The Sins of the EU regarding Turkey

http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20061025....udistance.html
"
Turkey and the European Union: Keeping a Friendly Distance

By Michael Radu

October 25, 2006

Michael Radu, Ph.D., is Co-Chair of FPRI's Center on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism
and Homeland Security. He is currently at work on a book on Islamism in Europe.


The alienation between Turkey and the EU has grown on both sides to the point
that more and more people in Brussels and Ankara are beginning to realize that
not only is Turkey's EU membership unlikely, but that it is not in the interest
of either party.

The immediate problem is Cyprus, where the EU has committed every error possible
and an issue which more than any other unites all Turks. To begin with, the
EU's decision to admit Greek Cyprus as a full member was made apparently without
a full understanding of the implications. In April 2004, UN Secretary General
Kofi Annan's plan for reunification - which 65 percent of Turkish Cypriot voters
approved - was rejected by the Greek Cypriots by over 75 percent in a referendum.
But Brussels went ahead with the admission of Greek Cyprus anyway, even though
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had risked all his political capital
(and perhaps the existence of his government) to pressure the Turkish Cypriots
to accept the plan. He did so even though he was fully aware that, once Cyprus
was in the EU, Nicosia would be in a position to demand more and more concessions
from Ankara. Meanwhile, under Greek pressure, the EU continues to punish, through
blockade and isolation, the Turkish side, while threatening Ankara for not opening
its ports to the Greeks. As correctly perceived in Turkey, Erdogan and the Turkish
Cypriots made all the unpopular concessions and received only humiliation from
Brussels.

The more long-term and profound issue is the EU's political demands on Turkey
demands that are a case study of contradiction and confusion. Turkey has complied
with many of Brussels' demands - constitutional changes regarding human rights
freedom of expression, minority rights, etc. Kurds now have the right to use
their own language and have a Kurdish media, again against popular sentiment
and well-founded fears of Kurdish separatism. The EU continues to push, often
vocally and, in the eyes of many in Turkey, irresponsibly, for the elimination
of the military's political role and influence.

Why is this irresponsible on the EU's part? Because, despite government denials
Islamism, including fundamentalism, has been on the rise in Turkey ever since
the present Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2003. That fact
has been repeatedly brought to the public's attention by Chief of General Staff
Gen. Yasar Buyukanit and Land Forces Commander Gen. Ilker Basbug. Moreover, Navy
chief Admiral Yener Karahanoglu has clearly stated that "The Turkish armed forces
will never make the concessions that have been asked of it on the road to the
European Union." The military leaders have a constitutional obligation to protect
secularism - something that seems to have escaped notice by its Brussels' critics.
The seldom mentioned but most powerful reason for opposition to Turkey's membership
in the EU in Europe is its Muslim identity and fear of the impact some 70 million
Muslim Turks in a post-religious Europe already threatened by growing Islamism
among its existing 20 million Muslim residents. While that is a legitimate fear
it is counterproductive to at the same time insist on Turkey's weakening its
most powerful and popular secularist force - the military.

In Turkey, the issue of "minority rights" is directly related to the Kurdish
issue and territorial integrity. At a time when the interpretation of "minority
rights" especially in territorial terms, threatens the integrity of EU members
such as Spain or Belgium, and Turkey itself is experiencing a limited revival
of Kurdish Marxist/separatist terrorism, one experienced Turkish observer has
observed that "To gain admission into the EU, Turkey is being asked to solve
the problem of Kurdish separatism with the kind of methods that the EU countries
have abandoned. Turkey cannot solve that problem and fight Kurdistan Workers'
Party (PKK) terror with such methods." By pushing for more and more "rights"
for a separatist minority (including PKK terrorists) within the Kurdish minority
amounting to the very same multiculturalism that is now widely under assault
within Europe, Brussels demonstrates, if not a tin ear, hypocrisy.

When Turkish prosecutors bring to trial and courts condemn separatists or supporters
of Armenian claims of "genocide" by the Ottoman Empire in 1915, Brussels' human
rights arbiters are prompt in criticizing Turkey for denying "freedom of expression."
But when three Dutch-Turkish politicians were purged from their parties' electoral
lists for dissenting from the Armenian interpretation of those events, the French
Parliament voted to make it a crime to do so, and Jacques Chirac, traveling to
Erevan, conditioned Turkey's membership in the EU on Ankara's recognizing the
Armenian "genocide." Whatever one's opinion on the events of 1915 in the now-defunct
Ottoman Empire - and beyond Armenian nationalist pretensions, it is hard to see
the relevance of those events for today's Turkish Republic - such attitudes suggest
a persistent double-standard which, not surprisingly, is increasingly resented
in Turkey.

