20 November 2001

1. „Woman inmate becomes 42nd to die in Turkish jail hunger strike”, a hunger-striking female prison inmate died of starvation here Monday, bringing to 42 the death toll from a year-old protest against controversial prison reforms in Turkey, a rights group told AFP.

2. “Between worlds”, the IMF loan to Turkey underlines US perceptions of Ankara as a key ally of the west. But disagreements over Cyprus threaten its EU candidacy, say Leyla Boulton and Quentin Peel.

3. “Turkey and Europe”, to the neutral observer it is simply absurd that North Cyprus has not been recognized as an independent state. There are many smaller ones in the world and the place has survived nearly a generation of nonrecognition, and even for its exports of trade sanctions.

4. “Turkish EU Relations at the Shadow of the Progress Report”, today, the EU is going to declare its Progress Report about Turkey's candidacy for a full membership. The Report will show to what extent Turkey realized the Copenhagen Criterion and whether this extent will be enough to start the full membership negotiations as the other 12 countries. In case the Report will be negative for us, the full membership of Turkey before the year 2010 will be impossible and the Turkish-EU relations will enter into a new winding period.

5. „A dialogue call with threats cause anxieties”, the statements made by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussain during a meeting in Bagdat with a KPD (Kurdistan Democrat Party) on November 12 caused anxieties. It is striking that the statement was timely with the concentration of Iraqi army on the 36. parallel in South Kurdistan. According to the news by Iraq Press Agency, the soldiers deployed to the region were supported by tanks, armoured vehicles and rockets.

6. “Michel: No decision made for Turkish participation in the European convention”, European Union Belgium term President's Foreign Minister Louis Michel, said that the decision on the participation of Turkey in the European Convention had not been taken, yet.

1. – AFP – „Woman inmate becomes 42nd to die in Turkish jail hunger strike”:

ISTANBUL

A hunger-striking female prison inmate died of starvation here Monday, bringing to 42 the death toll from a year-old protest against controversial prison reforms in Turkey, a rights group told AFP.

Tulay Korkmaz, 26, jailed for membership of an extreme left underground group, perished 193 days after joining the fast-to-death, a spokeswoman for the Human Rights Association said. The strike was launched by mainly far-left inmates in October 2000, and spread outside prisons as inmates released due to their deteriorating health continued to fast and were joined by relatives and other supporters.

The protestors say the new prisons, where cells for up to three people replaced dormitories housing dozens, increase social alienation and leave prisoners more vulnerable to maltreatment. Along with the 42 people who have died of starvation, four inmates have burned themselves to death in support of the strike and another four people died in a police raid earlier this month on an Istanbul house occupied by hunger-strikers.

The Ankara government has categorically ruled out a return to the dormitory system, arguing that the packed compounds had become strongholds for criminal groups, which frequently rioted and took prison officials hostage.

2. – “Financial Times – „Between worlds”:

The IMF loan to Turkey underlines US perceptions of Ankara as a key ally of the west. But disagreements over Cyprus threaten its EU candidacy, say Leyla Boulton and Quentin Peel.

When the International Monetary Fund agreed in principle last week to lend Turkey a further $10bn (£7bn) to ease its debt burden, the move was instantly interpreted by many as a political reward as much as a recognition of economic virtue.

As the only Muslim member state in the Nato alliance, Turkey was swift to offer to send its troops to back the US-led campaign against terrorism and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

So when the IMF announced its decision on Thursday to negotiate a new loan, there was no doubt that the US administration was a vigorous supporter. A visiting US congressman described Turkey as "a shining crown jewel in a very unstable region".

The new mood in Washington contrasts starkly with the increasing frustration expressed on both sides of the Atlantic before September 11 over growing Turkish truculence in its international relations.

The Turkish government has been accused by the European Union of blocking attempts to forge a new European defence and security policy, in spite of US efforts to broker a compromise.

At the same time there has been little sign of Ankara using its good offices to help negotiate a peace deal on the divided island of Cyprus, without which the EU's entire enlargement process could be endangered.

