bad idea, Turkey has other options, caspain , central asian, iranian. What if turkey, iran, pakistan formed a military alliance?? vowing to defend each other in case of attack?? Turkey would automatically gain nuclear capability( why u think its so buddy buddy with pakistan already?).
a turkey inside the eu would spell the end of europe as we know it. merkel and sarkozy are right. privileged partnership is what would suit both europe's and turkey's best interests in the long run. admitting a country the size of turkey in deep denial about what it takes to be a fully-fledged european power is a recipe for disaster. anybody who's recently been to turkey could see for themselves that the country is hardly european in character. abysmal infrastructure, dirt and dilapidation everywhere you look, gaggles of fully covered in islamic attire women hardly make a country a poster candidate for membership. even russia, for all its recent high and mightiness, feels way more european than turkey at its best.
Any nation wishing to join the EU has to abide by certain rules, which are clearly stipulated.
Before anyone complains about Greece, Cyprus or any other country currently complaining about Turkey, I suggest one reads the following which clearly outlines the potential new member's obligations for membership. http://europa.eu/constitution/en/part2_en.htm#a5
It was two or three years ago, while I was watching a French television I heard a French deputy say that what European Union has been done, in terms of shaping its size, should not be called "enlargement" but it should be called "reunification". He was implying the post war situatoin of Europe after 1945 in which Yalta conference was hold and the European territories was divided between the liberal capitalist bloc and socialist bloc. When we look at the last ten members and two near future members, Romanie and Bulgaria, the attitude of Europe seems confirming the French deputy. Let us examine the Turkey in this context, Turkey was not a part of Europe and during the cold war times it was also a pro-Western country and never been in socialist bloc. The French deputy wanted to say that if a country, once, was not a part of Europe it does not have any chance to be a member of European Union. In accordance with this kind of argumentation because Turkey has not been a part of Europe so it does not have a chance to be a member of European Union.
TURKEY IS NOT A EUROPEAN COUNTRY. IT IS A MIDDLE-EASTERN ASIAN NATION. TURKS KNOW THIS FOR A FACT. THE PEOPLE OF EUROPE KNOW THIS FOR A FACT. THE EUROPEAN ELITES KEEP DELUDING THEMSELVES THAT THEY CAN CHANGE THE DNA OF TURKEY. BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH, I SAY. IT IS A WASTE OF TIME. I URGE THE EUROPEANS TO CONTINUE TO REJECT THE IMPOSITION OF THIS NON-EUROPEAN ENTITY ON EUROPE AND I URGE THE NATIONALISTS OF TURKEY TO CONTINUE TO BE PROUD OF THEIR OWN HERITAGE, WHICH IS DECIDEDLY NON-EUROPEAN.
I think we are talking in vain saying that Turkey should not be allowed into EU etc.
5 million of Turks are already in EU.
This is more than most of EU's small countries population.
I think the problem is Turks coming together and doing some meaningful lobbying in EU countries.
If they can do that there will be changes and soften the EU stance. Also Turkey being
the only country having the Customs Union with EU and allowing EU goods into Turkey without any Tariffs, it would not hurt if Turkey unilaterally removes this favors to EU and buy Chinese goods instead, which in my opinion have more quality and cheaper.
Hell with EU. I will say let the Economy do the talking. EU is not the only option on the world.
While the writer makes valid points about the overall discussion about Turkey entering the EU, that's not what's currently at stake. Everyone involved, including Turkey, knows that process is going to take many years.
What's at stake now is Turkey's position toward Cyprus. In this case, Turkey is right to call upon the EU to fulfill its promise made in 2004 that Northern Cyprus would be opened up to EU trade. The EU needs to stand by that promise and then Turkey will stand by its promise to open its ports to Greek Cypriots.
Making this into a discussion about recognizing the other party's claim about statehood is taking the argument too far. The Greek Cypriots trade daily with the Turkish Cypriots across the Green Line (the Greek Cypriot army even ate Turkish Cypriot tomatoes during its latest mass exercises), without any hint of one party recognizing the other as an sovereign state.
Turkey should not be allowed in the E.U. as they belong in the Arab Islamic world as to culture, religions and values. The best Turkey can be is a second-world country and thier effect on Europe would be negative in the short and long run.
If Turkey can not accept the conditions of membership into the EU, then it should withdraw its application.
Every other country that has joined the EU, has abided by the EU guidelines of membership.
Turkey is no exception.
Having said that, if Turkey is acting like this now, imagine what they will be like if they ever do join the EU.
Maybe the best solution to the problem is a EU without Turkey.
I find the Cyprus matter pretty disgusting. Accepting the Greek Cypriots into the EU after their rejection of reunification was obviously a deliberate poison pill for Turkish membership.
Despite great duress from its own nationalists, Turkish Cypriots voted "Yes." The Greek side voted "No." Why should Turkey be forced to legitimize the decision of Brussels? It's as if you had one partner who elects to stay married, another who insists on divorce, and not only is the belligerent party awarded the kids and all community property, but the jilted groom has to keep making her dinner!
Always Greek way is that something.EU is with them Turkish people in Europe for more than 500 hundreds years and will be there nothing to fear.Go To Turkey You will love it.Politics is something else.
After reading all the comments,I hope the Turks do not join the EU.
Tell me why would anyone in his right mind join the EU. Its not California (or if one could join it).
Europe is dead if not dying already.
Very little sunshine.
Look towards the East thats where it is Sunshine and women bear children and make bread at home,and when they become old they die in their homes (and not in a nursing home),and the young fall in love and marry.
And most of all every one has enough Time to spend.
Democracy is the key requirement for joining the EU. One may question some aspects of each member country's democracy, as one may find strange some aspects of USA's democracy. Nevertheless, Turkey isn't a democracy by any standard and, most important, many Turks don't want it to become one because of the danger of the Islamic fundamentalism.
One cannot afford to have a country in Europe where the military has veto power over the political power and threatens to intervene every decade or so. My country, Portugal, was under this kind of military rule between 1974 and 1983 and it as a heavy drag on the country's development. Even so, the military never threatened to intervene military in this period.
I believe only time will tell (more than a decade, for sure) if Turkey can become a democracy and, only then, one can talk of full membership.
Cyprus is not an issue, is an excuse, because politician are always afraid to tell the truth.
AT writes that "Turks saw [Sarkozy's remarks as] an obvious case of Europe's double standards."
Isn't there a big difference between
- refusing to apologize for atrocities that happened (France in Algeria)
and
- refusing even to admit in the first place that atrocities happened (Turks on Armenians, and Anatolian Greeks as long as we're on the subject)?
Also, unlike all of these past misdeeds by the French & Turks, the occupation of northern Cyprus isn't exactly over and done with. It's a real brain-twister to equate an ongoing illegal occupation with misdeeds from a half-century ago.
If this truly represents the state of the public debate in Turkey, it is a sad commentary.
Cyprus cannot be a member to a political and economic union, to which Turkey cannot be a member, in legal terms. Therefore the legality of the whole situation of so called 'Southern Cyprus' becoming a EU member and representing the whole island should be questioned.
1. Cyprus is a member state of the EU, having met all the requirements of the EU. It si irrational for anyone to say that was a mistake on the part of the EU, simply because Turkey does not like that Cyprus is a member state.
2. Turkey signed a protocol that specifies Turkey's responsibilities, prior to admittance. These include recognizing ALL members of the EU; not threatening war against members of the EU; respect for the rights of ALL her population. Every other EU applicant has signed up to these, and complied PRIOR to admittance.
It is Turkey's reluctance to abide by the agreement she signed, that is the issue.
So as annoying as some may find it that Cyprus, or Greece, (with 3 times & 4 times the per capita economy compared to Turkey) can control Turkey's fate, they must recognize that Turkey has the obligation. A-la-carte membership is not an option.
First, I really don't understand why people feel the need to trot out shop-worn nationalist diatribes in these sort of fora. Such posts don't convince anyone and they only make the author look foolish. Turks are not Nazis, nor do they eat Christian babies, or whatever other nonsense misguided people in Europe and elsewhere may think.
Nor is the issue of Cyprus starkly black and white. Like most everything else in life, it's a murky shade of grey. Greeks killed Turks, Turks killed Greek. Yes, Turkey had the right to intervene military as a signatory to the agreement but no, they didn't have the right to hang around and set up an autonomous republic in the north.
Second, yes, the EU did screw up by admitting Cyprus as a member state before the issue was resolved. The appropriate venue for the resolution of the dispute is the UN. By admitting Cyprus into the EU, Brussels has allowed the Greek Cypriots to move the dispute from the UN to the EU, where it wields veto power over Turkey's application. Unsurprisingly, the Greek Cypriots are exploiting this power in an attempt to wring greater concessions from Turkey and Turkish Cypriots than their featherweight status in the world would otherwise allow them. Additionally, now that Cyprus is a member of the bloc, the Greeks no longer have to play bad cop vis a vis the Turks - they've got their client state to that for them. While this has allowed for a Turkish-Greek rapprochement, it's a rather hollow, cosmetic one. Greece gets the credit for supporting the Turkish bid, while the Greek Cypriot gets chastized for being difficult. In the end, it's the same song and dance.