While the European attitude toward Turkey's membership is full of contradictions
and hidden agendas, developments inside Turkey are not boding well for the country's
integration in the EU, either. The old debate over secularism, never far from
the surface, has taken on a new and increasingly open intensity. Turkish nationalism
is also on the rise, lately manifested as anti-Americanism. The AKP government
is more attracted to its initial Islamic roots, while the new military leadership
especially Gen. Buyukanit, who took office in August, is less diplomatic than
its predecessor in publicly opposing that trend.

The combination of growing Turkish nationalism and anti-Americanism (a trend
in Europe as well) means, in addition to complications for the U.S. position
in Iraq, that the traditional U.S. support for Turkey's EU accession is both
less enthusiastic and less effective. That is not necessarily a bad thing for
Ankara: after all, is membership in the Brussels club good and necessary for
Turkey's national interest? More and more Turks are answering that question in
the negative. Public support for EU membership has dropped dramatically in the
past year, from 70 percent to less than 50 percent.

While for many Turks the reasons may be more emotional than objective - such pushbutton
issues as the Kurdish and Armenian questions, or Cyprus, create instant resentment - there
are level-headed reasons to oppose membership. First, the membership issue is
directly related to issues of secularism and the role of the military; second
the issue of human rights, especially Kurdish minority rights, is inseparable
from terrorism. None of these are seen as being easier to cope with under the
rules imposed by Brussels.

In economic terms, considering the problems facing the EU in terms of economic
growth, unemployment, and budgets, the likely benefits of membership for Turkey
are increasingly hard to see. Indeed, when most of the EU members are already
unhappy with the cost of the newly admitted Central and East European countries
and the soon to be admitted Romania and Bulgaria, which ten new members combined
have a smaller but richer population than Turkey, it is hard to see how much
if anything at all, is left for that country, in terms of both good will and
funding. Moreover, Turkey already enjoys, independent of its candidacy, some
of the membership benefits in areas such as tariffs and investments. It has already
implemented some of the key economic reforms required by Brussels, with good
results. Perhaps German Chancellor Angela Merkel's opinion that Turkey should
remain a "preferred partner" rather than member of the EU is beneficial for Turkey.
It certainly is more honest than that of many of her colleagues, whose demands
on Ankara are as great as their understanding and concessions are limited.


You may forward this email as you like provided that you send it in its entirety
attribute it to the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and include our web address
(www.fpri.org). If you post it on a mailing list, please contact FPRI with the
name, location, purpose, and number of recipients of the mailing list.

If you receive this as a forward and would like to be placed directly on our
mailing lists, send email to [email protected]. Include your name, address, and affiliation.
For further information, contact Alan Luxenberg at (215) 732-3774 x105.
"

// text auto-reformatted; for the original see web link above.

From: American Hellenic Institute
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 26, 2006
CONTACT: Georgia Economou
(202) 785-8430
No. 77/2006

Op-Ed on "The State Department's Continuing Appeasement of Turkey"



Washington, DC - The following Op-Ed appeared in the October 7, 2006 issue
of The National Herald, page 11 and the October 9, 2006 issue of Greek News,
page 44.

The State Department's Continuing Appeasement of Turkey

By Gene Rossides

The State Department's continuing appeasement of Turkey to the
detriment of U.S. interests is best exemplified by recent statements of
Matthew Bryza, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian
Affairs. He assumed his present position in June 2005. Prior he was on the
staff of the National Security Council (NSC) where he served from April 2001
to June 2005. On the NSC he served as Director for Europe and Eurasia, with
responsibility for coordinating U.S. policy on Turkey, Greece and Cyprus,
the Caucasus, Central Asia and Caspian energy. His areas of responsibility
at the State Department are similar. He joined the U.S. Foreign Service in
1988.

The policies he is pursuing are those set forth by former Under
Secretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman. Grossman retired in
early 2005 and joined the lobbying firm, The Cohen Group, of former
Secretary of Defense William Cohen. In general the pro-Turkey appeasement
policies pursued by Marc Grossman have not changed, with one exception.

The present Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas
Burns, sworn in on May 17, 2005, authorized a speech in June 2006 by
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Dan Fried
which stated categorically that the U.S. recognized only one government in
Cyprus.

In a previous article I welcomed the statement by Mr. Fried because
there was a feeling that the U.S. under Grossman's policies was moving
towards recognizing the illegal regime in the occupied north of Cyprus.
However, in that article I also questioned the State Department's desire for
a settlement of the Cyprus problem because of the issues Mr. Fried did not
address, such as the removal of the 35,000 Turkish occupation forces
illegally in Cyprus, the 120,000 illegal Turkish settlers (in violation of
the Geneva Convention of 1949) and the Turkish barbed wire fence across
Cyprus.

