Shame on Merkel and the German Presidency!
[this post has been re-published in Reporters Without Borders' blog here, What bloggers say about... the European Union on its 50th anniversary]
I had passingly stated that it was a deliberate act that Turkey was not invited to the 50th year celebrations. It is time for a longer and angrier post. Since the Dink assassination, I have lost my temper and I have been producing angrier posts on the rising ultranationalism in Turkey and i have stated how disappointed I am with the Turkish state apparatus. Turkey should also be held responsible in the issues of Cyprus, Kurdish rights and Armenian Genocide claims etc to some (and sometimes to a large) extent. But this does not mean that only one actor, here that is, Turkey and her citizens, should bear all the responsibility and it is time for the EU leaders and publics to think about their responsibilities.
ÇiziYORUM - Ercan AKYOL
1. By not inviting Turkey, the EU explicitly violates its own principles. It is the EU who in the last analysis decided to start negotiations. For god's sake, we don't know what will happen in the end, but you are actually negotating for membership. Isn't that enough to invite? The organizing party the German Presidency and its head Angela Merkel should be ashamed. It is such an arrogance and it is such a hypocritical act that should definitely be punished in one way or another!
2. I do not believe in the claim that the EU leadership is in a state of crisis. That is repeatedly stated in many articles and op-eds but the EU keeps on producing decisions in many areas and keeps on enlarging. It is only in relation to Turkey, the EU feels it is in a crisis. It is indeed hypocricy; decision makers are anti-Turkish and have evaded an open confrontation with Turkey so far. But it seems that Merkel's last move is a shift in policy. It might be minor issue but have a look at this:
Art and Imperialism hand in hand / Bonaparte the care giver in a painting by Antoine-Jean Gros
Bonaparte visitant les pestiférés de Jaffa
Mavi Boncuk says "German chancellor Angela Merkel gave outgoing French President Jacques Chirac an 18th-century beer mug with an embossed relief representing Napoleon's military victory over the Ottoman army in Egypt in 1799, marking celebrations commemorating the 50th birthday of the European Union..."
So where is the subtlety of diplomacy? Merkel and the likes (particularly Sarkozy, of course) do not even bother with being implicit in their approaches.
Radikal-çevrimiçi Cilalı Taş Devri
Çizer: Emre Ulaş
3. As quoted today "If the EU has negative thoughts about Turkey, it should make its decision so that we can continue on our own road. Let's not waste money or energy," Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in an apparent reference to Germany, which declined to invite Turkey to the summit held in Berlin over the weekend.... "Turkey will not be a burden for the EU; it will remove weight from Europe's shoulders."
Alternative energy sources, a dynamic population and a strong army etc could contribute to EU's apparent weakness in world affairs and it is time to think of a more confident approach (for Turkey). The seemingly ill-intended elites of the EU should begin to tell their "ignorant" masses about the possible opportunities instead of regular Turkey bashing.
4. Well, here I am. I have to agree with EU septic cartoonists and columnists in Turkey, about the bad intentions from the EU side. EU policies weakened the pro-EU AKP gov't and pro-EU activists and helped to fuel ultranationalism here. Apparently, the same policies and their makers are fuelling right wingers (some of which are prone to be extremist) by bowing to Turkey/immigrants/minorities bashing politicians...
5. What I still like about the EU, that is why I am writing a dissertation thesis on it, is that it is an open-ended process. Things seem to be very gloomy right now but i really believe that changes in the EU power balance, the world wide geo-strategies might provide a brighter scene for Turkish citizens...
Comments
Turkey and other close cooperating partners of the EU should have been invited to the EU celebrations.
Every country with an association agreement with the EU should have been invited.
You write
"I had passingly stated that it was a delibarate act that Turkey was not invited to the 50th year celebrations."
Why was it deliberate?
Was Croatia (or any other country looking for EU membership) invited to the party?
Was Turkey singled out?