Third, Turkey's EU membership bid does seem to be held to a different standard than any of the other previous candidates. This is clouded, however, by a lot of background noise in Europe about unofficial conditions, such as recognition of the Armenian genocide, which clearly have nothing to do with the Copenhagen criteria per se. It's hard for Turkey to negotiate with the EU when so many EU leaders seem dead set against Turkish accession and the bloc doesn't really seem to be negotiating in good faith in return.
The sad thing is that the AKP government is basically willing to bend over backwards to implement whatever reforms are necessary for Turkey's bid, with two exceptions: Cyprus and the Armenian genocide issue. By focusing with laser-like intensity on these two issues, Europe is making larger and vastly more important reforms on matters like human rights, corruption, etc, that much more difficult. It's hard to sell reform domestically in Turkey now that public opinion has shifted against the EU for what is perceived to be its bad faith in negotiating.
For better or for worse, the Turkish public lumps a lot of developments in Europe on the national level in with the EU negotiation process. This was on particular display following the passage of the French bill on the Armenian genocide. When Sarkozy went to Algeria shortly thereafter and refused to apologize for France's colonial subjugation and exploitation, saying that "you can't ask sons to say 'sorry' for their fathers' mistakes," Turks saw an obvious case of Europe's double standards. While this was not linked to the EU process as such, these sort of things fuel the perception in Turkey that the EU is not an honest broker. This makes more reform measures more difficult for AKP, and give ammunition to nationalist parties opposed to the EU accession process, like CHP and MHP.
If the EU really wants Turkey to push ahead with the necessary reforms - and this is, of course, open to debate - then it should back away from imposing deadlines relating to the Cyprus issue. The accession process is a long one, and Turkey won't be a member, if ever, before 2015 or so. Talks should proceed on the Cyprus issue, of course, but not in such a way that they poison the prospects of making progress on more important domestic reforms. Right now, pushing hard for Turkey to open its ports to Greek Cypriot ships isn't going to accomplish anything. It would be better to put this off until other reforms have been enacted and the Turkish public has regained some more trust in the EU and the negotiation process. That should make the inevitable compromise on Cyprus easier to stomach.
More importantly, it seems that you missed the essence of the posts. They are that Turkey must abide by the same criteria as all other EU member states. In other words, Turkey does not have the priviledge to sign an agreement, and then bargain about which sections Turkey will adhere to.
ONE of these is that Turkey must recognize ALL EU member states, including Cyprus. Another is that Turkey must respect the ethnic and religious rights of ALL of her people (that includes Kurds and Christians).
These are not unique to Turkey, but standards that all EU member states are held to.
Like every other country that has joined the EU, Turkey is expected to abide by the rules and regulations of the EU.
One of the requirements is to open its ports etc to all member EU states. Others include freedom of speech, transparent government etc.
The EU is expecting nothing more from Turkey than what it expected from the other countries that joined. If Turkey is not able to fulfill its obligations during the pre-joining period, then it should not be allowed to join.
The issue of who did what and when in Cyprus, is a side issue. Cyprus [the internationally recognised part] is part of the EU and as such, Turkey is obliged to allow Cypriot planes and ships to dock at Turkish ports.
Its a condition of membership.
Further, once Turkey becomes a member, it is required to treat all EU citizens in the same manner.
At present, I think Turkey is best left out of the EU until it can come to terms with what EU membership actually means and to implement its EU obligations.
The writer is a lyer. He says "Yes, I would like to see Turkey in the EU. What kind of country Turkey will be when it joins?" He says that he wants that Turkey meets the EU criteria. At the other side he says "Cyprus Blah Blah Blah".
But Cyprus has nothing to do with EU criteria. Only greeks want to make Cyprus an EU criteria.
Forget the stupid writing of an stupid writer.
Given your fascination with Nazis, you will of course no doubt be aware that the current President of the Republic of Cyprus, Tassos Papadopoulos, once submitted a plan detailing how to exterminate every Turkish Cypriot within 75 minutes (documented by Makarios Drusiotis in "First Partition: 1963-64 Cyprus", and confirmed by US archives) - but apparently this only serves to raise his approval among his target audience.
The scope of the misinformation contained in your post is far too wide to address on this board - instead I will direct you to www.cyprus-conflict.net where you can find an assortment of essays and memoirs by historians, commentators, UN staff, ambassadors etc.
"The Greeks, either in teh form of the Hellenic Republic or Cyprus, has never committed war crimes."
Although your statement is entirely false, it does go some way to reiterating what the Cyprus problem was and is about - seeing the island as part of a greater hellenic being rather than a sovereign state. It is amusing how patriotic Greek Cypriots get about a state they never wanted - especially as during the 46 years of existence, every single leader it has had has been pro-Enosis (Greek annexation of Cyprus), and all but one are former EOKA terrorists.
If you have the time or the inclination, you might also want to read Prof. McCarthy's "Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims" which details how 5 million Ottomans were killed in ceded territories (particularly the balkans) and and further 5.5 million were deported.
Just because the Turks are grown up enough to get on with life without spending billions upon billions on obsessive, hate-driven lobbying for decades does not mean they have not suffered their fair share of atrocities.
Just briefly buzzing over the comments here, I could not help but notice that Turkish commentators like to use the Greeks as a scapegoat for their troubles.
The fact that Turks do not seem to understand that THEY are the ones being considered by the EU, and it is not THEY who are considering the EU...they've been begging Brussels since the 1960's to join...now all the sudden they have decided that the EU missed the boat...well, the EU needed Turkey like a person needs a hole in his head...so thank goodness that the EU missed the boat.
And if Turkey has problems with Cyprus' veto, perhaps it should have considered, as a confidence building measure, to not veto Cyprus' membership in various international institutions
Turks also like to cite examples of Greeks committing atrocities against the Turks of Cypru. What they seem to miss is that these were acts of NON STATE ACTORS defending against actions of Turks sponsored by the Turkish state. The Greeks, either in teh form of the Hellenic Republic or Cyprus, has never committed war crimes. The Turkish state has, and continues to perpetrate crimes against humanity against all sorts of nationalities that reside within its borders as well as the territories it occupies.
The latest revelation was that the Turkish military, the true rulers of Turkey, took Greeks prisoner of war when Turkey attacked Cyprus, and put them in gas chambers to test their chemical weapons!!! This is the exact same thing the NAZIs did to Jews in the second world war. Indeed, the Turks seem to admire German Nazis...after all Mein Kampf was recently a bestseller in Turkey. Hitler emulated Ataturk, and now the Turks continue to deny Holocausts they have committed...and the world stands by allowing them to join institutions while the have the blood of millions on their hands that they refuse to apologize for spilling.
Europe, instead of trying to help Turkey join the EU, why don't you help the victims of Turkey gain justice in your institutions. Until then, it will be like negotiating with NAZI's to join the EU!
The UN spent decades trying to sort out Cyprus and the EU fumbled in and messed it up, frankly.
Upon realisation that the Cypriot Greek administration had "taken them for a ride", the EU then promised to lift the isolation of North Cyprus - which was another blunder. How could they make such a promise now that they had accepted Cyprus in which would be sure to veto any such move?
Cyprus has basically hijacked the entire process for its own self-interest and some continental politicians are pursuing an overtly hostile line towards Turkey not because it is for the good of the EU, but because it will help them personally in upcoming elections.
The EU made the mistake of allowing one side of a dispute to represent the whole, and now wants Turkey to clean up the mess it made. Turkey kept their end of the bargain - they campaigned successfully for a "Yes" vote and they maintain they will open up to Cyprus as soon as the EU keeps its promise to end the systematic empoverishment of Northern Cypriots.
Turkey aside, this is very much an issue going to the core of the EU's viability in its present form. Proof of this would be that practically exactly the same thing happened when they tried to do a deal with Russia last week. One member state, Poland, which has a dispute with Russia vetoed the whole deal. The EU is a cripple and Turkey is best out of it.
Turkey does not need the EU, it has choices. If anything, it would be better taking the trade deals it already has and taking Putin up on his offer of similiar trade associations with SCO - thus not becoming subject to EU rules and regulations that would hurt its competitiveness. Turkey geographically and through ethnic or religious ties has a toe in other emerging regions. Central Asia is the next growth story and many energy projects are already in the works, while trade with Middle Eastern neighbours continues to grow at a fast pace.
It is already too late for Europe. They dithered and missed the boat. If Turkey joins the EU, it will be on their terms. With each passing year Turkey has more to bargain with and less need to make concessions. The author of this article seems to be suffering from a common misconception that the EU can push Turkey around when increasingly the attitude here is "what is in it for us? they will open up their markets anyway - as long as we keep growing they are forced to deal with us."
Perhaps the money markets are the best and most unbiased indicator - last week when it became increasingly likely that negotiations will effectively be shut down with Cyprus vetoing the start of any new chapters, they did not flinch.
In 10 years time, it will not be "What does have Turkey have to do to join the EU?", rather "What the EU has to do if it wants Turkey." EU leaders are largely aware of this - hence the sudden panic and backtracking whenever Turkey threatens to walk away, or the pointless deadline after deadline after deadline on issues that Turkey has already stated its position clearly on. Giving Turkey a further 18 months to open up to Cyprus is a waste of time - Turkey says keep your promise and we will keep ours, otherwise expect nothing. Seems clear enough to me.