Members of the American Hellenic Institute (AHI) met with Under
Secretary Burns at his initiative on April 24, 2006 to discuss the Cyprus
issue and U.S. relations with Greece and Turkey. At a follow-up meeting on
August 28, Mr. Burns informed us that the views we expressed in April were a
key factor leading to Fried's June speech. Mr. Burns also stressed the
excellent cooperation of the government of Cyprus and the tremendous efforts
of the people of Cyprus in their important assistance in the evacuation of
over 14,000 Americans from Lebanon.

On secondary issues such as Greece, Turkey and Cyprus the views the
Under Secretary for Political Affairs, the highest ranking career official,
usually prevail. In our discussions with Mr. Burns we covered the topics
set forth in AHI's 2006 Greek American Policy Statements endorsed by AHEPA,
the Hellenic American National Council, the Cyprus Federation of America and
the other major membership organizations. He stated he would get back to
us.

At the NSC, Matt Bryza reflected a clear pro-Turkish attitude. He
supported the flawed, and indeed infamous, Annan Plan which was
undemocratic, unworkable, not financially viable and which absolved and
rewarded the aggressor Turkey and punished the victims the Greek Cypriots.
It actually required the Greek Cypriots to pay themselves for damages caused
by Turkey. The Annan Plan, as I have written before, would have, in effect,
made Cyprus a protectorate of Turkey and Britain.

Mr. Bryza, as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State continues, in
effect, to support the Annan Plan. At a press conference on July 21, 2006
on his return from a ten day trip to Turkey, Greece and Cyprus, in response
to a question on the status of the Annan Plan and whether it's off the
table, he stated:

"I would just repeat what I said, that the basic ideas that are - that
became known as the Annan Plan reflect wisdom and hard work and a spirit of
fairness, I would argue."

To suggest that the "basic ideas" of "the Annan Plan reflect
wisdom.and a spirit of fairness" is nonsense, is false, is misleading and an
example of appeasement of Turkey. I refer Mr. Bryza to Claire Palley's
book, An International Relations Debacle, on the Annan Plan negotiations and
to Greg Copley's and Nick Karambelas' book reviews of Palley's book and
AHI's
analysis (see AHI website).

Mr. Bryza did recognize the positive momentum of UN Under Secretary
General Gambari's visit to Cyprus and the establishment of technical
committees and agreement to exchange lists for substantive discussions.

The Turkish Cypriot isolation issue

Turkey has alleged that the Turkish Cypriots are isolated because of
actions of the government of Cyprus. The AHI and I have repeatedly pointed
out that this is false for obvious reasons, namely the Turkish government's
35,000 occupation troops illegally in Cyprus, the Turkish barbed wire fence
across the face of Cyprus, the 120,000 illegal Turkish settlers/colonists
from Turkey in violation of the Geneva Convention of 1949 and Turkey's
apartheid policy. The Turkish Cypriot isolation is caused solely by the
Turkish government's actions and not the rule of law actions of the Cyprus
government.

Former Under Secretary Grossman initiated the U.S. adoption of
Turkey's blatantly false isolation argument. Mr. Bryza is the current State
Department official voicing this erroneous view which is detrimental to the
negotiation process for a fair and just settlement of the Cyprus problem.
In his July 21, 2006 press conference, Bryza responded to a question from a
Turkish reporter from the Anatolia News Agency asking "what does the U.S.
government plan to help these people [Turkish Cypriots] end their
isolation?"

Mr. Bryza responded "that we have done a number of things..We are
providing $30.5 million in assistance.to the Turkish Cypriot community..So
we are already actively working to end the isolation of Turkish Cypriots-or
to ease the isolation of Turkish Cypriots."

Mr. Bryza's comments are a prime example of the State Department's
continuing appeasement of Turkey. His continuing adoption of the Turkish
government's argument and his failure to respond to those, including AHI,
who point out the real cause of the Turkish Cypriots isolation: the Turkish
army, the Turkish barbed wire fence and the illegal Turkish
settlers/colonists, is rank appeasement of Turkey. Further, it is a
deliberate effort to mislead the American public regarding the Cyprus
problem.

The opening of several crossing points in the barbed wire green line
fence two years ago has led to over 10,000,000 million crossings by Turkish
and Greek Cypriots without serious incident which destroys Turkey's argument
that Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots cannot live and work together as
they did before Turkey's apartheid policy.

We are hopeful that Under Secretary Burns will have time to review
these and other matters of concern to the Greek American community in the
interests of the U.S.

