10
May 2002
2. "Cem: The ball is in the Eu's court now", Ankara's sense for reality goes astray: Foreign Minister Cem: "We have fullfilled the Copenhage criteria. The ball is now in the EU's court."
3. "TUSIAD Chairman warns", stating that the economic program in implementation would be in danger if Turkey's EU membership was postponed to an uncertain date, TUSIAD Chairman Tuncay Ozilhan said "Direct foreign investment, which seeks stability and trust, will prefer to go to other EU member countries rather than Turkey".
4. "Ecevit targets France over slur", the Turkish Premier calls on the French government to take action against the insult to Turkey’s most senior general.
5. "America's 'unfinished business' to topple Saddam Hussein", Washington has plans for prolonged bombing campaign followed by ground invasion with army based in Turkey and Kuwait.
6. "Russia delays UN vote on Iraqi sanctions overhaul", Russia has asked for a delay until next week of a U.N. Security Council vote on an overhaul of U.N. sanctions against Iraq aimed at easing the flow of goods to Baghdad, diplomats said.
1. - AFP - "Turkey must do more to fulfill EU entry conditions":
ANKARA / 9 May 2002
The minister in charge of Turkey's bid to join the European Union
on Thursday warned that "blind stubbornness" in certain unnamed
circles was holding up democratic reforms needed if the country is to
advance to accession talks.
Deputy Prime Minister Mesut Yilmaz, who spoke at a conference marking Europe Day, also criticized the EU for what he said was its policy "of keeping Turkey at the door but not letting it in."
"Turkey has reached the most critical stage in its EU candidacy process," Yilmaz said. "Very little time is left for us to accomplish (reform) pledges before accession talks. We face the danger of missing the opportunity," said the minister. Turkey, the only candidate among the 13 hopefuls that has yet to start accession talks with the Union, wants a date for the opening of such talks set by the end of 2002. But disputes in Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit's three-way coalition, and notably resistance from its nationalist wing, have impeded reforms required under the EU's Copenhagen criteria, such as the abolition of the death penalty and the legalization of broadcasts and education in the Kurdish language.
Without naming names, Yilmaz lashed out at opponents of reforms, among whom many also see the Turkish military, which wields significance influence in politics. "We still face a meaningless resistance and blind stubbornness to what we have pledged to accomplish regarding the criteria," he said. "If we do not stand by (our pledges), not only our future, but that of our children will slip out of our hands. It is time to end this somnolence," he added.
On EU attitudes to Turkey's bid, he said: "This is
a policy the EU has followed for years. The basic goal of this policy
is to delay Turkey's membership as much as possible." He stressed
that EU membership was "an indispensible national policy"
for Turkey, a mainly Muslim nation which has most of its territory in
Asia. 
2. - Cumhuriyet - "Cem: The ball is in the Eu's
court now": 
Speaking at a symposium yesterday, Foreign Minister Ismail Cem stated
that Turkey has done what the European Union had asked it to do for
full membership.
“The EU told us to adopt the Copenhagen Criteria and we have done so, now the ball is in their court,” Cem remarked at a symposium organized by the Istanbul Chamber of Industry (ISO) to mark May 9, Europe Day. Cem also said that the EU constituted a plan and design which would determine the future of Turkey and all of Europe.
“It is Ankara’s goal to become a leader country
between Europe and Central Asia by means of its EU membership,”
Cem added.
3. - Turkish Daily News - "TUSIAD Chairman warns":
Stating that the economic program in implementation would be in danger if Turkey's EU membership was postponed to an uncertain date, TUSIAD Chairman Tuncay Ozilhan said "Direct foreign investment, which seeks stability and trust, will prefer to go to other EU member countries rather than Turkey"
By Guzin Yildizcan / 10 May 2002
Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association (TUSIAD) Chairman
Tuncay Ozilhan, who stated that the most critical term started for relations
between Turkey-European Union (EU), said "If a date cannot be determined
for EU negotations until the end of 2002, our membership will be postponed
to another date and it will be more difficult to overcome this crisis
term." Stating that if Turkey's membership was postponed to another
date, the economic program and structural reform process would not give
the desired result, Ozilhan said the following:
"Direct investments, which seek stability and trust, will prefer to go to other EU member countries rather than Turkey whose membership perspective is indefinite. Solution of the unemployment problem will get more difficult and social instabilities will increase. EU standards and requirements are maps for Turkey. These maps will help the state and the political will to solve problems. There is no reason to take offense or regard this as a burden. Because most of the member countries experienced the similar process and reached that point."
This year TUSIAD celebrated May 9 European Youth Day under the name of "Youth and European Day" and came together with young people. Making a speech in scope of celebrations, Ozilhan recalled that Turkey should fullfil the Copenhagen criteria for lifting the death sentence, broadcast and education in native language as soon as possible in order to determine a schedule for EU membership.
