Articles on Turkey
Turkey bids to win support for Armenia deal
ANKARA, Sept 11 2009
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu set out Friday to overcome
opposition to the normalisation of ties with Armenia which have been
marked by decades of animosity.
Turkey and Armenia announced last month that they had agreed a
framework to establish diplomatic ties and re-open their border, in
what was internationally hailed as a major breakthrough. The talks
were mediated by Switzerland.
The two countries said they would hold internal political
consultations for six weeks before submitting to their parliaments two
protocols on establishing diplomatic ties and developing bilateral
relations.
"We aim to brief all political parties, institutions and civic bodies
on the protocols that will be signed," Davutolgu told reporters after
meeting parliament speaker Mehmet Ali Sahin.
He added that he had also asked for meetings with opposition
leaders. "We want to hold the briefings before parliament returns from
summer recess" in October."
Turkish opposition parties have expressed hostility to the plan which
they say is against Turkey's interests and threatens ties with
regional ally Azerbaijan.
Main opposition leader Deniz Baykal announced this month that his
party would not support the deal unless Armenia withdrews from
Nagorny-Karabakh, an Armenian majority enclave that broke free
Azerbaijan in the early 1990s.
Devlet Bahceli, chairman of the second largest opposition party,
slammed the protocols as a Turkish "surrender" to Armenia.
Turkey has long refused to establish diplomatic links with Armenia
over Yerevan's efforts to have World War I-era massacres of Armenians
by Ottoman Turks recognised as genocide -- a label Turkey strongly
rejects.
Armenians say up to 1.5 million of their kin were systematically
killed between 1915 and 1917 as the Ottoman Empire, Turkey's
predecessor, was falling apart.
Turkey also closed its border with Armenia in 1993 in solidarity with
Azerbaijan over Yerevan's backing of ethnic Armenian separatists in
Nagorny Karabakh.
Reconciliation between Ankara and Yerevan would bolster Turkey's bid
to join the European Union, throw an economic lifeline to landlocked
Armenia and bring stability to a strategic region serving as a major
energy corridor.
The International Herald Tribune, France
September 11, 2009 Friday
Cold on Turkey
by Martti Ahtisaari
Europe's wavering on Turkey's E.U. accession is jeopardizing its
credibility.
Turkey's aspiration to join the European Union motivated it to make a
series of remarkable transformations between 2000 and 2005.
Ankara amended a third of the country's authoritarian
Constitution. Its legislators enacted human rights laws in line with
international standards. It abolished the death penalty. It provided
greater legal protections for women. It introduced new safeguards
against torture and reformed the penal system. It scrapped draconian
restrictions on freedom of expression, association and the media.
The Turkish armed forces have stepped further back from the dominant
role they had played in the country's political life since the time of
its founding father, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Turkish-Kurdish tensions
have eased. Turks have begun to debate the Armenian question openly.
Turkey has also made significant positive input as a regional power,
contributing troops for international peacekeeping missions and
supporting talks to settle the Cyprus conflict in 2004. Let us also
not forget the significant cooling of animosities between Greece and
Turkey.
Yet despite so promising a start, the process of Turkey's accession to
the E.U. has lost significant momentum since 2005. Negative statements
and actions by E.U. leaders have played a key role in discouraging
Turkey. These have undermined Ankara's will to reform and have fueled
resentment. Popular support in Turkey for E.U. membership continues to
wane. Frustrated leaders in Turkey lament that the E.U. would reject
Turkey's accession even if Ankara implements all the prerequisite
reforms and meets all other preconditions.
Europe's wavering on Turkey's E.U. accession is jeopardizing the
E.U.'s credibility and threatening to tarnish its good image. How can
European leaders be trusted if they continue to go back on their word,
stalling, and perhaps scuttling, a process that began a decade ago
with so much promise, has produced so many positive effects, and holds
such potential for the future?
During my three decades in mediating conflicts around the globe, I
have learned that only rarely, perhaps once in a generation, do the
political planets align for dramatic solutions. (In the past few years
just such an alignment appeared over Northern Ireland.)