Needless appeasement

Additionally it is important to point out, to stress that the
appeasement of Turkey by the U.S. is not necessary. Dr. Ted Galen
Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato
Institute, a leading conservative think tank in Washington, D.C., in remarks
at an AHI conference on Capitol Hill commemorating the 32nd year of Turkey's
invasion of Cyprus and occupation of 37.3% of Cyprus, stated the following:

"The United States in many respects is a fairly unique country in that
its always been a foreign policy challenge for America to reconcile its
moral values and its national interests. Moral values have always been for
the vast majority of Americans a very important consideration. That's one
reason why Henry Kissinger's brand of Realpolitik has never played very well
with the vast majority of Americans.

We've seen this desire to reconcile values and interests on numerous
occasions.. Just one example of the dilemma that we face, is that it is
necessary for the United States to cooperate with a variety of authoritarian
and at times unsavory regimes in the war against radical Islamic terrorism.
It's not much of a pleasure, and it's certainly not an honor to have to work
with the regime in Saudi Arabia for example or the military dictatorship of
Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan but given the enemy we face it is necessary.

****

But America really betrays its heritage when it needlessly compromises
important moral values. Washington's policy toward the Cyprus issue is
perhaps the most glaring example. The reaction to the 1974 invasion and
occupation, at the very least, the U.S. stood by and watched as a NATO ally
geographically raped a small neighbor. Gene Rossides, of course, makes a
compelling case that Washington was even more culpable- that U.S. officials
connived with Turkey in its aggression. (Emphasis in original)

In the intervening 32 years, the U.S. has acted with generalized
indifference as Turkey enjoyed the fruits of its aggression. Turkey brought
to Cyprus tens of thousands of Turkish settlers, and Ankara's repeated
defiance of rulings from the European Court on the rights of Greek Cypriot
property owners despoiled by the 1974 invasion was met with anemic and
pro-forma U.S. protests at Ankara's rogue behavior --when they were made at
all.

I am not suggesting that the U.S. should have used force to expel
Turkish forces from Cyprus. America does not have a vital interest at stake
in the dispute, and American military forces should be put at risk only for
the defense of vital interests. But Washington could have-- and should
have-- made it clear early on that a close, friendly relationship between
the U.S. and Turkey would be impossible as long as Turkey persisted in its
aggression. Even if U.S. leaders were reluctant to take that step as long
as they believed they needed Turkey in the struggle against the Soviet
Union, that justification no longer applied once the Cold War came to an
end. Yet, Washington's pro-Turkish tilt on Cyprus has persisted.

Washington's reaction to the rejection of the Annan Plan was very
telling. U.S. officials expressed annoyance with Greek Cypriot voters for
voting down that plan, despite its numerous unjust or unworkable features.
Even worse was embracing the doctrine of moral equivalence between aggressor
and victim. This involved placing the bulk of the blame on the victim. In
essence, U.S. officials seem willing to go along with Ankara's long-standing
position that the Cyprus issue is settled with the defacto division of the
island-- unless a new agreement can be reached on Turkey's terms.

What of the future? Washington is less fond of Ankara these days.
Primarily because of differences of Iraq policy and the signs of surging
radical Islamic and anti-American sentiment in Turkey. If relations between
the U.S. and Turkey cool further, Washington may alter its position on the
Cyprus issue to "punish" Ankara. Be watching for that development. Cyprus
policy has been a stain on America's honor for 32 years. It is time--indeed
it is long overdue-- to remove that stain."

When is the U.S. going to take a forth right stand on the basic
issues regarding Cyprus, namely Turkey's invasion and occupation;
"constitutional government based on majority rule, the rule of law and
protection of minority rights" as called for by former President George H.W.
Bush; the immediate removal of Turkey's troops, settlers and barbed wire
fence?

Call and write to President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice, your two senators and your representative and ask them to stop the
appeasement of Turkey and double standards applied to Turkey and to stand up
for American values.



###

For additional information, please contact Georgia Economou at (202)
785-8430 or at [email protected]. For general information about the
activities of AHI, please see our website at http://www.ahiworld.org

__________________________________________________ ______________________________________
Changed Email Address
Please let us know when your email address changes so we can update our
records. For your convenience you can log on to
http://ahiworld.org/contact_change.html on our website to change your
address, phone or email address.



--
OXI ! NO ! to the Annan Plan
http://www.oxi-no.org/

Nobody believes the propaganda of the Diaspora Greeks in America.
It's much like the propaganda of the Armenian lie lobbyists in America.

One day the U.S. finally will wake up from this nightmare and see what
these Greek and Armenian vultures in America are really doing to the American politics...

JUST A HINT: exactly these two groups, Greeks and Armenians, have
worked decades long for the fall of the giant Ottoman Empire from inside out.
And they will cause also the fall of the United States!
They are working from inside-out! Infltration into the highest political decision
centers and negatively influencing U.S. decision makers!

These vampires have their bloody teeth everywhere in the American politics!

The U.S. needs to shake off these Greek and Armenian vultures in American politics,
and clean up itself...