The question now is whether the fall-out from September 11 will galvanise both Turkey and the EU to solve their diplomatic differences or instead tempt Ankara to use its good standing in Washington to resist the pressures from Brussels.

Bulent Ecevit, the prime minister, threatened this month to annexe the Turkish-populated territory of northern Cyprus - the self-styled Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) - if the EU presses ahead with full membership for the Greek Cypriot-ruled south of the island on its own.

Such a move would certainly derail Turkey's candidacy for EU membership, in spite of the fact that at least two-thirds of Turks support joining the union.

The apparent contradiction between Turkey's official campaign to join the EU and its confrontational approach over Cyprus has puzzled many in Brussels and Ankara.

As Cengiz Candar, a liberal columnist at Yeni Safak, an Islamist newspaper, noted recently: "After September 11, the choice facing Turkey is not between the TRNC and the EU. It is about whether we become a Middle Eastern country or take our place in Europe."

A lack of clear political leadership is the most immediate cause of confusion. But the hesitation is also fuelled by fear of a nationalist backlash.

The three-party coalition of Mr Ecevit, a frail 76-year-old, combines the ultra-nationalist National Action Party with former leftists and liberals whose views have often been at odds. Such differences help to explain Turkey's relatively slow progress, noted by the European Commission last week, in achieving the human rights reforms needed to start formal EU accession talks.

"It is obvious that we don't have a prime minister in the real sense of the word and that the coalition is not a coalition but a juxtaposition of fiefs," argues Mehmet Ali Irtemcelik, who as minister for EU affairs until two years ago played a key role in securing Turkey's hard-won candidate status. "This has caused us to lose time."

The divisions within the government give a disproportionate influence over policy to the powerful military and a bloated bureaucracy. Mim Kemal Oke, a political scientist at Bosporus University in Istanbul, argues that "a tug of war between bureaucratic authoritarians and democratic liberals is the main axis of political delineation in Turkey today".

And while both camps say they support the goal of EU membership, many have yet to grasp what it entails.

"Our public authorities do not understand what it means to sit at the table with the EU," says Ozdem Sanberk, a former diplomat who runs the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation. "It is only by sitting at the table that you gain power."

Mr Sanberk includes in his criticism the armed forces, who vetoed a compromise deal with the EU on the common European defence policy earlier this year.

A lack of political resolve also underpins the economic woes that have made Turkey dependent on loans from the IMF to avoid a default on the government's big domestic debt. A devastating devaluation in February, triggered by a dispute between president and prime minister, followed months of delay in implementing structural reforms.

It is largely under pressure from the IMF that the government has made headway since the devaluation in areas such as bank restructuring, market-based regulation and an overhaul of farm subsidies.

But success of the reform programme has been undermined by the continuing reluctance of the coalition leaders to explain or defend the changes. Kemal Dervis, the economy minister who is the chief spokesman for reform, has no political base within the government.

"It's like generals fighting a war and not talking to each other," says Bulent Eczacibasi, a leading industrialist.

The ultimate aim is to arrive at "an economy which is developed by the private sector and a small but effective state which regulates the market and provides social justice", according to Mr Dervis.

The biggest source of frustration for Turkey's liberal elite is the lack of effective popular pressure for change, in spite of widespread popular discontent with the government for its part in causing Turkey's worst slump since 1945.

"Civil society is not organised," complains Mr Irtemcelik, who fears that unless appealing alternatives emerge, Turks may resort to voting back into power dis credited leaders from the past. Sensing such an opportunity, Tansu Ciller and Suleyman Demirel, rival centre-right politicians both tainted with the brush of populism and corruption, have called for snap elections.

The irony is that the only party likely to exceed the 10 per cent threshold of votes needed to enter parliament is the Justice and Development party set up by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a charismatic Islamist. But apart from being banned from politics, Mr Erdogan is considered unelectable by Turkey's secular establishment since he was jailed for inciting hatred on religious grounds.