A promising alignment is now appearing over a land of key importance
for both the E.U. and Turkey: Cyprus. Ongoing talks between the
leaders of the island's Greek and Turkish communities offer the best
and probably the last chance to avoid an indefinite partition of the
island. A settlement on Cyprus - something that both Turkey and the
E.U. can contribute to achieving - would breathe new life into the
accession negotiations between Turkey and the E.U. and hasten the day
when both sides can gain full advantage from each other.
Strengthening the relationship between Turkey and the E.U. through
accession negotiations offers a clear opportunity to serve the E.U.'s
interests in energy security and to bolster stability both in the
Middle East and the South Caucasus.
If Turkey were to meet the remaining requirements for membership, the
country would enjoy a more open society. It would be more comfortable
in its own diversity. It would demonstrate that Islam and democracy
are fully compatible. Such a Turkey would be a beacon to East and West
alike. Its integration would help galvanize the E.U. to embrace its
own diversity and enhance its position in the world as a trusted
partner.
On a cold Helsinki day in December 1999, E.U. leaders declared Turkey
to be "a candidate state destined to join the Union on the basis of
the same criteria as applied to the other candidate states." Today,
almost 10 years later, Turkey's destiny seems far less certain.
What is at stake is not just Turkey's future, but also the credibility
of the European Union as an honest broker.
September 11, 2009 Friday
Cold on Turkey
by Martti Ahtisaari
Europe's wavering on Turkey's E.U. accession is jeopardizing its
credibility.
Turkey's aspiration to join the European Union motivated it to make a
series of remarkable transformations between 2000 and 2005.
Ankara amended a third of the country's authoritarian
Constitution. Its legislators enacted human rights laws in line with
international standards. It abolished the death penalty. It provided
greater legal protections for women. It introduced new safeguards
against torture and reformed the penal system. It scrapped draconian
restrictions on freedom of expression, association and the media.
The Turkish armed forces have stepped further back from the dominant
role they had played in the country's political life since the time of
its founding father, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Turkish-Kurdish tensions
have eased. Turks have begun to debate the Armenian question openly.
Turkey has also made significant positive input as a regional power,
contributing troops for international peacekeeping missions and
supporting talks to settle the Cyprus conflict in 2004. Let us also
not forget the significant cooling of animosities between Greece and
Turkey.
Yet despite so promising a start, the process of Turkey's accession to
the E.U. has lost significant momentum since 2005. Negative statements
and actions by E.U. leaders have played a key role in discouraging
Turkey. These have undermined Ankara's will to reform and have fueled
resentment. Popular support in Turkey for E.U. membership continues to
wane. Frustrated leaders in Turkey lament that the E.U. would reject
Turkey's accession even if Ankara implements all the prerequisite
reforms and meets all other preconditions.
Europe's wavering on Turkey's E.U. accession is jeopardizing the
E.U.'s credibility and threatening to tarnish its good image. How can
European leaders be trusted if they continue to go back on their word,
stalling, and perhaps scuttling, a process that began a decade ago
with so much promise, has produced so many positive effects, and holds
such potential for the future?
During my three decades in mediating conflicts around the globe, I
have learned that only rarely, perhaps once in a generation, do the
political planets align for dramatic solutions. (In the past few years
just such an alignment appeared over Northern Ireland.)
A promising alignment is now appearing over a land of key importance
for both the E.U. and Turkey: Cyprus. Ongoing talks between the
leaders of the island's Greek and Turkish communities offer the best
and probably the last chance to avoid an indefinite partition of the
island. A settlement on Cyprus - something that both Turkey and the
E.U. can contribute to achieving - would breathe new life into the
accession negotiations between Turkey and the E.U. and hasten the day
when both sides can gain full advantage from each other.
Strengthening the relationship between Turkey and the E.U. through
accession negotiations offers a clear opportunity to serve the E.U.'s
interests in energy security and to bolster stability both in the
Middle East and the South Caucasus.
If Turkey were to meet the remaining requirements for membership, the
country would enjoy a more open society. It would be more comfortable
in its own diversity. It would demonstrate that Islam and democracy
are fully compatible. Such a Turkey would be a beacon to East and West
alike. Its integration would help galvanize the E.U. to embrace its
own diversity and enhance its position in the world as a trusted
partner.