Posted by: Joerg | March 27, 2007 11:49 PM
Dear Joerg,
Croatia was not invited, too and I believe that's a shame, too. Common wisdom would dictate that membership candidates should have been invited. At least according to some rules of courtesy... In this sense I believe Merkel gov't even lacks a level of finesse attributed to Europeans. Based on the gov't's distaste for Turkey, poor Croatians were not invited because of Turkey. I can only think that this is a calculated act and in order to exclude Turkey, Croatia was also not invited... Well, this seems to be the best that could be done. If Turkey was explicitly singled out, I guess, Turks would then take it as an hostile act whose consequences would be unparalleled....
Posted by: erkan | March 28, 2007 12:40 AM
what do you mean when you say "Turkey should also be held responsible ... for Armenian Genocide claims etc to some (and sometimes to a large) extent"?
Posted by: jack mehoffer | March 28, 2007 04:49 PM
"Based on the gov't's distaste for Turkey, poor Croatians were not invited because of Turkey."
Could be, but we don't know.
I think the German government was just impolite and busy with work on the EU constitution and this Berlin Declaration. Therefore the German government wanted to focus on work on these issues, which are quite ambitious considering that the EU has soo many members.
If Turkey, Croatia and others had been invited, then there would have been less time for the EU heads of government to work on the Berlin Declaration and the constitution.
Posted by: Joerg | March 29, 2007 01:22 AM
Dear Joerg,
I in fact am overacting. I accept that. I mean it. I won't insist much on my points but maybe i can add this as a speculative note: the case of Turkey has become such an issue that maybe this is what EU has to focus. In articulating the membership of Turkey, the EU can find and develop more in her own "major" issues such as constitution. I am not a man to have self-aggrandizing illusions about Turkey. But I believe the case of Turkey had gained some significance factually...
Dear Jack,
I wanted to mean, though I support Turkey in that specific context I don't claim that Turkey is all innocent in Armenian genocide claims and in other issues. I don't want to be seen as a blind advocate of Turkish policies....
Posted by: erkan | March 29, 2007 09:44 AM
A few simple questions to understand the distaste better:
- How many of the actual members of the EU were there, when Turkey made its aplication for membership to the EEC (later EU) in 1959?
- How many of the actual members of the EU and the Council of Europe (CoE) members were there when Turkey contributed enormously to the construction of a democratic Europe in 1949, becoming a member of the CoE?
- What do we know about the close relationship/linkage between the CoE and EU?
Best regards,
Ayhan E.
Posted by: Ayhan Enginar | March 30, 2007 07:14 PM
Why are we deluding ourselves? Perhaps some in Turkey may desire EU membership and all the accompanying accoutrements that it will bring. Unfortunately, the Turkish government and more importantly, the Turkish military, are not willing to alter policies that might change the current paradigm. First, they are not willing to concede a modicum of religious freedom to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Their objective is to maintain tight control over the Patriarch and thus relegate the Patriarchate to either total irrelevancy or extinction. Second, their provocations in the Aegean continue. Rather than submitting to judicial arbitration in the World Court in order to achieve a lasting and equitable solution to Aegean issues, they continue to conduct military incursions of Greek airspace. For example, the recent collision of two military aircraft over the Aegean took place during a Turkish air reconnaissance mission over Crete, hardly the action of a friendly nation. Third, no matter how hard we strive to justify her record, Turkey invaded, ethnically cleansed and occupied a large portion of Cyprus. After thirty-two years, it still maintains a large occupation force on the island, has imported thousands of Turkish settlers to alter its ethnic make-up , refused to account for two thousand missing persons, continues to sell private property belonging to Greek Cypriots, and sadly, looks the other way as religious and historical sites are destroyed and looted. The same actions by any other nation would have been roundly condemned by American and European governments alike. Instead we demand more concessions from the Greek Cypriots and from Greece. The question we must ask is why are Turkish policies intransigent? The answer is simple. Turkish foreign policy is a reflection of Turkey's view of itself, i.e. the inheritor of the Ottoman legacy, a major player in the region who will not kowtow to "weak" neighbors or Western powers it views as equals. Turkey's two and a half war strategy is not dead, it's just waiting for the right time.
Posted by: Konstantinople | April 20, 2007 07:41 AM