Once again little Cyprus is being used mercilessly by the big guys. I strongly believe that Cypriots - if left alone and uninfluenced by "mother" countries and other nonsense - can easily find a way to live together and prosper. Neither Turkey is ready for the EU nor the EU ready for Turkey, so instead of killing the whole process, they are using Cyprus as an excuse to delay it.
Kelsaco, Morganville, NJ | December 4, 2006 05:08 PM
An interesting set of comments, but definitely false. For example, many Muslim Cypriots (from the North) hold Cypriot passports. There was even one running for office at the last Cypriot elections. Can the same be said about conditions, for non-Muslims, in the Turkish-occupied North of Cyprus?
To this day, no one knows why the Cyprus reunification deal offered in 2002 in Copenhagen wasn't offered again in 2004 for the referendum. If it had, Turkey would have no Cyprus obstacle at all. It really doesn't pay, sometimes, to have outside actors muddle the game with their suggestions. Unfortunately, Annan heeded those suggestions, and instead of reunifying Cyprus, he managed to make a mess of it. The cyprus problem would be solved if all these outside actors simply left the Greek and Turkish Cypriots alone.
George, The safety of Turkish Cypriots is a pretext for occupation. It's not real. Consider that one poster already addressed this when he mentioned that the actual invasion was fulfilled in two parts. One, Turkey invaded and secured the Turkish Cypriot villages during the week of the coup. Turkey, Greece and Cyprus went to the bargaining table. Weeks later, after the Turkish Cypriots safety had been secured, Turkey used military force to ethnically cleanse the north. Why? I thought the ostensible reason for invasion was to secure safety? Clearly, it wasn't.
Do you really imagine that a reunited Cyprus, under EU auspices, would allow an onslaught against an ethnic minority? Do you believe that?
Lastly, the Cyprus coup was engineered by fanatical totalitarians who were propped up by the US at the time. These same generals were in the habit of jailing and muzzling any Leftists or socialists in Greece, They were tossed on their ears in 1974. That era is over. There are no totalitarian states in the EU today. There is no pretext for an occupation army.
Greek Cyprus has done nothing to earn the trust of the Turkish minority. They began to terrorize the Turks in 1960. They changed the constitution to strip the Turkish minority of any rights they had. The Greek Cypriots were the ones that partitioned the Island by forcing the Turkish minority into tiny enclaves so they did not get killed one by one by the Greeks. This went on for 14 years. It was ethnic cleansing 101.
Since Greek Cypriots represented 80% of the Island's population the Turkish minority was not given any opportunity to survive. The wish of the Greek majority was for every Turk on the Island to leave. And many did just that.
Greek Cypriots and Greeks had no issues with partitioning the Island in this fashion since it meant that the Turks would run away and congregate into smaller and smaller territory until there was no place to run. After 14 years of this Turkey finally decided to act and gave the Greek Cypriots a taste of their own medicine. Being the cowards that they are now they cry for help from their Christian brethren. Where was human rights when the Turks were being terrorized, slaughtered and buried in mass graves? Where was Europe? Where was Greece?
And now they expect the Turkish minority to turn their faith, their livelihood and the future and survival of their children to the Greek Cypriot majority? And that they should trust that the Greek Cypriots will be good this time because big brother EU is watching. What will the EU do if the Greek Cypriots repeated their ethnic cleansing? What did they do When the Serbs were doing
their slaughter if the Bosnian muslims in the heart of Europe? Absolutely nothing. That's actually not true let me correct myself. They enforced on embargo on Bosnia to make sure the Bosnian muslims were not able to get hold of any weapons to protect themselves.
And as far as talk about respect for the rights of minorities Turkey has more of it than most countries in the EU. Turkey's problem is not one of discrimination but lack of it. Turkey classifies everyone as a Turk where everyone has the very same rights. As another poster pointed out Turkey which regularly accused of mistreating the Kurds managed to elect a Kurdish Prime Minister and a President.
When the rest of Europe was cleansing non-christians it was the Turks that were welcoming them (Muslims, Jews and Others).
They talk about Turkey not observing the rights of minorities. Did you know that to this day you cannot build or open a mosque in Greece despite hundreds of thousands of muslims?
Before the EU proposes conditions on membership perhaps its should check to make sure existing members are also abiding by the same conditions.
David Schierling, Torrington, Wyoming USA | December 4, 2006 09:41 AM
The standards that Turkey must live by are set forth in the agreement that Turkey signed in 2005. They require absurd things like recognizing ALL member states of the EU, and respecting the full ethnic and religious rights of all people who live there.
I suppose these are too irrational for any state to accept, judging by your post.
In short, the only obstacle that Turkey must overcome, is to abide by the agreement that Turkey has already signed!
By the way, why in a post in the English language, did you use the term 'Turkiye' when the English word is 'Turkey'?
I think that the Cyprus issue can be solved under the conditions of Turkey's entry into the EU. It would be ridiculous for the island to continue to be partitioned after Turkey becomes an EU member. By the same token, it is a lot to ask for Turkey to give up the right to protect its Turkish minority and prevent possible union of Cyprus with Greece BEFORE both Turkey is an EU member- at which point the EU would be responsible for protecting the Turkish minority. While I personally don't think the Turkish minority would be harmed under current circumstances, the Turks have every reason to be concerned about Cyprus wanting to join up with Greece and create an economic coastal sea zone right across Turkey's southern border. Only when all three nations are in the EU will this problem be solved.
"Consider, first, that were it not for the eminent acceptance of Cyprus into the EU, Turkey would never have come to any bargaining table whatsoever on Cyprus."
--What a falsehood! Turkey encouraged Turkish Cypriots to say yes to the Annan Plan for unification (hence solution) in 2004, and they said yes. Greek Cypriots said no.--
Obviously, Cyprus was an EU candidate for a full 5 years before entry into the union. In 1999, it won candidacy with no preconditions on expelling the occupation army first. Turkey began negotiations after the Cyprus application was filed. It did so because it realized that Cyprus was about to enter the EU and that it had to achieve for itself some diplomatic cover so that it's own application ould be better received.
You dates are off. I'm not talking about 2004. I'm talking about 1999 when the Cyprus application began. If the application was never filed in 1999, Turkey would never have come to the bargaining table. Why would it have? After all, they never negotiated with such fervor in the 30 years since the invasion?
Furthermore, on the UN website, Kofi Annan blames the Turkish side for the failure of the talks in 2002-2003. So both sides have rejected a UN Plan, as is their prerogative.
You still haven't addressed the fact that the EU had no choice but to admit Cyprus precisely because of the justified stance of Greece.
"So what? Say yes to political extermination instead?"
Yes, unless the civilized world believes that government by military invasion, occupation and violence is a good thing. This is exactly the point. No one recognizes the TRNC, and the entire world has declared it illegal to recognize it politically, even Muslim nations. But the EU has said that, in sympathy with Turkish Cypriots, we should elevate their standard of living, and allow them to trade directly with the EU. This is what the Finnish Proposal offered to the Turkish Cypriots, and on their behalf, Turkey rejected the offer.
You have to come to grips with the fact that your nation is still considered an illegal regime, and though many sympathize with the plight of the average citizen, no one will ever agree that a military solution is the best solution.
The EU chose to make Cyprus their problem by admitting it as full member prematurely and thoughtlessly if not with ill intentions to use it as wedge against Turkey. They took sides on the issue. The present Turkish government is guilty, too, for allowing this to happen after Greek Cypriots' refusal of the Annan Plan. What this would lead to was all too clear at the time; those who wrote or spoke about it were bashed as nationalistic dinosaurs. Now, you have dimwits like Mehmet Ali Birand shocked and surprised at the outcome. It is understood that, legally speaking, Turkey was not in a position to allow or disallow Cyprus' admission. But she should have registered her reservation loud and clear at the time. Erdogan government instead gave tacit approval to this mistake by signing the Ankara protocol (or whatever) making promises that Turkey cannot uphold. Hence this impasse. Neither side is willing to move forward, nor can either side afford to walk away from talks.
This talk of "Turkey must change first" coming from a fellow Greek, whose sincerity I do not doubt, is, well, cheap. It is understood that EU has changed and will continue to change each member country. Why must Turkey change first when her admission is not guaranteed even if she changes? What is Greece's power to influence culturalist nay-sayers? Say, Turkey must change for her own sake; fine, I'll take that. In fact, many people in Turkey has slowly come to this realization. The day is not too far, in my opinion, that Turkey will move on on her own without needing the EU anchor. The process itself is beneficial up to a certain point; as the destination moving away, it starts to become detrimental.
"Consider, first, that were it not for the eminent acceptance of Cyprus into the EU, Turkey would never have come to any bargaining table whatsoever on Cyprus."
What a falsehood! Turkey encouraged Turkish Cypriots to say yes to the Annan Plan for unification (hence solution) in 2004, and they said yes. Greek Cypriots said no.
"A sharper analysis would reveal that Turkey is not so interested in the north's economic isolation as it is in the north's political upgrading."
So what? Say yes to political extermination instead?