On a cold Helsinki day in December 1999, E.U. leaders declared Turkey
to be "a candidate state destined to join the Union on the basis of
the same criteria as applied to the other candidate states." Today,
almost 10 years later, Turkey's destiny seems far less certain.
What is at stake is not just Turkey's future, but also the credibility
of the European Union as an honest broker.
The Washington Note
September 11, 2009 Friday 1:50 PM EST
Why Should Europe Accept Turkey Into Its Union?
I just finished reading the Independent Committee on Turkey's report
on Turkey's EU accession negotiations. The Committee consists of
European elder statesman who support Turkey's membership and are
alarmed by the "vicious circle" of events that is jeopardizing
Turkey's EU prospects.
The term "vicious circle" is meant to capture how European opposition
to Turkey's membership has led to a slowdown in Turkey's reform
program, which in turn has led to further opposition within Europe.
Overall, the report makes a compelling, balanced case for why it is in
Europe's interests to do everything it can to move the negotiations
along and eventually accept Turkey's full membership.
The Committee demonstrates the hollowness of French and German calls
for a "privileged partnership," noting the fact that Turkey is already
as integrated with Europe as any other non-member, and thus already
enjoys a privileged partnership.
The report also correctly identifies the Cyprus, Kurdish, and Armenian
conflicts - along with the ongoing struggle to reform Turkey's
democratic institutions - as the primary obstacles to Turkey's
membership.
Missing from the report, however, is a compelling, imaginative vision
of what Europe is likely to look like in 15-20 years, and how
incorporating Turkey's young population, dynamic economy, access to
energy resources, and large, professional army will strengthen
Europe's position. The authors make each of these points separately,
but I would have liked to have read a concluding chapter that paints
the picture a bit more clearly.
Another quibble is that the report does not mention the Turkish army,
save for in the context of Turkey's domestic political
struggle. Turkey possesses the second largest army in NATO, a fact
that should not be overlooked when making the strategic case for
Turkey's EU membership.
I understand that the European Union likes to think it makes its
decisions based on democratic principles rather than strategic
calculation - but Paris and Berlin think strategically, and it is
Sarkozy and Merkel who are Turkey's most significant opponents.
The essential point that the authors certainly understand - but that
must be made explicitly - is the fact that Europe is stuck with Turkey
no matter what. Whether or not the accession process moves forward,
Turkey will be a large, influential country on Europe's
borders. Europe's best chance to shape Turkey's trajectory is to keep
the negotiation process alive.
September 11, 2009 Friday 1:50 PM EST
Why Should Europe Accept Turkey Into Its Union?
I just finished reading the Independent Committee on Turkey's report
on Turkey's EU accession negotiations. The Committee consists of
European elder statesman who support Turkey's membership and are
alarmed by the "vicious circle" of events that is jeopardizing
Turkey's EU prospects.
The term "vicious circle" is meant to capture how European opposition
to Turkey's membership has led to a slowdown in Turkey's reform
program, which in turn has led to further opposition within Europe.
Overall, the report makes a compelling, balanced case for why it is in
Europe's interests to do everything it can to move the negotiations
along and eventually accept Turkey's full membership.
The Committee demonstrates the hollowness of French and German calls
for a "privileged partnership," noting the fact that Turkey is already
as integrated with Europe as any other non-member, and thus already
enjoys a privileged partnership.
The report also correctly identifies the Cyprus, Kurdish, and Armenian
conflicts - along with the ongoing struggle to reform Turkey's
democratic institutions - as the primary obstacles to Turkey's
membership.
Missing from the report, however, is a compelling, imaginative vision
of what Europe is likely to look like in 15-20 years, and how
incorporating Turkey's young population, dynamic economy, access to
energy resources, and large, professional army will strengthen
Europe's position. The authors make each of these points separately,
but I would have liked to have read a concluding chapter that paints
the picture a bit more clearly.
Another quibble is that the report does not mention the Turkish army,
save for in the context of Turkey's domestic political
struggle. Turkey possesses the second largest army in NATO, a fact
that should not be overlooked when making the strategic case for
Turkey's EU membership.
I understand that the European Union likes to think it makes its
decisions based on democratic principles rather than strategic
calculation - but Paris and Berlin think strategically, and it is
Sarkozy and Merkel who are Turkey's most significant opponents.