The US, meanwhile, is also wary of Mr Erdogan since his party voted against the government's decision to dispatch troops to Afghanistan.

One encouraging development on the barren political landscape came with the announcement yesterday of plans for a new political movement by Sadettin Tantan, the former interior minister who was sacked from the current government for his tough stance against corruption.

The lack of a viable and clearly superior alternative helps to explain why the west is betting more IMF money on the coalition in Ankara. At a time when the US wants to avoid instability in a crucial ally on the fringe of the Middle East, Turkey's fourth IMF bail-out in three years is likely to ensure that the government is not pushed into early elections by a default that would amount to political suicide.

The EU is still waiting for progress in its dispute with Turkey over defence policy and the deadlock over Cyprus. Both are closely related. Above all, the sticking point is Cyprus. At the heart of the problem is the need to negotiate a solution to the island's division. There are faint signs of progress. Mr Glafcos Clerides, the Greek Cypriot president of Cyprus, has agreed to meet Mr Rauf Denktash, his Turkish Cypriot counterpart.

But until a solution to Cyprus can be found, Turkey will remain torn between its European vocation, and its suspicion of EU bias in favour of Greece.

3. – Strategy Page – “Turkey and Europe”:

· To the neutral observer it is simply absurd that North Cyprus has not been recognized as an independent state. There are many smaller ones in the world and the place has survived nearly a generation of nonrecognition, and even for its exports of trade sanctions

· There is no doubt something of a problem with the image of Turkey in the West. Midnight Express, that brilliant but unfortunate film is regularly shown on western television; there are, again and again, clips about the archaeological site at Hasankeyf in which Turks are accused of damaging an old Roman city of great interest because they wish to go ahead with dams that will in effect monopolize water-supplies for Turkey at her neighbors' expense.
To the foreigners who actually live and work in Turkey -- there are hundreds of thousands of us -- this negative image is incomprehensible. Perhaps the Turkish government should apply itself to improving the image, but an image-problem, unquestionably, there is. One consequence is that foreign investment here is astonishingly low.

· Educated Turks quite often see Europe as the savior, the creator of the economic miracle. Yes, in the 50s for Germany, and in the 60s for France, Europe was indeed associated with economic miracles. But now Europe grows very slowly; hers is a very rich market, but much of it stems from pension money rather than economic creation, and there is an enormous problem of unemployment.

Norman Stone

Back in 1995, Turkey and Europe were joined in a Customs Union. There had been a certain opposition from the Greek lobby, which was quite influential in the British Labour Party -- quite regularly books appeared blaming the United States for the current division of Cyprus, and this anti-Americanism used to be fairly strong in the Labour left. When Turkey's customs privileges were being discussed, the American ambassador in London, Adm. Crowe telephoned Labour leader Tony Blair and got him to drop his opposition.

This was a characteristic episode. The Europeans, left to their own devices would probably have made greater difficulties about the customs unions. Yes, Turkey is an important market, and her trade with Europe has grown considerably since the days not so long ago when the principal export was nuts. European exports to Turkey amount to over $30 trillion and the main Turkish roads are often clogged with huge lorries, heading back and forth from Germany especially. German industry, especially, has been resettling in Kocaeli and Izmir to take advantage of Turkey's lower wage-cost. However, economic co-operation is one thing; politics is different. Again and again, we find the Americans (and to an extent the British) taking a lead to make Turkey's relations with Europe less uneasy than they usually are. The Americans have, especially since Sept. 11, an immediate understanding of Turkey's role in the world. If she becomes destabilized or is somehow marginalized then the Middle East could all too easily blow up. When the American Diaspora tried two years ago to get Congress to condemn Turkey for the ancient business of the Armenian alleged massacres, the Israelis and the American military were very quick to put an end to the affair: Why disturb relations with an important country over a century-old affair, the historical background to which was in any case dubious? The Europeans do not take quite the same line.