The EU chose to make Cyprus their problem by admitting it as full member prematurely and thoughtlessly if not with ill intentions to use it as wedge against Turkey. They took sides on the issue. The present Turkish government is guilty, too, for allowing this to happen after Greek Cypriots' refusal of the Annan Plan. What this would lead to was all too clear at the time; those who wrote or spoke about it were bashed as nationalistic dinosaurs. Now, you have dimwits like Mehmet Ali Birand shocked and surprised at the outcome. It is understood that, legally speaking, Turkey was not in a position to allow or disallow Cyprus' admission. But she should have registered her reservation loud and clear at the time. Erdogan government instead gave tacit approval to this mistake by signing the Ankara protocol (or whatever) making promises that Turkey cannot uphold. Hence this impasse. Neither side is willing to move forward, nor can either side afford to walk away from talks.
This talk of "Turkey must change first" coming from a fellow Greek, whose sincerity I do not doubt, is, well, cheap. It is understood that EU has changed and will continue to change each member country. Why must Turkey change first when her admission is not guaranteed even if she changes? What is Greece's power to influence culturalist nay-sayers? Say, Turkey must change for her own sake; fine, I'll take that. In fact, many people in Turkey has slowly come to this realization. The day is not too far, in my opinion, that Turkey will move on on her own without needing the EU anchor. The process itself is beneficial up to a certain point; as the destination moving away, it starts to become detrimental.
This idea that the EU imported the Cyprus problem mistakenly in 2004 (not 2005) is a canard.
Consider, first, that were it not for the eminent acceptance of Cyprus into the EU, Turkey would never have come to any bargaining table whatsoever on Cyprus. Therefore, we'd be here at the same place in 2006, discussing the possible candidacy of Turkey, a nation with occupation troops in a European country, a nation that continues to ignore UN resolutions on its occupation, etc. Do you honestly think that EU countries, especially Greece, would turn a blind eye to Turkey's invasion of Cyprus even if Cyprus were not a member? Quite frankly, that's absurd. The Greeks (AT LEAST!) would have prevented Turkish negotiations until something was done about Cyprus.
Secondly, Cyprus was not accepted into the EU as much as it asserted its right as nation of Europe to apply. It applied with the unassailable logic and justified argument that the fact of its occupation was not its fault. Greece, similarly, vowed to prevent European enlargement unless Cyprus were considered based on its own merits. The idea that the EU does not allow members with border disputes into the union is absurd. Consider that the EU allowed Romania in (even though there are considerations with Moldova), it is speaking to Croatia now (though that nation has border considerations in Bosnia and in the Krajina), Bosnia itself separated into Muslim and Serb halves), Macedonia which has Kosovo encroachment, not to mention irredentist visions of capturing Salonica, Greece itself which Turkey has declared a casus belli against because of islands abutting the Turkish coast, Spain and the Basques, etc. etc.
The idea that the EU accepts only nation's with no internal problems is plainly absurd.
If that were the case, Turkey with its Kurdish problem should drop out NOW.
I liked your article, but it looks very optimistic and I also do not think Cyprus is a key issue. Cyprus is a tool used by European Commission and some European countries to dictate impossible and unfair demands. First of all, Cyprus was not a problem of EU until May 2005 when Cyprus was made a member. Cyprus was and still a problem of United Nations. Does anyone think, accepting Cyprus as a member of EU was the right thing to do before finding a political solution? Now it has become both UN's and EU' s problem. But of course, making Cyprus a member before solving the issue was not a coincidence. It was the ultimate intention of EU, which explains the reason today. Greek Cypriots refused to unify the island, as we all know and rejected Annan plan, while Turkish Cypriots accepted the plan. Is it possible, Cyprus with a lower GDP than the city of Antalya, Turkey have tremendous veto power, regardless what the others think.
I also do not agree, when Konstandaras claims Greece supports Turkey's EU bid. I really doubt it. Cyprus is an independent state, but no one can argue the great influence of Greece over Cyprus, as same as Turkey over NTRC. I believe Greece is the wizard behind the curtains when it comes to Turkey and Cyprus issue as well as Turkey's EU bid.
When it comes to human rights issues, it really makes me laugh and angry. Knowing the problems of Turkish minority of Greece, I think Greece is the last one to talk about human rights issues of Turkey and the minorities. Greece does not even recognize Turks as minorities but sees them as a whole Muslim minority and does not give the right to organize. In Greece, in the past, (I don't know if this still goes on) a Turkish organization can not have a word "Turk" on its label or they could not even hang a sign which contains a word "Turk". In addition, Greece's demand of airspace is unreal, if Turkey accepts what Greece demands, some of won't be able to even enter into the seas in some parts of Aegean coast.
EU always imposes this so called bad treatment of Kurdish people; I am surprised Mr. Konstandaras did not bring this up. I am asking to him, Can Greece tolerate a Turkish origin Greek citizen to be prime minister or a minister in its cabinet. The answer is of course, NO. But this Turkey, a country which mistreats Kurds had many and many Kurdish origin prime ministers and ministers. Like today, Abdulkadir Aksu who is a 100% Kurd, is at the most important position in the Turkish cabinet, Ministry of Interior Affairs. Yes, Turkey has problems with Kurds in the southeast region but seeing this only a Kurdish problem is not accurate. The problem is socio economic, which goes beyond a only issue of Kurds. And it is Turkey's interior problem, If EU really wants to solve this issue, they must pressure Turkish governments to implement radical policies in order to develop this poor region.
As a result, Turkey will not sacrifice of anything any more; at least it is my opinion about the issue of Cyprus. If we look at the history of nations over the last decades, we have witnessed many break-ups and separation of states such as Czech Republic and Slovakia, Yugoslavia. Turkey did the right thing in 1974 and practiced its right under the treaty as a guarantor nation. Greek Cypriots do not want to live the Turks aside. Therefore, the best option is, if we want to avoid another 1974, to divide the island in two sepa
All Comments (58)
Turkey is a country with many secrets. As far as joining the E U? not so fast!.
They critisize the E U as a Christian club, and yet they are members of NATO. Doesn't that make fools of the American and European coalition? Especially NATO? And why doesn't NATO order them to stop attacking the Kurds or else you are out!
Reporters in the right wing political arena have supported NATO without questioning the real problems with Turkey,
It is time to get your facts straight and protect Europe and the innocent from Turkish agression and never mind the hypothetical analysis.
Turkey is a clever evil empire, and it should be dealt accordingly!
Genocides is mass murder, whether it happened now or yesterday, many counties are to blame, even today with Darfur,Iraq, Kurds, etc etc.
If your newspaper took a stronger stand and not follow the English tabloids, Murdocs catastrofic mind and the other newspapers that tend to lean towards the simple minded sides mainly right and left then and only then, the world will be at peace!
But to do that reporters must have guts and passion and not worry what big brother says.
FIGHT FOR COSMIC EQUILLIBRIUM, CLOSE THE GAP AND REWARD THE WEAK, CAUSE IN REALITY THEY ARE THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLD.
October 17, 2007 9:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 21:42
There are two independent states in Cyprus. Why should Turkish Cypriots want a "unified Cyprus". It's illogical. In any such "unified Cyprus" Turkish Cypriots would be a minority among a racist xenophobic people that has tried for 11 years (1963-74)to committ genocide against them.
Recognize the two independent countries on the island and move on.
Also, why should Turkiye want to join the EU. This is a dying organization politically and economically. Also, the birth rate growth is 0% in most of Europe. Whereas, in Turkiye, the youth population is expanding (too) rapidly. One day, European peoples might become extinct! Everyone knows the future lies in Asia.
September 21, 2007 11:09 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 21, 2007 11:09
youre right bilge, after doing some online research ive grudgingly come to that conclusion. I'd better keep my mouth shut from now on.
February 17, 2007 1:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 17, 2007 13:17
Angelo of Portugul u know nothing about turkey, stating it is undemocratic, and that it fears democracy because of the threat of islamic fundalmentalism, Kemalism will forever protect the nation against islam, the military is the protector of the state, do not compare your country with turkey or your puny militaary either.
February 17, 2007 1:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 17, 2007 13:12
regarding cyprus, why would turkey want a mini greece just off its southern flank?? its a matter of strategic importance that turkey have a foothold on this island, actually i find it surprising that the turks are ok withso many greek islands so close to turkey in the agean/west. I know deep down that all greeks hate turks, whether they say they support their EU bid or not, whereas turkish hatred towaRDS greeks is usually a reaction to the greek mentality. Turkey in the Eu is a bad idea, Turkey has other options, caspain , central asian, iranian. What if turkey, iran, pakistan formed a military alliance?? vowing to defend each other in case of attack?? Turkey would automatically gain nuclear capability( why u think its so buddy buddy with pakistan already?).
February 17, 2007 1:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 17, 2007 13:06
Very interesting.
January 21, 2007 2:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 21, 2007 02:12
Good Site .Nice work.
January 18, 2007 3:09 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2007 03:09
Good Site .Nice work.