The essential point that the authors certainly understand - but that
must be made explicitly - is the fact that Europe is stuck with Turkey
no matter what. Whether or not the accession process moves forward,
Turkey will be a large, influential country on Europe's
borders. Europe's best chance to shape Turkey's trajectory is to keep
the negotiation process alive.
PanARMENIAN.Net
Armenian-Turkish relations: viewpoint from Ankara
Nagorno Karabakh will serve as a condition for the realization of
Nabucco or any transnational or regional communication project.
10.09.2009 GMT+04:00
The issue of Armenian-Turkish relations has become the subject of
discussion of not only the Armenian society but also that of the world
media. And, for some reason, the focus is mainly on Armenia's
position, though no less important is the standpoint of Turkey, which,
is hardly talked about. If we consider the situation from Ankara's
viewpoint or generally from Turkish perspective, Armenia is an enemy
to Turkey, a country that hinders her to meet her strategic
objectives.
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Even in the years of 1918-1923, when the Entente and
afterwards Greece with the support of the Entente immersed into
Continental Turkey and successfully moved to Ankara, Turkey
concentrated all the power of her army on the Caucasian front against
the Armenians. And only after solving all her problems with the
support of the Bolshevik Russia on this front, did Turkey send her
troops to the West.
This fact alone shows the great importance that Turkey attaches to the
Armenian question. It is her biggest concern and she will do
everything in her traditional manner: give only promises, sign dozens
of contracts, accomplish no single item of the agreements signed,
harass and slaughter the Christian population. It has always been
so. No need to list all the contracts and the solemn commitments given
by Turkish sultans to European leaders...
As for Turkey's present stance, she is a country that will never do
anything for the benefit of any other state in the world, especially
for the Armenian people, their growth, prosperity and consolidation of
statehood. Transit projects like Nabucco or the `Great Silk Road'
passing through Armenia are destined to failure for the simple reason
that Turkey will never allow them.
Solving her problems - the recognition of borders defined by the Kars
Agreement and softening
ognition ` as well as strengthening the inter-state borders legally
and transferring the issue of the Armenian Genocide to the level of
historical discussion that could last for years, Turkey will abruptly
turn to the implementation of joint Turkish-Azerbaijani plans, the
return of Artsakh to Azerbaijan being a priority. Thus, Nagorno
Karabakh will serve as a condition for the realization of Nabucco or
any transnational or regional communication project, an idea that will
be (or is already) imposed on Europe.
So, in the foreseeable future we shouldn't rely on any transit
communications from Asia to Europe, as the railroad lines of Armenia
rest on Azerbaijan in the east, thus being destined to permanent
unfeasibility, while the beginning of construction of railway
communication with Iran is on hold for another year because of
indistinctness of the status of the liberated lands and the indistinct
position of official Yerevan.
Thus, we shouldn't expect any major economic benefits referred to by a
number of politicians and economists, who are for the opening of the
Armenian-Turkish border. Minor border trade cannot improve the
country's economy; it simply contributes to the welfare of business
people involved in export and the local population of the
borderland. Here are all our dividends.
Politics, in essence, is the art of trading. And there is always a
place for more or less equal exchange under favorable conditions; for
example, the recognition of the status of the Nagorno Karabakh
Republic in exchange for the return of part of the liberated lands of
no strategic value, or opening of the Armenian-Turkish border with
consideration of conditions of the Kars agreement in return for
recognition of the Genocide.
It is also appropriate to mention that today Turkey needs a
breakthrough, breakthrough to the latest industrial and civilization
achievements of the West and to a revised national idea. Today the
country is under the threat of militant nationalism, replenished with
the religious factor, still contr
he Turkish leadership. However, today the Turkish leadership faces new
challenges associated with the national identity of its population,
the Kurdish question and white spots of the history offered to the
advanced layer of the society. The (urban) society has already started
a cautious revision of the old ideals, which was provoked by loud
murders and scandals connected with the Armenian issue.
In the eyes of their public the Turkish leadership needs real
diplomatic victories or at least, an illusion of progressive advance
in civilization.
As for the reasons why the Administration of the President of Armenia
has intensified the dialogue with Turkey on normalization of
Armenian-Turkish relations, it must be regarded as a Russian-American
and European confrontation in the region with the aim to solve their
tactical and strategic tasks, among which there are hardly any
pro-Armenian planks.