To some extent this has to do with the way in which the European Union operates. It can be manipulated quite easily by small determined lobbies, using what appears to be impeccably objective language to advance their interests. Thus, for instance, a "directive" from Brussels decrees what levels of noise are permissible for lawn-mowers in the union. Very good you might think, until you reflect that Brussels has absolutely no business telling householders in Naples what noise they are allowed to make. Behind this "directive" was a perfectly straightforward piece of commercial manipulation: British lawn-mowers, rather more expensive than German ones, are also less noisy, and the "directive" was an excellent way of excluding the German competitors or making life difficult for them.

A small matter, but the same kind of manipulation happens in matters of greater concern. Cyprus is an obvious case. To the neutral observer it is simply absurd that North Cyprus has not been recognized as an independent state. There are many smaller ones in the world and the place has survived nearly a generation of nonrecognition, and even for its exports of trade sanctions. Left to itself, North Cyprus would probably flourish, not least because its coasts have not been ruined by the boom of mass-tourism which has done such harm in the south. Since 1974 it has existed as a Turkish Republic, and there is now no chance at all that its people could form a united state with the Greek Cypriots to the south: contact was broken off a generation ago, and in a sensible world we should simply have amicable cross-border co-operation as to travel, electricity etc. as happens between the Dutch and French parts of, say, Saint-Eustache in the Caribbean.

The Turkish position is quite well-founded in international law. The London treaties of 1959-60 allowed Turkey a say, if necessary military, in the affairs of the island, and they also stated that Cyprus should not join any other state or groups of states without the consent of all interested parties. And now, what do we find? The Europeans considering the application of Cyprus to join the European Union. The application has been made by the south with support from Greece. If the application goes ahead then we have the likelihood of endless clashes between the Europeans and Turkey, whose soldiers protect the north. Already there are foretastes. A Strasbourg court stated that Turkey should compensate a Greek Cypriot woman for the loss of her property a generation ago. How absurd this is in a European context! In 1945, millions of Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia and Poland.

This was a very harsh business, as the Germans were told, in the same implacable language as had been used for Nazi deportations of Czechs and Poles, that they could take only a suitcase. They were dumped in makeshift camps in Germany and many died. It was a very sad business. However, the background must be understood: Hitler's attempt to create a Greater Germany, using these local Germans to undermine neighboring peoples -- the Poles especially having suffered enormously. Much to their credit, the West Germans came to terms with this and 25 years after the end of the war they formally accepted what had happened. The result has been entirely for the good. Czech-German and Polish-German relations are very good, and Germans, with economic, environmental experience, play a positive part. Why cannot the Greeks have a similar understanding of Cyprus, and why do they not just recognize the accomplished fact of the existence of Northern Cyprus? It would do only good for the Greeks' own position vis-a-vis Turkey -- trade, investment, and protection -- but unfortunately the European Union does not encourage realism of this kind. Greek nationalists can force their government to pursue a fantasy and do damage to Europe's relations with Turkey -- even now, apparently when a private yacht puts into a Greek harbor it is welcomed by officials who have been taught to say, "welcome to Europe," as if the Turkish ports (generally better places in every way than the townships of the barren Aegean islands) were somehow just "Asia."

But it is not just Greek nationalism that makes Turco-European relations rather difficult. For Turkey to become a member of the union, she would really have to be a different country. For instance, since 1960 an exceptionally complicated set of rules has governed European agriculture, called the Common Agricultural Policy. It cost about $100 billion. Originally, it was meant to protect the lives of millions of peasants. Nowadays, the rural proportion of the western European population has sunk below 5 percent. In Turkey, the proportion is around 40 percent. In other words, a Common Agricultural policy, applied to Turkey, would become fabulously expensive.