January 17, 2007 1:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 17, 2007 13:59
Excellent browsing have the to
January 16, 2007 12:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 16, 2007 12:13
a turkey inside the eu would spell the end of europe as we know it. merkel and sarkozy are right. privileged partnership is what would suit both europe's and turkey's best interests in the long run. admitting a country the size of turkey in deep denial about what it takes to be a fully-fledged european power is a recipe for disaster. anybody who's recently been to turkey could see for themselves that the country is hardly european in character. abysmal infrastructure, dirt and dilapidation everywhere you look, gaggles of fully covered in islamic attire women hardly make a country a poster candidate for membership. even russia, for all its recent high and mightiness, feels way more european than turkey at its best.
December 19, 2006 5:52 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 19, 2006 05:52
Chinese goods high quality? Where do you shop?
December 13, 2006 7:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 13, 2006 19:32
Any nation wishing to join the EU has to abide by certain rules, which are clearly stipulated.
Before anyone complains about Greece, Cyprus or any other country currently complaining about Turkey, I suggest one reads the following which clearly outlines the potential new member's obligations for membership.
http://europa.eu/constitution/en/part2_en.htm#a5
December 9, 2006 2:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 9, 2006 02:08
It was two or three years ago, while I was watching a French television I heard a French deputy say that what European Union has been done, in terms of shaping its size, should not be called "enlargement" but it should be called "reunification". He was implying the post war situatoin of Europe after 1945 in which Yalta conference was hold and the European territories was divided between the liberal capitalist bloc and socialist bloc. When we look at the last ten members and two near future members, Romanie and Bulgaria, the attitude of Europe seems confirming the French deputy. Let us examine the Turkey in this context, Turkey was not a part of Europe and during the cold war times it was also a pro-Western country and never been in socialist bloc. The French deputy wanted to say that if a country, once, was not a part of Europe it does not have any chance to be a member of European Union. In accordance with this kind of argumentation because Turkey has not been a part of Europe so it does not have a chance to be a member of European Union.
December 8, 2006 8:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 8, 2006 20:59
TURKEY IS NOT A EUROPEAN COUNTRY. IT IS A MIDDLE-EASTERN ASIAN NATION. TURKS KNOW THIS FOR A FACT. THE PEOPLE OF EUROPE KNOW THIS FOR A FACT. THE EUROPEAN ELITES KEEP DELUDING THEMSELVES THAT THEY CAN CHANGE THE DNA OF TURKEY. BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH, I SAY. IT IS A WASTE OF TIME. I URGE THE EUROPEANS TO CONTINUE TO REJECT THE IMPOSITION OF THIS NON-EUROPEAN ENTITY ON EUROPE AND I URGE THE NATIONALISTS OF TURKEY TO CONTINUE TO BE PROUD OF THEIR OWN HERITAGE, WHICH IS DECIDEDLY NON-EUROPEAN.
December 8, 2006 2:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 8, 2006 14:02
I think we are talking in vain saying that Turkey should not be allowed into EU etc.
5 million of Turks are already in EU.
This is more than most of EU's small countries population.
I think the problem is Turks coming together and doing some meaningful lobbying in EU countries.
If they can do that there will be changes and soften the EU stance. Also Turkey being
the only country having the Customs Union with EU and allowing EU goods into Turkey without any Tariffs, it would not hurt if Turkey unilaterally removes this favors to EU and buy Chinese goods instead, which in my opinion have more quality and cheaper.
Hell with EU. I will say let the Economy do the talking. EU is not the only option on the world.
December 8, 2006 11:23 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 8, 2006 11:23
While the writer makes valid points about the overall discussion about Turkey entering the EU, that's not what's currently at stake. Everyone involved, including Turkey, knows that process is going to take many years.
What's at stake now is Turkey's position toward Cyprus. In this case, Turkey is right to call upon the EU to fulfill its promise made in 2004 that Northern Cyprus would be opened up to EU trade. The EU needs to stand by that promise and then Turkey will stand by its promise to open its ports to Greek Cypriots.
Making this into a discussion about recognizing the other party's claim about statehood is taking the argument too far. The Greek Cypriots trade daily with the Turkish Cypriots across the Green Line (the Greek Cypriot army even ate Turkish Cypriot tomatoes during its latest mass exercises), without any hint of one party recognizing the other as an sovereign state.
December 8, 2006 12:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 8, 2006 00:33
Turkey should not be allowed in the E.U. as they belong in the Arab Islamic world as to culture, religions and values. The best Turkey can be is a second-world country and thier effect on Europe would be negative in the short and long run.
December 7, 2006 7:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 7, 2006 19:38
Maybe the best solution to the problem is a EU without Turkey.
Posted by: James Bailey, Adelaide, Australia | December 7, 2006 02:35 PM
James I agree with a little bit of convulsion. I thing the best solution to the problem is a Turkiye withouth EU.
December 7, 2006 3:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 7, 2006 15:44
If Turkey can not accept the conditions of membership into the EU, then it should withdraw its application.
Every other country that has joined the EU, has abided by the EU guidelines of membership.
Turkey is no exception.
Having said that, if Turkey is acting like this now, imagine what they will be like if they ever do join the EU.
Maybe the best solution to the problem is a EU without Turkey.
December 7, 2006 2:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 7, 2006 14:35
I find the Cyprus matter pretty disgusting. Accepting the Greek Cypriots into the EU after their rejection of reunification was obviously a deliberate poison pill for Turkish membership.
Despite great duress from its own nationalists, Turkish Cypriots voted "Yes." The Greek side voted "No." Why should Turkey be forced to legitimize the decision of Brussels? It's as if you had one partner who elects to stay married, another who insists on divorce, and not only is the belligerent party awarded the kids and all community property, but the jilted groom has to keep making her dinner!
December 6, 2006 10:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 6, 2006 22:21
TG, Reston, VA | December 6, 2006 01:21 PM
Cyprus is an EU member. therefore your post is nonsense.
December 6, 2006 9:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 6, 2006 21:22
Always Greek way is that something.EU is with them Turkish people in Europe for more than 500 hundreds years and will be there nothing to fear.Go To Turkey You will love it.Politics is something else.
December 6, 2006 8:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 6, 2006 20:19
After reading all the comments,I hope the Turks do not join the EU.
Tell me why would anyone in his right mind join the EU. Its not California (or if one could join it).
Europe is dead if not dying already.
Very little sunshine.
Look towards the East thats where it is Sunshine and women bear children and make bread at home,and when they become old they die in their homes (and not in a nursing home),and the young fall in love and marry.
And most of all every one has enough Time to spend.
December 6, 2006 8:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 6, 2006 20:07
Democracy is the key requirement for joining the EU. One may question some aspects of each member country's democracy, as one may find strange some aspects of USA's democracy. Nevertheless, Turkey isn't a democracy by any standard and, most important, many Turks don't want it to become one because of the danger of the Islamic fundamentalism.
One cannot afford to have a country in Europe where the military has veto power over the political power and threatens to intervene every decade or so. My country, Portugal, was under this kind of military rule between 1974 and 1983 and it as a heavy drag on the country's development. Even so, the military never threatened to intervene military in this period.
I believe only time will tell (more than a decade, for sure) if Turkey can become a democracy and, only then, one can talk of full membership.
Cyprus is not an issue, is an excuse, because politician are always afraid to tell the truth.
December 6, 2006 7:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 6, 2006 19:16
AT writes that "Turks saw [Sarkozy's remarks as] an obvious case of Europe's double standards."
Isn't there a big difference between
- refusing to apologize for atrocities that happened (France in Algeria)
and
- refusing even to admit in the first place that atrocities happened (Turks on Armenians, and Anatolian Greeks as long as we're on the subject)?
Also, unlike all of these past misdeeds by the French & Turks, the occupation of northern Cyprus isn't exactly over and done with. It's a real brain-twister to equate an ongoing illegal occupation with misdeeds from a half-century ago.
If this truly represents the state of the public debate in Turkey, it is a sad commentary.
December 6, 2006 6:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 6, 2006 18:06
Cyprus cannot be a member to a political and economic union, to which Turkey cannot be a member, in legal terms. Therefore the legality of the whole situation of so called 'Southern Cyprus' becoming a EU member and representing the whole island should be questioned.
December 6, 2006 1:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 6, 2006 13:21
A few observations:
1. Cyprus is a member state of the EU, having met all the requirements of the EU. It si irrational for anyone to say that was a mistake on the part of the EU, simply because Turkey does not like that Cyprus is a member state.
2. Turkey signed a protocol that specifies Turkey's responsibilities, prior to admittance. These include recognizing ALL members of the EU; not threatening war against members of the EU; respect for the rights of ALL her population. Every other EU applicant has signed up to these, and complied PRIOR to admittance.
It is Turkey's reluctance to abide by the agreement she signed, that is the issue.
So as annoying as some may find it that Cyprus, or Greece, (with 3 times & 4 times the per capita economy compared to Turkey) can control Turkey's fate, they must recognize that Turkey has the obligation. A-la-carte membership is not an option.
December 6, 2006 12:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 6, 2006 12:35
A couple of things I wanted to add.
First, I really don't understand why people feel the need to trot out shop-worn nationalist diatribes in these sort of fora. Such posts don't convince anyone and they only make the author look foolish. Turks are not Nazis, nor do they eat Christian babies, or whatever other nonsense misguided people in Europe and elsewhere may think.