Stating that Turkey needed radical changes to be a member of the EU, Ozilhan said that some circles, which benefited from Turkey's current condition, were against EU membership. Ozilhan, who stated that there was no more sources in Turkey to be wasted by these circles, said "Nobody has the right to overlook hopes and ideals of the country and young people, and to consider their own rights before the nation's rights."
Recalling that Ataturk put the republic in the care of
young people, Ozilhan asked "But what can we give to young people?"
and replied "Can we give them a contemporary education, business
opportunity? Can we give them the freedom to get involved in politics
and to express themselves in society? The answer is unfortunately 'No'.
Ataturk prepared the infrastructure, but we failed to put into effect.
Now there is a last chance for us; to be a member of EU. Ataturk showed
this direction to us."
4. - NTV / MSNBC - "Ecevit targets France over slur":
The Turkish Premier calls on the French government to take action against the insult to Turkey’s most senior general.
9 May 2002
Turkey’s Prime Minister has weighed into the debate over a
France based non governmental organisation naming the Chief of the Turkish
General Staff as an enemy of freedom of expression, saying that France
should act quickly to remedy the situation.
In a statement issued through his Press Office, Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit condemned the actions of the NGO Journalists Without Frontiers, which had sponsored the painting of a map of the world on a Paris railway station and had placed photos of those the group accused of suppressing freedom of thought. One of those included was the Chief of the Turkish General Staff, General Hüseyin Kivrikoglu.
“The action by the group that define themselves as ‘journalists without borders’, in which disrespect has been shown to our Chief of the General Staff and all our country was an extremely ugly one,” Ecevit’s statement said. The Prime Minister also called on the French government to act immediately to end the shameful situation.
Turkish Workers Party strike back
Also on Thursday, members of the Turkish Workers Party
(TIP) in Paris have reacted to the insult to General Kivrikoglu, painting
over his picture on the map at the Saint-Lazare train station in Paris.
Another group of TIP members staged a protest in front of the French
Consulate in Istanbul, condemning France and the slur against Turkey.
5. - The Independent - "America's 'unfinished business' to topple Saddam Hussein":
Washington has plans for prolonged bombing campaign followed by ground invasion with army based in Turkey and Kuwait
By Patrick Cockburn / 10 May 2002
The long snouts of anti-aircraft guns are again protruding from
the tops of tall buildings in Iraq. Tank units have been deployed around
oilfields. Special committees drawn from local leaders of the army,
security forces and the ruling Baath party will try to ensure that any
rebellion is quickly crushed. President Saddam Hussein himself has told
people to store food in case of a new American air war as prolonged
as that of 1991.
President Saddam says that war with the US will come, but he knows that it is likely to be delayed until next year. Washington is no longer in quite the confident mood that it was after the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan in December.
The differences between the situations in Kabul and Baghdad have become more apparent in the past few months. Britain, hitherto America's sole ally in its bid to overthrow President Saddam, is becoming increasingly nervous of the political opposition at home to military adventures with the US against Iraq.
Above all, Ariel Sharon's bloody invasion of Palestinian cities on the West Bank has made it more difficult for the US to recreate the alliance that drove the Iraqi army out of Kuwait more than a decade ago.
"Saddam knows that Washington does not have the appetite for a war this year," said one Iraqi source.
It is a very different situation from the Gulf War. Then the alliance against President Saddam was surprisingly easy to create. The Arab states were terrified by his conquest of Kuwait. The rest of the world was never going to let Iraq become the dominant power in the Gulf. The problem seemed to be overcoming the military strength of the Iraqi army, tested by eight long years of war with Iran.
Today nobody doubts that the Iraqi army is a shadow of its former self. Aside from its losses in the Gulf War, it has not been able to import tanks and other heavy equipment. But politically it is a far harder task now to create an alliance with the aim of overthrowing the Iraqi leader than it was 12 years ago.
Then, the purpose of the US-led coalition was to restore the status quo by evicting Iraq from Kuwait. It was a conservative war. What Washington intends today is far more radical. It is in fact the first attempt to replace a government by armed force in the Middle East since President Saddam took the disastrous decision to send his troops across the Kuwaiti border.
Baghdad will do its best to ensure that it does not provide the US administration with a pretext for war. It has softened its line over the return of UN weapons inspectors, who left in December 1998 just before the US and Britain last bombed Iraq. In talks with Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, in New York last week, Iraqi officials were notably conciliatory. Naji Sabri, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, did not rule out the return of the inspectors but wanted other issues, such as the no-fly zones and sanctions, to be discussed.
It is all very frustrating for militant members of the US administration, such as Vice-President Dick Cheney and the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, who would like to overthrow President Saddam immediately. They do not want to become caught up in a diplomatic minuet in which they have to dance to the same tune as the UN.
Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defence and an impatient hawk, even instructed the CIA to investigate Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat who is the chief UN arms inspector. Mr Wolfowitz was visibly enraged when the CIA came back with nothing that would have discredited Mr Blix and, by extension, the UN weapons inspection team.