There is of course more to it. Since 1991, there has been free movement of labor within Western Europe. Usually what this means is that educated people move. Great numbers of French people have shifted to London, attracted by its freedom from the tight regulations that govern life at home, and great numbers of British people have shifted to France, where life, in terms of traffic, restaurants and house prices, is much easier. If Turkey now joined she would no doubt be sending millions of workers. This would not be a particular problem for the Italians, French or British, in whose countries Turks are much-respected, but there would be an inevitable problem in Germany. Already, there are 3 million Turks in Germany, and though many have assimilated, a great number have not and have no intention of doing so. It is certainly astounding to see in Cologne young Turks of the fourth generation, talking to each other in the Language of rural Anatolia of two generations ago.

It is also true that you will hear mutterings -- very seldom in public -- that Turkey, a Muslim country, cannot belong in a European Union of states with Christian values. On this, European propaganda can sound quite false, even absurd. A claim goes that Europeans regard minority rights as sacrosanct. But, within living memory, ethnic cleansing was the European rule, and in France it was actually stated in the Constitution that non-French local languages, for instance Breton or Provencal, were not to be used in public. In Brittany, for instance, when school children went out into the playground, they took with them a shoe which was handed to any child who spoke Breton. The last child to have to carry the shoe was beaten by the headmaster when playtime ended. In Wales, under Gladstone's Liberal government of a century ago, children were also beaten if they used Welsh, simply because in those days teachers took the view that education required proper knowledge of English. In Sweden in the 1930s they even sterilized the Lapps.

Now Europeans talk a different language and try to encourage and even subsidize these dialects; a considerable bureaucracy has grown out of this, and its demands just grow and grow (as can be seen in the present French problem over Corsica, where linguistic separatism, in all ways grotesque, has emerged complete with outbreaks of urban terror). British politician Norman Tebbit immortally observed such things: it is like Jurassic Park -- you take a fossil, spend hundreds of millions on it and create a monster. Europeans, preaching minority rights, might do a great deal of damage in countries, the cohesive of which is still quite fragile.

More generally, there is no doubt something of a problem with the image of Turkey in the West. Midnight Express, that brilliant but unfortunate film (its director later said that he wished he had not gone so far), is regularly shown on western television; there are, again and again, clips about the archaeological site at Hasankeyf in which Turks are accused of damaging an old Roman city of great interest because they wish to go ahead with dams that will in effect monopolize water-supplies for Turkey at her neighbors' expense. To the foreigners who actually live and work in Turkey -- there are hundreds of thousands of us -- this negative image is incomprehensible. Perhaps the Turkish government should apply itself to improving the image, but an image-problem, unquestionably, there is. One consequence is that foreign investment here is astonishingly low. Hungary, the economy of which could almost fit into the Eminonu quarter of Istanbul, gets twelve times as much as Turkey. Having lived here for nearly seven years, and seen the economy at work -- and how Turks work -- I just do not understand this, and think that an image problem is responsible.

Educated Turks quite often see Europe as the savior, the creator of the economic miracle. Yes, in the 50s for Germany, and in the 60s for France, Europe was indeed associated with economic miracles. But now Europe grows very slowly; hers is a very rich market, but much of it stems from pension money rather than economic creation, and there is an enormous problem of unemployment. The present moment for Turkey is indeed very difficult indeed. But there is hope.

4.. – Strategy Page – “Turkish EU Relations at the Shadow of the Progress Report”:

Today, the EU is going to declare its Progress Report about Turkey's candidacy for a full membership. The Report will show to what extent Turkey realized the Copenhagen Criterion and whether this extent will be enough to start the full membership negotiations as the other 12 countries. In case the Report will be negative for us, the full membership of Turkey before the year 2010 will be impossible and the Turkish-EU relations will enter into a new winding period.

The Turkish-EU relations were characterized by the Turkish PM of the time of application to the full membership as a "long and problematic way". With the progress report to be opened today Turkey will see how much distance she went on this "long and problematic way". Though today's report will not determine the final shape of the relations, it certainly will influence the shape they will take directly.