Nor is the issue of Cyprus starkly black and white. Like most everything else in life, it's a murky shade of grey. Greeks killed Turks, Turks killed Greek. Yes, Turkey had the right to intervene military as a signatory to the agreement but no, they didn't have the right to hang around and set up an autonomous republic in the north.
Second, yes, the EU did screw up by admitting Cyprus as a member state before the issue was resolved. The appropriate venue for the resolution of the dispute is the UN. By admitting Cyprus into the EU, Brussels has allowed the Greek Cypriots to move the dispute from the UN to the EU, where it wields veto power over Turkey's application. Unsurprisingly, the Greek Cypriots are exploiting this power in an attempt to wring greater concessions from Turkey and Turkish Cypriots than their featherweight status in the world would otherwise allow them. Additionally, now that Cyprus is a member of the bloc, the Greeks no longer have to play bad cop vis a vis the Turks - they've got their client state to that for them. While this has allowed for a Turkish-Greek rapprochement, it's a rather hollow, cosmetic one. Greece gets the credit for supporting the Turkish bid, while the Greek Cypriot gets chastized for being difficult. In the end, it's the same song and dance.
Third, Turkey's EU membership bid does seem to be held to a different standard than any of the other previous candidates. This is clouded, however, by a lot of background noise in Europe about unofficial conditions, such as recognition of the Armenian genocide, which clearly have nothing to do with the Copenhagen criteria per se. It's hard for Turkey to negotiate with the EU when so many EU leaders seem dead set against Turkish accession and the bloc doesn't really seem to be negotiating in good faith in return.
The sad thing is that the AKP government is basically willing to bend over backwards to implement whatever reforms are necessary for Turkey's bid, with two exceptions: Cyprus and the Armenian genocide issue. By focusing with laser-like intensity on these two issues, Europe is making larger and vastly more important reforms on matters like human rights, corruption, etc, that much more difficult. It's hard to sell reform domestically in Turkey now that public opinion has shifted against the EU for what is perceived to be its bad faith in negotiating.
For better or for worse, the Turkish public lumps a lot of developments in Europe on the national level in with the EU negotiation process. This was on particular display following the passage of the French bill on the Armenian genocide. When Sarkozy went to Algeria shortly thereafter and refused to apologize for France's colonial subjugation and exploitation, saying that "you can't ask sons to say 'sorry' for their fathers' mistakes," Turks saw an obvious case of Europe's double standards. While this was not linked to the EU process as such, these sort of things fuel the perception in Turkey that the EU is not an honest broker. This makes more reform measures more difficult for AKP, and give ammunition to nationalist parties opposed to the EU accession process, like CHP and MHP.
If the EU really wants Turkey to push ahead with the necessary reforms - and this is, of course, open to debate - then it should back away from imposing deadlines relating to the Cyprus issue. The accession process is a long one, and Turkey won't be a member, if ever, before 2015 or so. Talks should proceed on the Cyprus issue, of course, but not in such a way that they poison the prospects of making progress on more important domestic reforms. Right now, pushing hard for Turkey to open its ports to Greek Cypriot ships isn't going to accomplish anything. It would be better to put this off until other reforms have been enacted and the Turkish public has regained some more trust in the EU and the negotiation process. That should make the inevitable compromise on Cyprus easier to stomach.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
December 6, 2006 7:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 6, 2006 07:16
avid Aron, Boston, MA | December 5, 2006 09:46 AM
I gather that you noticed that no one with the name 'Richard Lloyd Bentz' could have written that post.
Actually, obviously many of these posts are not written by one whose identity relates to the handle they use.
Oh well, c'est la vie (mais je ne suis pas Francais -- I'm not French). ;)
December 5, 2006 12:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 5, 2006 12:18
The writer is a lyre? He looks more like a flute to me.
December 5, 2006 9:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 5, 2006 09:46
Richard Lloyd Bentz | December 5, 2006 01:35 AM
Which writer are you referring to?
More importantly, it seems that you missed the essence of the posts. They are that Turkey must abide by the same criteria as all other EU member states. In other words, Turkey does not have the priviledge to sign an agreement, and then bargain about which sections Turkey will adhere to.
ONE of these is that Turkey must recognize ALL EU member states, including Cyprus. Another is that Turkey must respect the ethnic and religious rights of ALL of her people (that includes Kurds and Christians).
These are not unique to Turkey, but standards that all EU member states are held to.
December 5, 2006 8:19 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 5, 2006 08:19
Like every other country that has joined the EU, Turkey is expected to abide by the rules and regulations of the EU.
One of the requirements is to open its ports etc to all member EU states. Others include freedom of speech, transparent government etc.
The EU is expecting nothing more from Turkey than what it expected from the other countries that joined. If Turkey is not able to fulfill its obligations during the pre-joining period, then it should not be allowed to join.
The issue of who did what and when in Cyprus, is a side issue. Cyprus [the internationally recognised part] is part of the EU and as such, Turkey is obliged to allow Cypriot planes and ships to dock at Turkish ports.
Its a condition of membership.
Further, once Turkey becomes a member, it is required to treat all EU citizens in the same manner.
At present, I think Turkey is best left out of the EU until it can come to terms with what EU membership actually means and to implement its EU obligations.
December 5, 2006 2:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 5, 2006 02:44
The writer is a lyer. He says "Yes, I would like to see Turkey in the EU. What kind of country Turkey will be when it joins?" He says that he wants that Turkey meets the EU criteria. At the other side he says "Cyprus Blah Blah Blah".
But Cyprus has nothing to do with EU criteria. Only greeks want to make Cyprus an EU criteria.
Forget the stupid writing of an stupid writer.
December 5, 2006 1:35 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 5, 2006 01:35
Dear Mark Feingold
Given your fascination with Nazis, you will of course no doubt be aware that the current President of the Republic of Cyprus, Tassos Papadopoulos, once submitted a plan detailing how to exterminate every Turkish Cypriot within 75 minutes (documented by Makarios Drusiotis in "First Partition: 1963-64 Cyprus", and confirmed by US archives) - but apparently this only serves to raise his approval among his target audience.
The scope of the misinformation contained in your post is far too wide to address on this board - instead I will direct you to www.cyprus-conflict.net where you can find an assortment of essays and memoirs by historians, commentators, UN staff, ambassadors etc.
"The Greeks, either in teh form of the Hellenic Republic or Cyprus, has never committed war crimes."
Although your statement is entirely false, it does go some way to reiterating what the Cyprus problem was and is about - seeing the island as part of a greater hellenic being rather than a sovereign state. It is amusing how patriotic Greek Cypriots get about a state they never wanted - especially as during the 46 years of existence, every single leader it has had has been pro-Enosis (Greek annexation of Cyprus), and all but one are former EOKA terrorists.
If you have the time or the inclination, you might also want to read Prof. McCarthy's "Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims" which details how 5 million Ottomans were killed in ceded territories (particularly the balkans) and and further 5.5 million were deported.
Just because the Turks are grown up enough to get on with life without spending billions upon billions on obsessive, hate-driven lobbying for decades does not mean they have not suffered their fair share of atrocities.
December 5, 2006 12:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 5, 2006 00:50
Just briefly buzzing over the comments here, I could not help but notice that Turkish commentators like to use the Greeks as a scapegoat for their troubles.
The fact that Turks do not seem to understand that THEY are the ones being considered by the EU, and it is not THEY who are considering the EU...they've been begging Brussels since the 1960's to join...now all the sudden they have decided that the EU missed the boat...well, the EU needed Turkey like a person needs a hole in his head...so thank goodness that the EU missed the boat.
And if Turkey has problems with Cyprus' veto, perhaps it should have considered, as a confidence building measure, to not veto Cyprus' membership in various international institutions
Turks also like to cite examples of Greeks committing atrocities against the Turks of Cypru. What they seem to miss is that these were acts of NON STATE ACTORS defending against actions of Turks sponsored by the Turkish state. The Greeks, either in teh form of the Hellenic Republic or Cyprus, has never committed war crimes. The Turkish state has, and continues to perpetrate crimes against humanity against all sorts of nationalities that reside within its borders as well as the territories it occupies.
The latest revelation was that the Turkish military, the true rulers of Turkey, took Greeks prisoner of war when Turkey attacked Cyprus, and put them in gas chambers to test their chemical weapons!!! This is the exact same thing the NAZIs did to Jews in the second world war. Indeed, the Turks seem to admire German Nazis...after all Mein Kampf was recently a bestseller in Turkey. Hitler emulated Ataturk, and now the Turks continue to deny Holocausts they have committed...and the world stands by allowing them to join institutions while the have the blood of millions on their hands that they refuse to apologize for spilling.
Europe, instead of trying to help Turkey join the EU, why don't you help the victims of Turkey gain justice in your institutions. Until then, it will be like negotiating with NAZI's to join the EU!
December 4, 2006 8:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 20:09
The UN spent decades trying to sort out Cyprus and the EU fumbled in and messed it up, frankly.
Upon realisation that the Cypriot Greek administration had "taken them for a ride", the EU then promised to lift the isolation of North Cyprus - which was another blunder. How could they make such a promise now that they had accepted Cyprus in which would be sure to veto any such move?