These diplomatic manoeuvres are important because the US task is far more difficult than it was in Afghanistan. It needs to be able to launch not only a prolonged air offensive but to build up an army estimated to number between 70,000 and 250,000 troops. In Afghanistan, the Taliban was overthrown by the opposition Northern Alliance, US air strikes and the defection of many commanders. The Taliban was also gravely weakened by the withdrawal of Pakistani and Saudi Arabian support.
The situation is different in Iraq. It has a powerful centralised state. Only the Kurds, controlling the three northern provinces of Iraq, would be able to play the role of the Northern Alliance. Betrayed by the US twice in the past, in 1975 and again in 1991, the Kurds will not want to go to war against Baghdad unless there is a US army in place to protect them.
There are two other ways of removing Saddam Hussein, but Washington has concluded that neither is likely to work effectively. It could, as it often has in the past, hope that a coup led by by dissident army officers in Baghdad will remove the Iraqi leader. But President Saddam has shown that he is a master at detecting and eliminating such plots, with horrific consequences for those involved.
A further option might be to build a guerrilla army, supported by US air power and special forces. Something like this worked in southern Afghanistan, but President Saddam is likely to counter-attack more effectively than the Taliban.
Washington is shifting towards the idea of a ground invasion, with an army based in Kuwait and Turkey. An attack would be preceded by a prolonged bombardment by bombs and missiles. The Iraqi army is still strong enough to fight the Kurdish or Iraqi guerrillas, but it is even less capable of stopping the US army than it was in 1991. Even confirmed fence-sitters such as the Kurds do not want to be marginalised by failing to join an American effort to get rid of President Saddam which succeeds.
It is becoming increasingly difficult for President George
Bush to walk away from his militant rhetoric about toppling President
Saddam. If he does not overthrow the Iraqi leader then his failure will
damage him in the next presidential election. But already Mr Bush is
discovering how much more complicated it is to change a government in
Baghdad than it was in Kabul.
6. - Reuters - "Russia delays UN vote on Iraqi sanctions overhaul":
United Nations / 10 May 2002 
Russia has asked for a delay until next week of a U.N. Security
Council vote on an overhaul of U.N. sanctions against Iraq aimed at
easing the flow of goods to Baghdad, diplomats said.
The five permanent Security Council members with veto power, including Russia and the United States, introduced a resolution on Monday and had hoped for a vote on Wednesday.
First Syria, a Council member, wanted a delay and then Russian envoys told colleagues that President Vladimir Putin wanted to take a final look and sign off on the new plan.
Russia, which helped negotiate the new plan, asked for the vote to be postponed until Monday but raised no new objections, the diplomats said.
Central to the new program is a 160-page "goods review list" of items that may have dual military and civilian use and have to be evaluated separately before they can be exported.
Goods not on the list can go to Iraq after review by U.N. officials. Military items continue to be banned outright.
Currently, any Council member can block a contract to Iraq and the United States has put $5 billion worth of goods on hold. Russia, among others, have made sure many of their contracts are not on the list and are waiting for Washington to release them after the resolution is adopted.
Syria objects also
Syria also raised misgivings about the new plan, with its diplomats
first saying they needed further instructions from Damascus, which was
studying the resolution that includes hundreds of pages of attachments.
But privately diplomats said Syria cited the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians, questioning why it should vote quickly on Iraqi sanctions when the Council refused to condemn Israel for its offensive in the West Bank.
Although the vote can go ahead without Syria, which does not have veto power, the United States and others wanted to preserve Council unity. Ironically, Syria itself has been cited by diplomats and oil analysts for violating sanctions by illegally importing Iraqi crude oil.
The new plan promises to be the biggest change in sanctions procedures since the U.N. oil-for-food deal began in December 1996, an exception to the embargoes imposed when Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990.
This program allows Iraq to export oil and buy food, medicine and a host of other goods, with the proceeds placed in an escrow account from which suppliers are paid. The program, renewed every six months, expires on May 29.
Smuggling not curbed
But U.S. officials fear Iraq has diverted illicit oil revenue and smuggled goods, possibly to use in rebuilding its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. The new resolution did not address that issue as U.S.-British proposals to stop smuggling were opposed by all of Iraq's neighbors.
Iraq, which wants the sanctions lifted, does not believe the new plan is an improvement. But Baghdad has not said whether it would suspend oil exports as it did over this past month to protest Israel's offensive in the West Bank.
"The British and the Americans say this will make it easier for Iraq. They are wrong. The opposite is true. They will be able to hold up contracts as they wish," Iraq's U.N. Ambassador Mohammed Aldouri said.
To prevent the United States from holding up contracts for years, new procedures require rulings within 30 days, unless information is missing in the supplier's application.
The process involves evaluation of items on the list by two U.N. agencies in charge of dismantling Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic weapons: the U.N. Monitoring and Verification Commission and the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency.
The list ranges from sophisticated engineering items,
to some categories of fiber optic cables to information technology equipment.