At this point one has to keep this reality in mind: Turkish-EU relations are not developing in a static environment. EU is in a long-term strategic change and this change has the power to influence the international relations. Likewise, Turkey is experiencing the pains of a dynamic restructuring process. Besides, and this is in contrast to the EU, Turkey is passing through a change/restructuring process on the level of civilization.

The static interpretations of the relations without taking these dynamic changing processes into account lay in the bases of the problematic relations between Turkey and the EU. We have to stress that this simple thinking is not only the characteristic of Ankara's analysis but also of the decision makers in Brussels. The fact that the European leaders are underlining the notion of the "European Identity" in discussing the Turkish-EU relations is just an example. Likewise, there are people that regard EU as the part of a "Sevres Scenarios" in Turkey.

It is a must that the Turkish-EU relations be freed from the pincers of these historical reflexes and be set on rational basis. Especially Turkey has to take the historical accumulations and intellectual background of the EU into account without entering into sensitive behaviors. In that Turkey has to redefine her relations with the EU within the framework of a rational aspect and produce new multi-optioned strategies.

Bilkent University professor Norman Stone is dealing with the Turkish-EU relations with exactly this point in mind. Analyzing the relations with a consideration of the historical background, Prof. Stone is deciphering the intellectual prejudices and contradictions of the European understanding of Turkey.

5. – Kurdish Observer – „A dialogue call with threats cause anxieties”:

The statements made by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussain during a meeting in Bagdat with a KPD (Kurdistan Democrat Party) on November 12 caused anxieties. It is striking that the statement was timely with the concentration of Iraqi army on the 36. parallel in South Kurdistan. According to the news by Iraq Press Agency, the soldiers deployed to the region were supported by tanks, armoured vehicles and rockets.

MHA / SOUTH KURDISTAN

Sources in the region attract attention that the Hussain’s speech broadcasted in television and radio has caused fears among the South Kurdish people. The statement was also published in Iraqi newspapers which are sold in South Kurdistan. And according to a news in newspaper Hawalati in South Kurdistan, before the meeting Iraqi administration has sent a mediator to South Kurdistan for a dialogue call to the leaders in the region. It has been reported that the envoy of Bagdat is Mukaram Talebani, a Kurdish politician and former minister who is renowned in the region and lives in Bagdat. Mukaram Talebani has been mediating between KPD and PUK (Kurdistan Patriotic Unity) since 1991. Talebani is reported to meet with both KPD leader Massoud Barzani and PUK leader Jalal Talebani. Hawalati asserted that Iraqi government has started to seek dialogue with KPD and PUK against a possible USA attack. It has been reported that Jalal Talebani has rejected the dialogue with Bagdat.

Saddam Hussain is said to learn their stance in the face of a US attack. Saddam Hussain has said during the meeting with so-called KPD delegation that he would resort to violence in the case that his call to be turned down. Saying, “Our wish to solve the problems is dialogue”, Saddam Hussain has added the following threat: “If our wish is not accepted, we will use the sword of Iraq to dominate the law.” Hussain has also said, “Although there are Americans and Englishmen in north and south of our country, we have the capacity to use weapons.” The Iraqi leader has said the following words about PUK leader Jalal Talebani: “Why did you made the statement turning down all dialogue with the government? One day we will cut the tongue which has uttered these words.”

6. – Turkish Daily News – “Michel: No decision made for Turkish participation in the European convention”:

European Union Belgium term President's Foreign Minister Louis Michel, said that the decision on the participation of Turkey in the European Convention had not been taken, yet.

Leaders from EU member states will form a platform during the Laeken summit to be held next month, where the future of the EU would be debated.

It is being planned that EU member states and candidates will take part in this platform.

In former EU meetings, hesitations were being voiced concerning Turkish participation in that formation.
In a press conference, the Belgian Foreign Minister stated that a decision on Turkish participation in the convention has not been taken yet, adding that there was a general tendency to let Turkey express views at the platform.

EU commissioner for Enlargement Gunter Verheugen informed about the progress report of candidate states, calling the European Council to act with a balanced policy on Turkey.