Cyprus has basically hijacked the entire process for its own self-interest and some continental politicians are pursuing an overtly hostile line towards Turkey not because it is for the good of the EU, but because it will help them personally in upcoming elections.
The EU made the mistake of allowing one side of a dispute to represent the whole, and now wants Turkey to clean up the mess it made. Turkey kept their end of the bargain - they campaigned successfully for a "Yes" vote and they maintain they will open up to Cyprus as soon as the EU keeps its promise to end the systematic empoverishment of Northern Cypriots.
Turkey aside, this is very much an issue going to the core of the EU's viability in its present form. Proof of this would be that practically exactly the same thing happened when they tried to do a deal with Russia last week. One member state, Poland, which has a dispute with Russia vetoed the whole deal. The EU is a cripple and Turkey is best out of it.
Turkey does not need the EU, it has choices. If anything, it would be better taking the trade deals it already has and taking Putin up on his offer of similiar trade associations with SCO - thus not becoming subject to EU rules and regulations that would hurt its competitiveness. Turkey geographically and through ethnic or religious ties has a toe in other emerging regions. Central Asia is the next growth story and many energy projects are already in the works, while trade with Middle Eastern neighbours continues to grow at a fast pace.
It is already too late for Europe. They dithered and missed the boat. If Turkey joins the EU, it will be on their terms. With each passing year Turkey has more to bargain with and less need to make concessions. The author of this article seems to be suffering from a common misconception that the EU can push Turkey around when increasingly the attitude here is "what is in it for us? they will open up their markets anyway - as long as we keep growing they are forced to deal with us."
Perhaps the money markets are the best and most unbiased indicator - last week when it became increasingly likely that negotiations will effectively be shut down with Cyprus vetoing the start of any new chapters, they did not flinch.
In 10 years time, it will not be "What does have Turkey have to do to join the EU?", rather "What the EU has to do if it wants Turkey." EU leaders are largely aware of this - hence the sudden panic and backtracking whenever Turkey threatens to walk away, or the pointless deadline after deadline after deadline on issues that Turkey has already stated its position clearly on. Giving Turkey a further 18 months to open up to Cyprus is a waste of time - Turkey says keep your promise and we will keep ours, otherwise expect nothing. Seems clear enough to me.
December 4, 2006 7:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 19:19
Once again little Cyprus is being used mercilessly by the big guys. I strongly believe that Cypriots - if left alone and uninfluenced by "mother" countries and other nonsense - can easily find a way to live together and prosper. Neither Turkey is ready for the EU nor the EU ready for Turkey, so instead of killing the whole process, they are using Cyprus as an excuse to delay it.
December 4, 2006 7:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 19:05
Kelsaco, Morganville, NJ | December 4, 2006 05:08 PM
An interesting set of comments, but definitely false. For example, many Muslim Cypriots (from the North) hold Cypriot passports. There was even one running for office at the last Cypriot elections. Can the same be said about conditions, for non-Muslims, in the Turkish-occupied North of Cyprus?
December 4, 2006 6:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 18:30
Here's a columnist who actually has it right.
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=60789
To this day, no one knows why the Cyprus reunification deal offered in 2002 in Copenhagen wasn't offered again in 2004 for the referendum. If it had, Turkey would have no Cyprus obstacle at all. It really doesn't pay, sometimes, to have outside actors muddle the game with their suggestions. Unfortunately, Annan heeded those suggestions, and instead of reunifying Cyprus, he managed to make a mess of it. The cyprus problem would be solved if all these outside actors simply left the Greek and Turkish Cypriots alone.
December 4, 2006 5:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 17:40
Kelasco, you are behind the times. Greece is building mosques.
December 4, 2006 5:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 17:37
George, The safety of Turkish Cypriots is a pretext for occupation. It's not real. Consider that one poster already addressed this when he mentioned that the actual invasion was fulfilled in two parts. One, Turkey invaded and secured the Turkish Cypriot villages during the week of the coup. Turkey, Greece and Cyprus went to the bargaining table. Weeks later, after the Turkish Cypriots safety had been secured, Turkey used military force to ethnically cleanse the north. Why? I thought the ostensible reason for invasion was to secure safety? Clearly, it wasn't.
Do you really imagine that a reunited Cyprus, under EU auspices, would allow an onslaught against an ethnic minority? Do you believe that?
Lastly, the Cyprus coup was engineered by fanatical totalitarians who were propped up by the US at the time. These same generals were in the habit of jailing and muzzling any Leftists or socialists in Greece, They were tossed on their ears in 1974. That era is over. There are no totalitarian states in the EU today. There is no pretext for an occupation army.
December 4, 2006 5:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 17:35
Greek Cyprus has done nothing to earn the trust of the Turkish minority. They began to terrorize the Turks in 1960. They changed the constitution to strip the Turkish minority of any rights they had. The Greek Cypriots were the ones that partitioned the Island by forcing the Turkish minority into tiny enclaves so they did not get killed one by one by the Greeks. This went on for 14 years. It was ethnic cleansing 101.
Since Greek Cypriots represented 80% of the Island's population the Turkish minority was not given any opportunity to survive. The wish of the Greek majority was for every Turk on the Island to leave. And many did just that.
Greek Cypriots and Greeks had no issues with partitioning the Island in this fashion since it meant that the Turks would run away and congregate into smaller and smaller territory until there was no place to run. After 14 years of this Turkey finally decided to act and gave the Greek Cypriots a taste of their own medicine. Being the cowards that they are now they cry for help from their Christian brethren. Where was human rights when the Turks were being terrorized, slaughtered and buried in mass graves? Where was Europe? Where was Greece?
And now they expect the Turkish minority to turn their faith, their livelihood and the future and survival of their children to the Greek Cypriot majority? And that they should trust that the Greek Cypriots will be good this time because big brother EU is watching. What will the EU do if the Greek Cypriots repeated their ethnic cleansing? What did they do When the Serbs were doing
their slaughter if the Bosnian muslims in the heart of Europe? Absolutely nothing. That's actually not true let me correct myself. They enforced on embargo on Bosnia to make sure the Bosnian muslims were not able to get hold of any weapons to protect themselves.
And as far as talk about respect for the rights of minorities Turkey has more of it than most countries in the EU. Turkey's problem is not one of discrimination but lack of it. Turkey classifies everyone as a Turk where everyone has the very same rights. As another poster pointed out Turkey which regularly accused of mistreating the Kurds managed to elect a Kurdish Prime Minister and a President.
When the rest of Europe was cleansing non-christians it was the Turks that were welcoming them (Muslims, Jews and Others).
They talk about Turkey not observing the rights of minorities. Did you know that to this day you cannot build or open a mosque in Greece despite hundreds of thousands of muslims?
Before the EU proposes conditions on membership perhaps its should check to make sure existing members are also abiding by the same conditions.
December 4, 2006 5:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 17:08
David Schierling, Torrington, Wyoming USA | December 4, 2006 09:41 AM
The standards that Turkey must live by are set forth in the agreement that Turkey signed in 2005. They require absurd things like recognizing ALL member states of the EU, and respecting the full ethnic and religious rights of all people who live there.
I suppose these are too irrational for any state to accept, judging by your post.
In short, the only obstacle that Turkey must overcome, is to abide by the agreement that Turkey has already signed!
By the way, why in a post in the English language, did you use the term 'Turkiye' when the English word is 'Turkey'?
December 4, 2006 4:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 16:11
I think that the Cyprus issue can be solved under the conditions of Turkey's entry into the EU. It would be ridiculous for the island to continue to be partitioned after Turkey becomes an EU member. By the same token, it is a lot to ask for Turkey to give up the right to protect its Turkish minority and prevent possible union of Cyprus with Greece BEFORE both Turkey is an EU member- at which point the EU would be responsible for protecting the Turkish minority. While I personally don't think the Turkish minority would be harmed under current circumstances, the Turks have every reason to be concerned about Cyprus wanting to join up with Greece and create an economic coastal sea zone right across Turkey's southern border. Only when all three nations are in the EU will this problem be solved.
December 4, 2006 3:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 15:41
It's not a bad idea to have a modernized Islamic country in Europe to harness the Islamic radicals all across the continent.
December 4, 2006 2:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 14:38
TurcoPundit http://turcopundit.blogspot.com
"Turkey related news, views, comments and analyses from all around the world"
TurcoPundit http://turcopundit.blogspot.com
December 4, 2006 2:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 14:31
The Turks must never be allowed inti Europe. They will be the Islamic Trojan Horse that will destroy Christian Europe and its civilization.
December 4, 2006 2:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 14:24
"Consider, first, that were it not for the eminent acceptance of Cyprus into the EU, Turkey would never have come to any bargaining table whatsoever on Cyprus."
--What a falsehood! Turkey encouraged Turkish Cypriots to say yes to the Annan Plan for unification (hence solution) in 2004, and they said yes. Greek Cypriots said no.--
Obviously, Cyprus was an EU candidate for a full 5 years before entry into the union. In 1999, it won candidacy with no preconditions on expelling the occupation army first. Turkey began negotiations after the Cyprus application was filed. It did so because it realized that Cyprus was about to enter the EU and that it had to achieve for itself some diplomatic cover so that it's own application ould be better received.