Mikhail Balayan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Armenian-Turkish relations: viewpoint from Ankara
Nagorno Karabakh will serve as a condition for the realization of
Nabucco or any transnational or regional communication project.
10.09.2009 GMT+04:00
The issue of Armenian-Turkish relations has become the subject of
discussion of not only the Armenian society but also that of the world
media. And, for some reason, the focus is mainly on Armenia's
position, though no less important is the standpoint of Turkey, which,
is hardly talked about. If we consider the situation from Ankara's
viewpoint or generally from Turkish perspective, Armenia is an enemy
to Turkey, a country that hinders her to meet her strategic
objectives.
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Even in the years of 1918-1923, when the Entente and
afterwards Greece with the support of the Entente immersed into
Continental Turkey and successfully moved to Ankara, Turkey
concentrated all the power of her army on the Caucasian front against
the Armenians. And only after solving all her problems with the
support of the Bolshevik Russia on this front, did Turkey send her
troops to the West.
This fact alone shows the great importance that Turkey attaches to the
Armenian question. It is her biggest concern and she will do
everything in her traditional manner: give only promises, sign dozens
of contracts, accomplish no single item of the agreements signed,
harass and slaughter the Christian population. It has always been
so. No need to list all the contracts and the solemn commitments given
by Turkish sultans to European leaders...
As for Turkey's present stance, she is a country that will never do
anything for the benefit of any other state in the world, especially
for the Armenian people, their growth, prosperity and consolidation of
statehood. Transit projects like Nabucco or the `Great Silk Road'
passing through Armenia are destined to failure for the simple reason
that Turkey will never allow them.
Solving her problems - the recognition of borders defined by the Kars
Agreement and softening
ognition ` as well as strengthening the inter-state borders legally
and transferring the issue of the Armenian Genocide to the level of
historical discussion that could last for years, Turkey will abruptly
turn to the implementation of joint Turkish-Azerbaijani plans, the
return of Artsakh to Azerbaijan being a priority. Thus, Nagorno
Karabakh will serve as a condition for the realization of Nabucco or
any transnational or regional communication project, an idea that will
be (or is already) imposed on Europe.
So, in the foreseeable future we shouldn't rely on any transit
communications from Asia to Europe, as the railroad lines of Armenia
rest on Azerbaijan in the east, thus being destined to permanent
unfeasibility, while the beginning of construction of railway
communication with Iran is on hold for another year because of
indistinctness of the status of the liberated lands and the indistinct
position of official Yerevan.
Thus, we shouldn't expect any major economic benefits referred to by a
number of politicians and economists, who are for the opening of the
Armenian-Turkish border. Minor border trade cannot improve the
country's economy; it simply contributes to the welfare of business
people involved in export and the local population of the
borderland. Here are all our dividends.
Politics, in essence, is the art of trading. And there is always a
place for more or less equal exchange under favorable conditions; for
example, the recognition of the status of the Nagorno Karabakh
Republic in exchange for the return of part of the liberated lands of
no strategic value, or opening of the Armenian-Turkish border with
consideration of conditions of the Kars agreement in return for
recognition of the Genocide.
It is also appropriate to mention that today Turkey needs a
breakthrough, breakthrough to the latest industrial and civilization
achievements of the West and to a revised national idea. Today the
country is under the threat of militant nationalism, replenished with
the religious factor, still contr
he Turkish leadership. However, today the Turkish leadership faces new
challenges associated with the national identity of its population,
the Kurdish question and white spots of the history offered to the
advanced layer of the society. The (urban) society has already started
a cautious revision of the old ideals, which was provoked by loud
murders and scandals connected with the Armenian issue.
In the eyes of their public the Turkish leadership needs real
diplomatic victories or at least, an illusion of progressive advance
in civilization.
As for the reasons why the Administration of the President of Armenia
has intensified the dialogue with Turkey on normalization of
Armenian-Turkish relations, it must be regarded as a Russian-American
and European confrontation in the region with the aim to solve their
tactical and strategic tasks, among which there are hardly any
pro-Armenian planks.
Mikhail Balayan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No comments:
Post a Comment