You dates are off. I'm not talking about 2004. I'm talking about 1999 when the Cyprus application began. If the application was never filed in 1999, Turkey would never have come to the bargaining table. Why would it have? After all, they never negotiated with such fervor in the 30 years since the invasion?
Furthermore, on the UN website, Kofi Annan blames the Turkish side for the failure of the talks in 2002-2003. So both sides have rejected a UN Plan, as is their prerogative.
You still haven't addressed the fact that the EU had no choice but to admit Cyprus precisely because of the justified stance of Greece.
December 4, 2006 2:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 14:18
"So what? Say yes to political extermination instead?"
Yes, unless the civilized world believes that government by military invasion, occupation and violence is a good thing. This is exactly the point. No one recognizes the TRNC, and the entire world has declared it illegal to recognize it politically, even Muslim nations. But the EU has said that, in sympathy with Turkish Cypriots, we should elevate their standard of living, and allow them to trade directly with the EU. This is what the Finnish Proposal offered to the Turkish Cypriots, and on their behalf, Turkey rejected the offer.
You have to come to grips with the fact that your nation is still considered an illegal regime, and though many sympathize with the plight of the average citizen, no one will ever agree that a military solution is the best solution.
The EU chose to make Cyprus their problem by admitting it as full member prematurely and thoughtlessly if not with ill intentions to use it as wedge against Turkey. They took sides on the issue. The present Turkish government is guilty, too, for allowing this to happen after Greek Cypriots' refusal of the Annan Plan. What this would lead to was all too clear at the time; those who wrote or spoke about it were bashed as nationalistic dinosaurs. Now, you have dimwits like Mehmet Ali Birand shocked and surprised at the outcome. It is understood that, legally speaking, Turkey was not in a position to allow or disallow Cyprus' admission. But she should have registered her reservation loud and clear at the time. Erdogan government instead gave tacit approval to this mistake by signing the Ankara protocol (or whatever) making promises that Turkey cannot uphold. Hence this impasse. Neither side is willing to move forward, nor can either side afford to walk away from talks.
This talk of "Turkey must change first" coming from a fellow Greek, whose sincerity I do not doubt, is, well, cheap. It is understood that EU has changed and will continue to change each member country. Why must Turkey change first when her admission is not guaranteed even if she changes? What is Greece's power to influence culturalist nay-sayers? Say, Turkey must change for her own sake; fine, I'll take that. In fact, many people in Turkey has slowly come to this realization. The day is not too far, in my opinion, that Turkey will move on on her own without needing the EU anchor. The process itself is beneficial up to a certain point; as the destination moving away, it starts to become detrimental.
December 4, 2006 2:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 14:13
"Consider, first, that were it not for the eminent acceptance of Cyprus into the EU, Turkey would never have come to any bargaining table whatsoever on Cyprus."
What a falsehood! Turkey encouraged Turkish Cypriots to say yes to the Annan Plan for unification (hence solution) in 2004, and they said yes. Greek Cypriots said no.
December 4, 2006 1:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 13:27
"A sharper analysis would reveal that Turkey is not so interested in the north's economic isolation as it is in the north's political upgrading."
So what? Say yes to political extermination instead?
The EU chose to make Cyprus their problem by admitting it as full member prematurely and thoughtlessly if not with ill intentions to use it as wedge against Turkey. They took sides on the issue. The present Turkish government is guilty, too, for allowing this to happen after Greek Cypriots' refusal of the Annan Plan. What this would lead to was all too clear at the time; those who wrote or spoke about it were bashed as nationalistic dinosaurs. Now, you have dimwits like Mehmet Ali Birand shocked and surprised at the outcome. It is understood that, legally speaking, Turkey was not in a position to allow or disallow Cyprus' admission. But she should have registered her reservation loud and clear at the time. Erdogan government instead gave tacit approval to this mistake by signing the Ankara protocol (or whatever) making promises that Turkey cannot uphold. Hence this impasse. Neither side is willing to move forward, nor can either side afford to walk away from talks.
This talk of "Turkey must change first" coming from a fellow Greek, whose sincerity I do not doubt, is, well, cheap. It is understood that EU has changed and will continue to change each member country. Why must Turkey change first when her admission is not guaranteed even if she changes? What is Greece's power to influence culturalist nay-sayers? Say, Turkey must change for her own sake; fine, I'll take that. In fact, many people in Turkey has slowly come to this realization. The day is not too far, in my opinion, that Turkey will move on on her own without needing the EU anchor. The process itself is beneficial up to a certain point; as the destination moving away, it starts to become detrimental.
December 4, 2006 1:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 13:20
This idea that the EU imported the Cyprus problem mistakenly in 2004 (not 2005) is a canard.
Consider, first, that were it not for the eminent acceptance of Cyprus into the EU, Turkey would never have come to any bargaining table whatsoever on Cyprus. Therefore, we'd be here at the same place in 2006, discussing the possible candidacy of Turkey, a nation with occupation troops in a European country, a nation that continues to ignore UN resolutions on its occupation, etc. Do you honestly think that EU countries, especially Greece, would turn a blind eye to Turkey's invasion of Cyprus even if Cyprus were not a member? Quite frankly, that's absurd. The Greeks (AT LEAST!) would have prevented Turkish negotiations until something was done about Cyprus.
Secondly, Cyprus was not accepted into the EU as much as it asserted its right as nation of Europe to apply. It applied with the unassailable logic and justified argument that the fact of its occupation was not its fault. Greece, similarly, vowed to prevent European enlargement unless Cyprus were considered based on its own merits. The idea that the EU does not allow members with border disputes into the union is absurd. Consider that the EU allowed Romania in (even though there are considerations with Moldova), it is speaking to Croatia now (though that nation has border considerations in Bosnia and in the Krajina), Bosnia itself separated into Muslim and Serb halves), Macedonia which has Kosovo encroachment, not to mention irredentist visions of capturing Salonica, Greece itself which Turkey has declared a casus belli against because of islands abutting the Turkish coast, Spain and the Basques, etc. etc.
The idea that the EU accepts only nation's with no internal problems is plainly absurd.
If that were the case, Turkey with its Kurdish problem should drop out NOW.
December 4, 2006 12:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 4, 2006 12:41
I liked your article, but it looks very optimistic and I also do not think Cyprus is a key issue. Cyprus is a tool used by European Commission and some European countries to dictate impossible and unfair demands. First of all, Cyprus was not a problem of EU until May 2005 when Cyprus was made a member. Cyprus was and still a problem of United Nations. Does anyone think, accepting Cyprus as a member of EU was the right thing to do before finding a political solution? Now it has become both UN's and EU' s problem. But of course, making Cyprus a member before solving the issue was not a coincidence. It was the ultimate intention of EU, which explains the reason today. Greek Cypriots refused to unify the island, as we all know and rejected Annan plan, while Turkish Cypriots accepted the plan. Is it possible, Cyprus with a lower GDP than the city of Antalya, Turkey have tremendous veto power, regardless what the others think.
I also do not agree, when Konstandaras claims Greece supports Turkey's EU bid. I really doubt it. Cyprus is an independent state, but no one can argue the great influence of Greece over Cyprus, as same as Turkey over NTRC. I believe Greece is the wizard behind the curtains when it comes to Turkey and Cyprus issue as well as Turkey's EU bid.
When it comes to human rights issues, it really makes me laugh and angry. Knowing the problems of Turkish minority of Greece, I think Greece is the last one to talk about human rights issues of Turkey and the minorities. Greece does not even recognize Turks as minorities but sees them as a whole Muslim minority and does not give the right to organize. In Greece, in the past, (I don't know if this still goes on) a Turkish organization can not have a word "Turk" on its label or they could not even hang a sign which contains a word "Turk". In addition, Greece's demand of airspace is unreal, if Turkey accepts what Greece demands, some of won't be able to even enter into the seas in some parts of Aegean coast.
EU always imposes this so called bad treatment of Kurdish people; I am surprised Mr. Konstandaras did not bring this up. I am asking to him, Can Greece tolerate a Turkish origin Greek citizen to be prime minister or a minister in its cabinet. The answer is of course, NO. But this Turkey, a country which mistreats Kurds had many and many Kurdish origin prime ministers and ministers. Like today, Abdulkadir Aksu who is a 100% Kurd, is at the most important position in the Turkish cabinet, Ministry of Interior Affairs. Yes, Turkey has problems with Kurds in the southeast region but seeing this only a Kurdish problem is not accurate. The problem is socio economic, which goes beyond a only issue of Kurds. And it is Turkey's interior problem, If EU really wants to solve this issue, they must pressure Turkish governments to implement radical policies in order to develop this poor region.
As a result, Turkey will not sacrifice of anything any more; at least it is my opinion about the issue of Cyprus. If we look at the history of nations over the last decades, we have witnessed many break-ups and separation of states such as Czech Republic and Slovakia, Yugoslavia. Turkey did the right thing in 1974 and practiced its right under the treaty as a guarantor nation. Greek Cypriots do not want to live the Turks aside. Therefore, the best option is, if we want to avoid another 1974, to divide the island in two sepa